PEASANT UNREST IN VILLAGES
Farmer dissatisfaction is today the most serious problem among all the problems of rural life, which in more or less quantity has become related to the life of all and most of the rural people of the country. It is true that rural life and other problems are the basis of farmer’s dissatisfaction, it has developed in the form of independent problem that it is necessary to understand its background, cause and methods of redressal, but this problem in itself has become such.
Pro . André Bite is of the view that “agriculturist dissatisfaction is a major problem of rural life, but so far very limited efforts have been made to study this problem”. . If we analyze the traditional agricultural system on a historical basis, then it is clear that the agricultural system of that time was very simple.
Even during the British period, farmers have expressed their dissatisfaction. In the year 1860, the dissatisfaction of the indigo cultivators in Bengal was expressed in the movement. In the year 1948-49, the farmers of Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh staged a movement. The Naxalite movement in West Bengal in 1967-71 was actually a peasant movement.
Gradually this movement spread to many states of India. Generally the issues raised in this peasant dissatisfaction and movement were as follows: 1. Protection of tenants and tenants of sharecroppers, 2. Distribution of additional land among rural poor, 3. End of economic oppression of poor farmers by land owners and moneylenders, 4. Fair wages to agricultural workers.
Peasant dissatisfaction during the British period
During the British rule, farmers had opposed the policies of the government by giving their dissatisfaction in the form of movements. Mahatma Gandhi led the peasants in Champaran in 1817. This movement was mainly of indigo cultivators and the tenants and laborers associated with it. Similarly, Sardar Patel and Gandhi led the peasant movement in Kheda, Gujarat in 1918. The British government had to bow down in this movement. From 1920 to 1930, there were many peasant movements in the country, Awadh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and South India became the battlefields of the peasant movement.
In Awadh, Baba Ramchandra, Madari Pasi led a movement in Hardoi, Bahraich, Barabanki and Sitapur. Ramchandra prepared the peasants to agitate against the landlords. Swami Sahajanand made a movement by organizing and forming an organization of farmers in Bihar. Sardar Patel and Kunwar Mehta started a strong peasant movement in 1928 in Bardoli, Gujarat. Andhra Riyat Association was formed in South India under the leadership of NG Ranga. This union started the peasant movement to reduce the land rent. The All India Kisan Sabha was born in 1936. Its main objective was to protect the farmers from economic exploitation, abolition of zamindari system and reduction in revenue rate etc. Similarly, the name of the Moplah rebellion and the Faraiji and Wahabi movements can be named, through which the peasants expressed their dissatisfaction.
Farmer dissatisfaction in independent India
Even in independent India, farmers expressed their dissatisfaction through their movements. The names of Tebhaga movement, land grabbing movement, land movement and Naxalbari movement can be taken in 1946-47 among such movements. All these movements took place as a result of the oppression of the farmer. There were many reasons behind farmer dissatisfaction, peasant tension and peasant movements in India, such as less rights to farmers in rural areas, unequal distribution (of land and income), unemployment and under-employment, awareness among farmers, disproportionate social system, lack of businesses in villages, workers A
And lack of association of farmers, poverty, illiteracy, indebtedness etc.
On the whole, it can be said that the main reason for the peasant dissatisfaction and movements was the system based on exploitation. Due to which there was solidarity among the farmers and for their rights, they expressed their dissatisfaction through their movements in British India as well as in independent India.
The zamindar or land owner in the village had the right over the entire land of the village and provided land to the cultivators for cultivation according to their conditions. The traditional people of the village were definitely dissatisfied with this system, but they lacked the ability and courage to oppose this situation. The main reason for this was that Indian rural life was determined by traditional norms. As well as being a rural fatalist, he was also a pessimist and considered his own fate responsible for any exploitation and inequality, not the social system. This was the reason that for a long time no voice was raised by the exploited villagers to improve their condition, nor any problem like peasant dissatisfaction was experienced in the village.
At the end of the British rule, under the patronage of Indian leaders, some farmers organized and started expressing their general dissatisfaction, but till then its nature was not problematic. After independence, the Zamindari system ended in India and decentralization of land rights started.
Before independence, there were only two classes in the villages like landlords and landless farmers, but after attaining independence, many classes started forming on the basis of land ownership. At this time, under the new political system, the villagers became aware of their rights and for the first time they realized that the policies of the society and the state were responsible for the present inequalities. The zamindari system did come to an end on the legal basis, but in practice even today, a small section in the villages is maintaining their ownership over a very large area.
