Swaraj Dialogue -3

Farmers’ Movement : Is Sovereignty at Issue ?

What is the destiny of the farmers’ movement? Let us divide this question into two parts : one, whether their demands as they are of repeal of the three farm laws and a law on MSP are going to be met?  and two, what could be the pointers for societal future emerging from a farmers movement so large as this? 

The entire media and the world of activists is discussing the first question and I have no special or further insight to add to that discussion. I wish to focus on the second question, which, we shall see through this piece, also has a bearing on the first question.

Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s farmers of this country had been in great movement. The big names associated with that movement were Narayana Swami Naidu from Tamil Nadu, Nanjunda Swami from Karnataka, Sharad Joshi from Maharashtra, Mahendra Singh Tikait from Uttar Pradesh,  Mangeram Malik from Haryana, Balbir Singh Rajewaal, Ajmer Singh Lakhowal and Bhupinder Singh Maan from Punjab. Leadership of this farmers’ movement was in farmers’ hands. The primary understanding was that the causes of poverty of the farmers lay outside the villages. The chief issue was just and remunerative price for agricultural produce. Major other issues were debt relief and electricity tariff. The farmers’ leadership was rather clear that although expressed in terms of wellbeing of the farmer, their demands, position and understanding of the world were directly in the interest of the whole society. It was argued that ‘just’ prices is the path of eradicating poverty from the root and enabling society at all levels and in all regions towards higher and higher levels of economic activity. They had argued that ‘just’ price for agricultural produce would lead to much greater economic activity in the local bazar and to improvement of wages of the workers. There was an imagination of entering the 21^st century on farmers’ terms. This simply meant that the farmers saw themselves as assuming the leadership of the society to build the world afresh- regulations from below, from the villages, to produce a distributed economy. This was in tune with the idea of local self governance or swaraj.

The practice of the present farmers’ movement has all these indicators. The rejection of the three laws is not just for preservation of autonomy but the claim of sovereignty may be seen not far below the surface. Is there a new idea of sovereignty involved here? It is this that gives the feeling that a new political idea is in the making. So far all politics has been subservient in thought as well as in practice to the stream of ideas and practices that were born about 500 years ago in Europe.  

Through this period the world saw the emergence of colonialism, imperialism, big industry and large markets. The shine and wealth that we see in the large cities is sourced from the village, from the farmer’s activity. Through this period also emerged the thought that farmers in this process will cease to remain as a social class. Perhaps it was only a wishful thinking that those who were looted would not remain organisable at all, having ceased to be a social class.  Gandhi belied these theories and sourced his strengths from the villages of India. Then the matter got focused again in the last decades of 20^th century with the nationwide rise of the farmers’ movement, which largely called itself non-political and was particularly intend in the state of TamilNadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Hariyana and Punjab. Chaudhary Charan Singh though part of the political establishment, coined the term ‘Kisan Satta’ on the occasion of almost a million strong  kisan-sammela, in the Boat Club in New Delhi in 1978.

It was around 1780 that this country saw, with Permanent Settlement, the beginning of the slavery of peasants. 200 years of struggle against zamindaars, the British and governments of independent India by the peasantry seem to have finally entered a phase where the farmers are up to contending for sovereignty. If we go by Mahatma Gandhi’s understanding of pre-British India the peasant and the village was a sovereign entity then. The present farmers’ movement seems to lay the basis for a claim to sovereignty again. Any  such claim naturally must be associated with movement towards a different political order, best described by ‘swaraj’. Sovereignty in swaraj is distributed both vertically and horizontally. The contestation between the Kisan Mahapanchayat and the Parliament both in the realm of power and leadership of society seems to be carving that space where direct participatory democracy and representative democracy fuse to produce qualitatively different methods of decision making and governance, ideas about which may possibly be also unearthed if people of India excavate deeper into their memories, into lokasmruti.

A debate must start in all earnestness among all the concerned on what it means to see a peasant household as a sovereign.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

28 Feb 2021, Vidya Ashram, Sarnath

  स्वराज संवाद- 3

किसान आन्दोलन : सवाल है मालिक कौन?

