• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Agrarian Revolution
Shrii Sarkar talks about the importance of cooperatives in agriculture. Heemphasizes that in a developed economy, about 30-45 percent of thepeople should be engaged in agriculture and the rest of the people shouldbe employed in industry or other sectors of the economy. Forciblydepriving landowners of their land and distributing it to the landlesspeasants is not the solution. According to PROUT, increasing productionon the land is the key point. For economic decentralization, agriculturalland should be managed through the cooperative system. However,cooperatives must evolve out of the collective labor and wisdom of acommunity. Cooperatives cannot be rammed down the throats of thepeople! This was the mistake of the leaders of the Soviet Union. Collectivefarming cannot be instituted by force. In the rational distribution of landand redetermination of ownership, two factors will be considered - theminimum holding of land necessary to maintain a family, and the farmer'scapacity to utilize the land. In addition, three factors determine the successof cooperatives - moraity, strong supervision, and the wholeheartedacceptance of the masses. When these three factors are present,cooperatives will be successful.
by Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar The economic development of a country depends on the collective labour of different social groups. This is the reason that the system of the division of labour gradually evolves out of the practice of domestic economy. The value of thelabour of all groups, including industrial labourers, peasants, carpenters,blacksmiths, goldsmiths, potters, physicians and clerks, is equal in the collectivedevelopment of the economy.
The Economy of Ancient India
In ancient India a form of elastic economy was prevalent which supported thecollective economic endeavour of the people. In the Vedic Age the economicsystem of India evolved on the basis of social classes (varn'a). The shu'dras,ks'attriyas, vipras and vaeshyas -- these four social classes evolved andremained content with specific economic activities of their choice. One particular class engaged itself in farming, while other classes undertook differentoccupations. People did not rush towards agricultural work as is happeningtoday. As this class system was hereditary, there was little scope for socio-economic imbalance.In that age agriculture reached a high degree of expertise and efficiency. Kingsused to be directly involved with the different aspects of agriculture such asplanting multiple crops according to the different seasons, large-scale and small-scale agriculture, the use of manure, the application of insecticides, irrigation
 
systems through rivers and canals, and dairy farming. In those days the statehad the duty to confiscate land from landlords who kept land unutilized, andtransfer it to those who could properly utilize it for agricultural purposes. Thevalue of land was determined by the extent of its productivity. The state used tofix the price of agricultural produce, and as a result there was little scope for thebusiness class to exploit farmers.
The Impact of the British
After the arrival of the British in India economic balance was lost, mainly becausethe British government was totally indifferent to the development of indigenousindustry and agriculture. It did not even realize the necessity of planning for thistype of development. Instead, it introduced a new system of education whichmainly produced a class of clerks which was utilized by the British government toconsolidate its administrative power. Many people gave up their hereditaryoccupations and sought posts in the British administration. This seriouslydamaged the agricultural system.The second cause of economic imbalance was the gradual collapse of indigenous industrial enterprises, notably the hand weaving industry. As a resultof the supply of cloth from the Manchester cotton mills, the demand for handwoven cloth began to dwindle. The supply of aluminium utensils also destroyedIndia's pottery industry. The factories established by the British severely affectedindigenous industries because they used the latest technology. Consequently,those employed in these industries gradually gave up their traditionaloccupations and crowded the agricultural sector for a livelihood.This problem was compounded by growth in the population, which led to thesubdivision and fragmentation of agricultural land. This in turn resulted indecreased production. Food was imported from outside India to feed thepopulation. During the Second World War the importation of food was stopped,causing a severe shortage of food in the country.To overcome the great famine that struck Bengal in 1943, the Waveladministration introduced a rationing system. Wavel also tried to alleviate thefamine by restricting the movement of food from one province to another. Butthese measures did not solve the problem -- rather most people became trappedin the food rationing system.
Post-Independence India
Even after the departure of the British in 1947, about 145,000 people wereincluded in the rationing system. This resulted in the gradual increase of blackmarketeering, profiteering and other corrupt practices. The central governmentsuddenly abolished the food rationing system in an attempt to solve the problemof corruption. This precipitous step caused the price of food to rise to exorbitantheights. Later the food rationing system had to be reintroduced.
 
The Indian leaders tried to solve this food problem by calling for a "grow morefood" campaign, but the campaign was a failure because the system of agriculture was not changed to increase output. The government adopted thepolicy of increasing the area of arable land and not the productivity of the existingland. There was no planning to determine whether or not the new land wassuitable for agriculture, and no proper irrigation facilities to improve productivity.But above all, in the democratic system bureaucrats had ample scope to neglecttheir responsibilities, and due to defective administration much agriculturalpotential was wasted. Consequently, dishonest traders conspired to make theagricultural sector ineffective. They perpetuated the food problem to satisfy their own selfish interests. So from all points of view the agricultural system in India isextremely weak.The fundamental characteristic of any developed economy is this: about thirtypercent to forty-five percent of the people should remain engaged in agricultureand the rest of the population should be employed in industry or other sectors of the economy. Excessive pressure on agriculture is not a sign of a healthyeconomy. At present about seventy-five percent of the Indian population isdependent upon agriculture for its livelihood. This is a very dangerous situationfor the Indian economy. Those who are engaged in agriculture remainunemployed most of the year and this is an enormous waste of human labour.This unemployment problem in agriculture must be solved immediately -- itbrooks no delay.
Differences Between India and China
Recently, a particular group of politicians raised the slogan of "agriculturalrevolution" to solve the problem. They wanted to solve India's agriculturalproblems by following the example of China. However, there are vast differencesbetween the agricultural problems confronted by India and those confronted byChina. The problems of India can never be solved by following the policies of China.The basic problem in China is that despite considerable agricultural progress,China has not been able to feed its huge population. Moreover, in China there isnot even sufficient land to accommodate its huge population -- and its populationis continually increasing. In the industrial sphere China has already exhaustedmost of its natural resources. It hopes to preserve its remaining scant resourcesfor industrial development, thus preventing a dark future.There are three main economic problems in China. First, China must feed itsincreasing population through agricultural development. Secondly, thepercentage of the population employed in agriculture is too high. And thirdly,employment must be provided to the non-agricultural sector of the economythrough industrial expansion. Because none of these problems could be solvedimmediately, China under Mao Zedong adopted a policy of grabbing land fromneighbouring states. The recent Chinese attacks in Tibet, India and the Soviet
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...