As a result, small farmers, marginal farmers, farmers cultivating land on rent, partnership cultivators and landless laborers in the village are still deprived of various types of facilities to a large extent and to fulfill their essential needs, the same large land – One has to depend on the mercy of the masters. Under all these arrangements, various political parties have also made small farmers aware of their rights today. Many parties try to increase dissatisfaction among the farmers to take undue advantage of the economic problems of small farmers and to fulfill their political objectives. Under this attitude, the ‘Tebhaga Movement’ was started by organizing small and landless laborers in Bengal. Under the slogan ‘Tebhaga Chai’ (we want two-thirds of the land), it was demanded that instead of half of what has been received so far, the share of the landlord should be 1/3 and the share of the cultivator should be 2/3. Similarly, on March 3, 1967, under the Naxalbari police station of Darjeeling district, tea garden workers and small farmers started the ‘Land Grabbing Movement’ under the leadership of the workers of the Communist Party of India-Marxist.
Apart from this, the Telangana movement and the Naxalite movement were such early efforts which expressed the organized peasant dissatisfaction. In fact, the main relation of farmer dissatisfaction is with the deplorable economic conditions of small farmers. As the economic condition of small farmers and landless laborers improves, the extent of farmer dissatisfaction also decreases.
The nature of farmer dissatisfaction is not the same in all villages and all rural areas of India. There has been some improvement in the economic condition of ordinary villagers as a result of the Green Revolution, but as J. P . Mishra has clarified on the basis of his study, mainly the big farmers or big land owners have got the benefit of increase in agricultural production. Therefore, the process of change in the agricultural structure could neither bring much improvement in the economic condition of the weaker sections nor could reduce their dissatisfaction.
3 Farmer dissatisfaction is also related to the crops grown in different areas. It is clear from the demographic data that the labor dissatisfaction is less in the wheat producing regions, such as Punjab and Haryana, than in the paddy producing regions, such as Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, because less labor is required in the production of wheat as compared to the production of paddy. it occurs . In Punjab and Haryana, wheat is cultivated on about 15 acres of land by a farmer with the help of his family members, whereas in paddy producing areas outside workers are required to produce paddy on 5 acres of land. Another feature of paddy producing areas is that the density of population is also high there. This is the reason that the communist parties in India made the area of their movement only those places where the number of workers was more and signs of dissatisfaction were already erupting in them. Even today, the paddy producing areas are the main centers of farmer dissatisfaction.
Causes of Peasant Unrest in India
In the context of farmer dissatisfaction, some scholars are of the view that there is no problem like farmer dissatisfaction in India.
No, therefore it does not seem useful to study it separately. These people are of the view that the farmers in India never expressed their dissatisfaction in a planned manner. In fact such a conclusion is highly illusory. Farmer dissatisfaction is not expressed in an organized way in rural areas of India, it does not mean that there is no problem like farmer dissatisfaction in our country.
There were many other reasons for not expressing dissatisfaction – firstly, the attitude of Indian farmers has always been conservative and they have never had the courage to be seen in industrial workers. Secondly, due to individual production, the attitude of the farmers is isolationist, as a result of which it becomes difficult for them to organize and protest against any situation.
Thirdly, the farmers in the villages are scattered over a very large area, as a result of which it is very less possible for them to express their dissatisfaction in an organized manner. Fourthly, for a long time there was no such organization in the villages which could organize the exploited farmers and inspire them to raise their voice.
Apart from this, the villagers live in such areas which are considered backward from the cultural and economic point of view. The life of the villagers is going on at a normal pace and due to lack of education, they have very little tendency to move.
These are the circumstances due to which the peasant dissatisfaction could not be expressed clearly till some time ago. In the present circumstances, it is necessary to know the main reasons which are responsible for the farmers’ dissatisfaction in the villages.
No definite list of such reasons can be made, but for convenience, these reasons can be clarified by dividing them into the following five parts:
Unequal Distribution of Land – After the abolition of Zamindari in India, many acts were passed to end the unequal distribution of land, but the farmers could not get any significant benefit from them. Today there are many landowners in the village who have hundreds of acres of land, whereas most of the farmers are such who are either very small land owners or who are completely landless farmers.
Thus on the one hand the condition of the big landowners is getting stronger day by day while the condition of the marginal and small farmers has become more pathetic than ever before. It is true that marginal farmers are the owners of the land but due to uneconomic holdings they are not in a position to earn their livelihood from their own land, so they are forced to work on the land of big landowners.