 

किसान आन्दोलन किधर चला? इस सवाल के दो हिस्से हैं. पहला यह कि क्या हाल में बनाये गए तीन कृषि कानून वापस होंगे और न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य को वैधानिक दर्जा मिलेगा? दूसरा यह कि पूरे समाज का रूप लिए यह विशाल किसान आन्दोलन समाज के भविष्य के बारे में क्या कह रहा है ?

मीडिया और सामाजिक कार्यकर्त्ता सब पहले प्रश्न के इर्द-गिर्द बहस कर रहे हैं तथापि उसमें हमें कोई नई बात नहीं कहनी है. इस पोस्ट में हम दूसरे प्रश्न पर ध्यान केन्द्रित करेंगे तथा यह बातचीत पहले प्रश्न के लिए भी प्रासंगिक होगी ही.

 1970, 1980 और 1990 के दशकों में इस देश में किसानों का एक देशव्यापी विशाल आन्दोलन हुआ जिसकी धार विशेषतौर पर तमिलनाडु, कर्णाटक, महाराष्ट्र, उत्तर प्रदेश, हरियाणा और पंजाब में बड़ी तेज़ रही. इस आन्दोलन के साथ जुड़े बड़े नाम हैं- तमिलनाडु के नारायण स्वामी नायडू, कर्नाटक के नन्जुन्द स्वामी, महाराष्ट्र के शरद जोशी, उत्तर प्रदेश के महेंद्र सिंह टिकैत, हरियाणा के मांगेराम मालिक और पंजाब के बलबीर सिंह राजेवाल, अजमेर सिंह लखोवाल, भूपिंदर सिंह मान. हम लोगों ने मज़दूर किसान नीति पत्रिका के मार्फ़त इस आन्दोलन में समन्वय की भूमिका निभाई और इस आन्दोलन के सन्देश को मध्य वर्ग के लोगों तक पहुँचाया. आन्दोलन का नेतृत्व किसानों के ही हाथ में था. मूल समझ यह रही कि किसानों की गरीबी के कारण गाँव के बाहर हैं. मुख्य मुद्दा रहा- कृषि उत्पाद के लिए न्यायसंगत लाभकारी मूल्य, क़र्ज़ मुक्ति और बिजली का दाम भी बड़े मुद्दे रहे. नेतृत्व को यह साफ़ था कि हालाँकि प्रमुख बात किसानों की माली हालत से जुडी रही, उनकी मांगें, उनका दृष्टिकोण और दुनिया की उनकी समझ, सीधे पूरे समाज के हित में रहे. बड़ी सफाई से तर्क पेश किये गए कि किस तरह कृषि उत्पाद के लिए न्याय सांगत मूल्य मिलना गरीबी को जड़ से ख़त्म करने का पक्का रास्ता बनता है. क्योंकि इसके चलते हर स्तरपर और हर क्षेत्र में आर्थिक गतिविधियों में इजाफा होता है. साफ़ तौर पर यह कहा गया कि कृषि उत्पाद को ढंग का दाम मिलने से स्थानीय बाज़ार में एक चमक और गति दिखाई देती है और कामगारों के श्रम के मूल्य में वृद्धि के रास्ते खुलते हैं. बड़ी कल्पना देश को किसानों के नज़रिए से इक्कीसवीं सदी में प्रवेश करने की रही. सरल शब्दों में यह कि किसानों ने पूरे समाज का नेतृत्व अपने हाथ में लेकर दुनिया को नए सिरे से बनाने के ख़्वाब देखे, ऐसी दुनिया जिसमें नियमन नीचे से हो, गाँव से हो और एक वितरित अर्थ व्यवस्था का निर्माण हो. यह बात स्थानीय प्रशासन अथवा स्वराज के विचार से बहुत मेल खाती है.

वर्तमान किसान आन्दोलन में ये सब संकेत मिलते हैं. उत्पादन, वितरण और भण्डारण से सम्बंधित तीन नए कृषि कानूनों को सिरे से ख़ारिज कर देने के आधार में स्वायत्तता का आग्रह तो है ही तथापि संप्रभुता का विचार भी नज़र आता है. क्या यहाँ पर संप्रभुता का कोई नया विचार आकार ले रहा हो सकता है? यह सोचकर लगता है की इस प्रक्रिया में राजनीति का एक नया विचार जन्म ले रहा है.