Landless farmers are leading the most exploited life in the village even after doing most of the labor. Some farmers of this class also cultivate on rent or semi-share but practically they have to depend on the mercy of the land owners. In this context, Basu and Bhattacharya have given examples of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu and said that here sharecroppers cultivate from 25 percent to 46 percent of the total land, but there is no significant improvement in their condition even after the abolition of jagirs. Has happened . Andre Bite found out through his study that in the Tanjore district, land owners have hundreds of acres of land while most of the Pramins are still working as landless farmers. Such farmers have to give 70 percent to 75 percent of their produce to the Jagirdars. From this situation, the exploitation of small farmers and their tensions in the villages can be easily estimated. In fact, this situation is the main reason for farmer dissatisfaction in India.
Awareness among Peasants – Traditional Indian farmers were highly conservative, superstitious, fatalistic and pessimistic about their position. He was of the belief that his socio-economic condition was the result of his own destiny which he could not change by his own efforts.
Today, due to the spread of education, urbanism and the influence of western culture, there has been a huge change in this concept. In India, the common farmer has also become more conscious about his rights. As awareness increases among the farmers, economic disparities and dissatisfaction with their condition also increases. Today, it is the result of creating awareness among the farmers that farmers from all over India are uniting and expressing their discontent. Unions have also been formed to organize farmers in different states; For example, ‘Punjab Kheti Bari Union’ in Punjab, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti in Haryana, ‘Tamil Khetihar Sangh’ in Tamil Nadu and ‘Khedut Samaj’ in Gujarat etc.
Increase in Rural Unemployment and Quasi-unemployment – Due to the rapidly increasing population in India, the pressure of population on land has increased tremendously in the last three decades. Earlier also, it was difficult for agricultural laborers to get work throughout the year, but as a result of the Green Revolution, when the use of mechanization in agriculture increased, the problem of unemployment in front of agricultural laborers became more serious. Due to the encouragement of mechanization in agriculture, large farmers themselves started doing agriculture, as a result of which land was taken back from the farmers doing share farming. Due to this, lakhs of farmers doing agriculture on share
A became unemployed. Many of these farmers started moving to urban areas for business. When lakhs and crores of farmers in the country fail to meet their minimum requirements in these conditions, naturally their dissatisfaction reaches its peak.
Inequalities caused by Green Revolution – When Green Revolution was started as a movement in India, Dr. v . Of . R . v . Rao had expressed the possibility that due to the new policy of agriculture, many inequalities would arise among the farmers, as a result of which dissatisfaction would prevail in a large number of farming families. At the same time, this change will also be against the socialist ideology. This possibility proved to be very true.
Under the Green Revolution, more attention was paid to the more fertile and prosperous areas, whereas the need of the country was that more attention should be paid to the development of backward and famine-prone areas. It is this situation that resulted in the increase in rural inequalities more than ever before and various types of social, economic and political tensions began to increase in very large rural areas. Later this tension proved to be responsible for the farmers’ dissatisfaction. According to a study, initially the lucrative loop of Green Revolution was more interesting to the farmers, but now its economic pole has started coming to the fore. The farmers’ dissatisfaction that emerged in the most favored states of the Green Revolution, Punjab and Haryana, is the first glimpse of it.
Political Factors – The scattering of farmers in a large area in our country has always been a problem for political workers. Perhaps this is the reason that most of the political parties are not able to take much interest in understanding the condition of the general peasantry and coming close to them. Even after this, 85 percent of the peasantry, which was suffering from many problems, became the focal point of the activities of certain political parties. Except for two years of people’s rule, Congress has always been in power in India, so there is no question of encouraging farmer dissatisfaction on its part.
Some other big parties, which were patronized by the big farmers of the village, also did not take any interest in bringing about a change in the condition of the common farmers. In such a situation, only the communist party started various types of movements regarding the problems of the farmers. In whatever peasant movements were launched in West Bengal, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, the communist parties have directly contributed. The scholar of the peasant movement in Bengal, P. N. Mookerjee Rajendra Singh, a researcher of the peasant movement in Uttar Pradesh and Rangarao, a researcher of the Telangana peasant movement, concluded on the basis of their studies that the communist parties have been responsible for the peasant movements in India.
At present, there is support of both the communist parties for the separate movements going on in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The way the Naxalite movement may or may not have done anything else, the biggest thing it has done is to draw the attention of the country towards the land problem and expose the exploitation being done on its basis. Similarly, the communist party has warmed the atmosphere of the country in the form of a peasant movement by bringing the injustice done to the farmer in front of the society. In fact, these political parties do take interest in the problems of the farmers but at the same time see this interest as a means of fulfilling their political objectives. The farmers’ dissatisfaction is also confirmed by the violent agitation in Tripura in April 1980. From the statement given by the Home Minister in the Lok Sabha, it becomes clear that this movement was started by the landless farmers to forcefully occupy the land of big land owners and this movement was inspired by the Marxist party itself.
In today’s changed circumstances, all political parties have started accepting agricultural power. For this reason, huge farmers’ rallies have been organized for the last decade. The peasant movement of Andhra Pradesh, which was initially being run by the communists, later got the active support of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Congress and Lok Dal. In North India, Chaudhary Charan Singh did a lot of work towards making this power his political base. From all these conditions it must be concluded that political parties have definitely played an important role in the present peasant discontent.
Suggestions for Remedy
In India, farmer dissatisfaction is mainly related to economic problems, so its solution is possible only by solving economic problems. In independent India, many efforts were made to improve the economic condition of the farmers, but all the studies done till now confirm the fact that only those big farmers in the villages got the benefit of these efforts, who were more than 3 or 4 percent. are not. As a result, the economic inequality in the villages has increased even more than before.
Initially, people had this belief that if the Green Revolution was not successful in India, then there would be a blood revolution. Today, all the people accept that as a result of Green Revolution, inter-regional and inter-regional inequalities have increased among the farmers, due to which there has been an increase in farmer dissatisfaction. Keep this in mind before giving any suggestion to remove farmer dissatisfaction.
It is not necessary that the main problem of Indian farmers is related to marginal farmers, sharecropper farmers and landless agricultural laborers and this situation is the real basis of farmer dissatisfaction.
From this point of view, farmers’ dissatisfaction can be removed only through those economic programs whose benefits can be availed by marginal farmers and landless laborers. ‘Small Farmers Development Agency’ to give special assistance to small farmers in India from 1970-71 and ‘Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labor Development Agency’ for marginal farmers and landless laborers ) was established.
Now these two agencies have been merged into a combined agency. These efforts are important in themselves, but in the absence of proper implementation, farmers’ discontent could not be reduced. To end the farmers’ discontent, it is necessary that separate development programs should be made for the weaker sections living in the villages and they should be implemented effectively. Even after the enactment of the maximum agricultural land-limit law, no practical result has been achieved.
The need is that in order to eliminate the inequality prevailing on the basis of land, most of the agricultural land-limitation laws cannot effectively earn livelihood from the land, they are compelled to take loans from moneylenders on various occasions and for a long time. Due to not being able to pay the loan till date, they are compelled to sell even a small amount of their land in the hands of moneylenders, in such a situation that such amendment in the landowner rights will allow any farmer to sell his land and other Individuals should not have the right to buy this land.
Even if a farmer succeeds in getting a small part of the land by government efforts, then he himself does not have enough resources to make that land fertile and cultivate it profitably. Such farmers take loans from moneylenders to meet their various needs and thus the chances of losing their land increase again. Yes . P . Mishra has also presented the fact on the basis of his study that the small and marginal farmers of the village are gradually turning into landless laborers.
For this it is necessary that farmers should be given loans on liberal terms through cooperative institutions. The number of small and marginal farmers and landless laborers is still 85 percent of the total rural population. Equal distribution of land to improve the economic condition of this vast community is not an easy task. In India, even if the entire land is distributed equitably, it will definitely reduce rural differentiation, but the total national agricultural production will likely be greatly reduced. In such a situation, it is necessary that in addition to agriculture, other means of employment should be increased in the villages so that small farmers and agricultural laborers can be made available enough resources to earn their livelihood in the village itself. There are many cottage industries which can be secured for the villages. For example, cottage industries like milk production, leather industry, oil industry, soap, matchmaking, handloom industry, fisheries, poultry, paper pulp, etc. can be taken under this. For a balanced rural development, it is necessary to encourage those small and cottage industries in the villages for which resources are available at the local level.
In the direction of removing rural dissatisfaction, ‘Antyodaya’ and ‘Work for Grain Scheme’ were important, but due to public corruption, the villagers could not get their real benefits. The need is that such programs should be expanded during the time of drought, epidemic or other natural calamities and they should be made effective through social workers instead of government machinery. We must keep in mind that farmer dissatisfaction is related to 70 percent of the total population of India. In such a situation, if this dissatisfaction is not redressed by practical efforts soon, then our entire economic and political system may disintegrate!