अब तक विचार और कर्म दोनों में ही सारी राजनीति यूरोपीय विचारों और शासन क्रियाओं से सीख लेकर ही होती रही हैं. करीब पांच सौ साल पहले यूरोप में जो क्रियाये और विचार शुरू हुए उन्होंने ही आगे चलाकर उपनिवेशवाद, साम्राज्यवाद, बड़े उद्योग, और बड़े-बड़े बाजारों का रूप लिया. जो चमक और सम्पदा बड़े शहरों में दिखाई देती है उसका स्रोत गाँव में है, किसान की गतिविधि में है. इसी दौर में यह विचार भी सामने आया कि इन प्रक्रियाओं में किसान का एक सामाजिक वर्ग के रूप में अस्तित्व ही समाप्त हो जायेगा. शायद यह केवल मनमाफिक सोच ही रही कि जिसको लूटा गया है वह संगठित रह ही न जाए यानि उसका सामाजिक अस्तित्व ही समाप्त हो जाये. गांधी ने अपनी ताकत का स्रोत गांवों को बनाया और इन वैचारिक स्थापनाओं को झुठला दिया. फिर 20वीं सदी के अंतिम दशकों में किसानों को एक नये आन्दोलन ने इस ताकत का फिर से एहसास कराया. यह आन्दोलन अधिकतर अपने को अराजनीतिक कहता रहा. तथापि राजनीति के अन्दर से ही चौधरी चरणसिंह ने 1978 में नई दिल्ली के बोट क्लब में लाखों किसानों के सम्मलेन के मौके पर ‘किसान सत्ता’ का विचार दिया.

1780 के आस-पास इस देश में अंग्रेजों ने ज़मींदारी की व्यवस्था लागू की जिससे किसानों की गुलामी का युग शुरू हुआ. ज़मींदारों, अँगरेज़ शासकों और स्वतंत्र भारत के हुक्मरानों के सामने अपना एतराज़ और विरोध दर्ज करते हुए दो सौ साल के किसानों के संघर्ष अब उस मुक्काम पर पहुंचे हैं, जहाँ वे अपनी संप्रभुता का दावा पेश कर रहे हों, कह रहे हों कि मालिक वे हैं.

महात्मा गाँधी की समझ में अंग्रेजी राज के पहले भारत में किसान और गाँव मालिक हुआ करते थे. किसान आन्दोलन एक बार फिर उनके मालिक होने का दावा पेश करने का आधार बनाता मालूम पड़ रहा है. ऐसे दावे के साथ जाहिर तौर पर वह गति भी दिखाई देनी चाहिए जो एक अलग राज और शासन व्यवस्था की और ले जाए, जिसे स्वराज कहा जा सके. स्वराज में संप्रभुता (सभी आयामों में) वितरित होती है. सत्ता और सामाजिक नेतृत्व दोनों ही आयामों में संसद और किसान महापंचायत के बीच प्रतिस्पर्धी दावे दिखाई दे रहे हैं. जिनके चलते उस स्थान का निर्माण हो रहा है, जहाँ सीधी भागीदारी का लोकतंत्र और प्रतिनिधि लोकतंत्र के आपसी संस्लेषण से सर्वथा नये किस्म की निर्णय के तरीके और शासन के प्रकार आकार ले सकते हैं. इस सृजन में बड़ा योगदान हो सकता है यदि भारत के लोगों की यादों, लोकस्मृति की गहराइयों में उतरा जाये.

पूरी गंभीरता के साथ इस विषय से सरोकार रखने वालों को आपस में बात करनी चाहिए कि किसान परिवार की संप्रभुता का क्या अर्थ निकलता है?   

 सुनील सहस्रबुद्धे

28 फरवरी 2021, विद्या आश्रम, सारनाथ            

 

Swaraj Dialogue – 2

Farmers Movement : Is there a Knowledge Conflict?

The conflict between the Government and the Farmers’ Movement does not appear to be heading towards a solution. On one side is the government (majority in the Parliament) and on the other is the farmers’ understanding of the three laws finding expression in the statements of Samyukt Kisan Morcha and the Mahapanchayts.

The government is talking about the advantage/profit to the farmers and the farmer is talking about ‘justice’. The world of knowledge, with which the parliament and the political processes their off are connected, is tied to the logic of ‘profit and loss’. This world of knowledge was born some 4-5 hundred years ago in Europe in a process in which were also born the new cities, trade and market which pushed the village and the farmer to the secondary position. Those who lived in the new cities became the citizens. Over time this process gave birth to parliamentary democracy. Morality, justice, and sacrifice have no place in this world of knowledge . It is this knowledge that is the ideal of the universities today. On the other hand, the worlds of knowledge to which the farmers belong have different traditions. We can call them swadeshi traditions of knowledge’ where justice, sacrifice and peoples’ agree-ability (lokasammat) are present intrinsically.

It appears that the stalemate, in the ultimate analysis, stems from the deep differences between these two worlds of knowledge. It is not easy to find a way in such an impasse. The government commands greater physical force and may find a solution based on such force. However, it will not be respectable and both sides would be hurt albeit in different ways. Anyway, the solution to be found will be determined by the leaderships of the two sides. They may be able to find a respectable solution, but one thing is certain that ways will have to be found to move towards a new arrangement of things and men/women, which incorporates the values of both, the Panchayat and the Parliamentary Democracy.   

Broadly speaking the whole society ought to be part of this search for the new arrangement, the systems of governance and conflict resolution. It will require fraternal relationship between various ways of thinking and streams of knowledge in society. Specifically, what is needed is a friendly relation between the knowledge in the university and the knowledge in society, namely lokavidya. Each will have to recognize and respect the interdependent, autonomous and sovereign nature of the other. This sub-continent is not unaware of such governance and social regulation. Traditions of swaraj is where we need to look to.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey 

19 February 2021

Vidya Ashram, Sarnath 

स्वराज संवाद – 2

किसान आन्दोलन और सरकार के बीच की जिच कुछ हल होने का नाम नहीं ले रही है. एक ओर सरकार (संसद में बहुमत) का निर्णय है और दूसरी ओर किसानों की समझ जिसकी झलक संयुक्त किसान मोर्चे के वक्तव्यों और महापंचायतों की प्रक्रियाओं में मिलती है. सरकार किसानों के फायदे की बात कर रही है और किसान ‘न्याय’ की बात कर रहा है.

संसद जिस ज्ञान की दुनिया से जुड़ा राजनीतिक उपकरण है वह ज्ञान की दुनिया ‘फायदे और नुकसान’ के तर्कों से बंधी है. यह वही ज्ञान की दुनिया है, जिसका जन्म कुछ 4-5 सौ साल पहले यूरोप में हुआ, उसी प्रक्रिया में हुआ जिसमें नये शहर और नये व्यापार व बाज़ार ने आकार लिया, जिसने गाँव और किसान को दूसरे नंबर का बना दिया. नागरिक वे हो गए जो नगर में रहते थे. समयांतर में इसी प्रक्रिया में संसदीय लोकतंत्र का जन्म हुआ. इस ज्ञान की दुनिया में नैतिकता, न्याय, त्याग, आदि का कोई स्थान नहीं होता. यही ज्ञान आज के विश्वविद्यालयों का आदर्श है. दूसरी ओर जिस ज्ञान की दुनिया में किसान बसता है उसकी परंपरा अलग है. इसे हम स्वदेशी ज्ञान परंपरा कह सकते हैं, जहाँ न्याय, त्याग अथवा ‘लोकसम्मत’ की अन्तरंग उपस्थिति होती है.

इन दो ज्ञान-विश्वों के बीच के गहरे अंतर ही हल न निकल पाने की पृष्ठभूमि में हैं, ऐसा लगता है. इसमें से रास्ता निकालना आसान नहीं है. सरकार के पास भौतिक ताकत ज्यादा है और वह कोई बल आधारित हल खोज सकती है, लेकिन दोनों ही पक्षों के लिये वह सम्मानजनक नहीं होगा, उससे दोनों ही पक्ष आहत होंगे. बहरहाल रास्ता क्या निकलेगा यह तो इस गतिरोध के विविध पक्षों का नेतृत्व करने वाले ही तय करेंगे. शायद वे दोनों पक्षों के लिये सम्मानजनक हल भी ढूंढ लें लेकिन एक बात तो साफ़ नज़र आ रही है कि न्यायोचित और प्रभावी शासन के लिये संसदीय लोकतंत्र और पंचायत दोनों के मूल्यों को समाहित करने वाली नई व्यवस्था की ओर बढ़ने के रास्ते भी ढूंढने होंगे.

नई व्यवस्थाओं की खोज में पूरे समाज को शामिल होना होगा. समाज में जितनी भी ज्ञान की धाराएँ हैं उनके बीच भाईचारा और सौहार्द से ही वांछित उद्देश्य की प्राप्ति हो सकती है. मोटे तौर पर कहें तो विश्वविद्यालय के ज्ञान और लोकविदया यानि ‘समाज में ज्ञान’ के बीच दोस्ताने का सम्बन्ध होना होगा. दोनों को एक दूसरे में निहित पारस्परिक निर्भरता, स्वायत्तता और प्रभुसत्ता को मान्यता देनी होगी. भारत देश ऐसे शासन और समाज सञ्चालन से अनभिज्ञ नहीं है. स्वराज की परम्पराएँ कुछ ऐसी ही हैं.

 सुनील सहस्रबुद्धे

19 फरवरी 2021

विद्या आश्रम सारनाथ

Swaraj Dialogues

Farmer's Movement : Is Ethics at Issue?  

     All our friends and co-workers who have social concern are in support of the ongoing farmer’s movement in the country. They are pained by the suffering of the farmers and want the matter to be resolved soon. There have been several rounds of meetings between the Movement and the Government. But it is difficult to say whether any actual dialogue is taking place. Why is the dialogue not taking place? Perhaps because the idea that the farmers have of the future of this country, the society and their own well-being, is at great variance with the dominant view in the upper classes of the country and the world today. A farmer is not ready to accept his pauperization and also does not want that someone else take the decisions about his work and life. In the modern world, in the world of industries and metropolis and in the world governed by centralized rule, the farmer and the village have always been at the receiving end, forced to live a life without dignity and without resources. Value created by their labour and knowledge is transferred away from them and is used to build industry, metropolis and, as if, the entire modern life style. This happens both in the world of private or public enterprise. Therefore even if some solution is found to the immediate crisis, it is only legitimate to think about the long term. A small effort in this direction is attempted below.

It is necessary to keep the market away from food grains. And it is also necessary that the production of food grains be as attractive as any other agricultural production. It is here that the agricultural sector needs major governmental intervention. It is said that the year in which agricultural produce gets reasonable price, the market in the villages and small towns see visible increase in activity. This is where development and well-being meet. The extent and type of modernization such economic activity may lead to is what the nation needs. Hence, if capital unrelated to agriculture is invested in agriculture and that too without government control, it will lead to increased exploitation of the peasantry and profits generated in that process will propel the activity in the markets of the metropolis and in international market. This may enrich further a small percentage of people in the country, otherwise this is that jobless growth where the West has already arrived and our governments are so eager to follow suit.

People with social concern have been saying this for a while that our political system has become such that those sitting in the legislatures do not think about the well-being of the people in general or the farmers in particular. The chief reason for this seems to be that questions related to morality have become irrelevant in the public social space. That is if someone talks about morality in the market, people may call him a fool. The biggest question of today seems to be how morality finds a place in markets and politics. This means that in matters of buying and selling the issues of being morally correct and just would have precedence over considerations of profit. When the government makes a policy or passes a law, questions of justice would take precedence over other considerations. When the moral consideration takes a back seat in electoral contests and the political parties decide on contestants keeping only win-ability as the criteria, it is precisely here that the idea of honest ‘representation’ finds its burial. Those who win are under no constraint to be sensitive towards people’s needs, similar to what we find in the market place, namely that those who make money in the market through their cunning and heartless management, hardly have any fraternal feeling towards others in society. It may not be difficult to see that absence of dialogue between the Farmers' Movement and the Government, in spite of several rounds of meetings, is due to some such situation. It is only when morality gets its due place in public discourse that we can expect the dialogue to resume effectively and not to run into such dead end.

  We need to think deeply and dialogue on how to keep the market away from the food grains. Such reflections can take us towards including morality as an essential part of public discourses and this may give direction to thinking about systems of society and government which have at their center considerations of the well being of humanity, nature, society and country. Let us remember that some ten years ago there was a huge anti- corruption movement in this country which brought ‘swaraj’ in public discourse again. Perhaps in the understanding of ordinary men and women swaraj means that system of society and government which is based in morality, truth and bhaichara and not in competition, profit and power. Can starting a dialogue on swaraj open pathways for re-instituting morality among public criteria. This dialogue on swaraj will require to be wholesome- politics, society, economics, nature, culture, philosophy, global and local, everything to have its share. 

Sunil Sahasrabudhey 

Varanasi 7 Feb. 11.50 AM     

 

The Farmers Movement: the Political Message is Loud & Clear Lalit K Kaul

 The Farmers Movement: the Political Message is Loud & Clear

                                                                                                                        Lalit K Kaul

What Farmers’ movement in the 80s & thereafter stood for, is of no relevance; what Sri M S Tikait, Sharad Joshi, Prof. Nanjundswamy, Sri B S Maan, etc stood for and what were their demands are declared irrelevant today; the reasons why Dr. Swaminathan Report came into existence and what the farmers’ unions demanded based on the report is not relevant today; because all these have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

The trade unionism of farmer community (the numerical strength does not matter) seems to be approaching THE END while transforming itself into a political movement origins of which lie in the disillusionment with the extant democratic political dispensation. The call is loud and clear: Don’t have any faith/trust/confidence in what laws get enacted in the Parliament as it has ceased to reflect mood/aspirations of the people and has evolved into being an instrument for thrusting an ideology/agenda of development and growth on the people of India.

Therefore the call for unconditional withdrawal of all the newly enacted Agri laws while showing belligerent repudiation for any negotiations with the government of the day is a very momentous political event that has the potential to redefine the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

The government of the day seems to have bowed down a bit by offering to withhold implementation of the new Agri laws for a period of 1 & ½ years. So, in a way, to a certain extent the government has acknowledged the irrelevance of the Parliament to the ground realities. The import of this offer from the government is that in future it shall be difficult for any government to enact a law in the Parliament without being sure of the ground realities.

How far can the farmers’ unions go? Let there be no mixing of what the farmers are demanding and what out of power political parties are doing to find for themselves a political space. While the farmers may not draw any strength from their support, the political parties hope to reap some harvest in upcoming elections next year. Whatever be the compulsions of the political parties, there is no imperative for the farmers to boycott them so long as they have an independent agenda.

By coming in support of the farmers, the participants in the degenerate politics that has been in vogue almost since the birth of independent Indian Nation have put themselves on a suicidal path in that they have ended up joining hands with the farmers in denying the supremacy of the Parliament in a parliamentary democracy. Either they don’t hope to capture power at Center for an unbearably long time – that may witness their disintegration from within- or they have unwittingly/ inadvertently and/or motivated by their blood boiling opposition to Modi ji  become pawns in the agenda set by the farmers; for, if this partial surrender by NDA culminates into total surrender to the farmers’ demands then those in opposition now wouldn’t know how to legislate in an irrelevant Parliament if & when they are elected to rule this cursed land.

Not very sure whether the farmers themselves have understood the import of what they have been demanding from the day one of Gherao for, if they succeed in rendering the Parliament Infructuous   then to run the parliamentary democracy would be the impossible task because no laws would be enacted for fear of the Gheraos. Shaheen Bagh is the Mother and has legitimized such activities. Not just farmers, but anybody/group can just do Gherao and the response of the law and order machinery will depend upon the election influencing capability of the mob.

The seed sown by the farmers for the change in the way this country of ours should be governed, in time they need to come up with alternative ways/set ups for governing this country. The farmers representing 2 & ¼ states have taken the lead and therefore they may have to take the farmers of other states in confidence to redefine & restate the parameters for governance of our country in a democratic way. Else, it will end up as an exercise that destabilized the extant political dispensation and governance model without throwing up a viable alternative. A huge responsibility now lies on the shoulders of the farmers’ leaders.