Failure of growth models

By J.D. Sethi

Economists invented the phrase 'stagflation;' decades ago when they encountered for the first time, a situation in which stagnation and inflation existed simultaneously although it had been though until then that the two phenomena were mutually contradictory and both could not exist at the same time. Political scientists and economists now have to show the same kind of verbal inventiveness because we have situation today in India in which two contradictory phenomena are going on simultaneously. After more than five decades of planning, the rural sector has become an island of mass poverty. It is totally disorganised in contrast to urban sector, which is buoyant, well-knit. It is generally conceded though grudgingly that growth models adopted by us failed to eliminate rural-urban dichotomies.

The real problem is that the power elite have been found deficient in meeting serious challenges of rural destitution. They are unable to explain the slowdown of the growth rate of rural economy despite what is called the 'green revolution', continuous increase in the number of people being pushed down the poverty line in villages.

It is not surprising, therefore, if the need for organising the poor, particularly the rural poor, is now being debated, though without an intensive analysis. Neither conceptually nor operationally has it been found easy to give shape to it. In fact, there is some scepticism about the whole exercise. The 12th Plan documents (under preparation) vaguely talk about organising the rural poor as a necessary condition for the success of distributive justice, which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh want to be given to the villagers.

If is not just another expression of a pious hope, critical for the success of all redistributive laws, policies and programmes is that the poor be organised and made conscious of the benefits intended for them. Organised tenants have to see that the tenancy laws are implemented. Organisations of landless have to see that surplus lands are identified and distributed to them in accordance with the laws within a reasonable period. Local leaders of the poor have to ensure that all area plans and sectoral plans designed for the benefit of their localities and target groups are effectively administered.

There are five identified ways in which the poor can be organised. History and experience of other countries may suggest that the best and the surest method is some kind of rural unionism. Some peasant organisations like Kisan Sabha were created on a trade union pattern but only after a prolonged struggle over a wide area. But the peasant movement somehow did not make a mark. Trade unionism does not cover the whole of this labour force, even in industry and plantations. The scope for its extension to the rural areas where three-fourths of the population live is even more in doubt.

The very fact that rural workers are not spatially concentrated makes their being on traditional trade union lines a hopeless enterprise. That was one of the reasons that Marx denied a radical character to the peasantry. Even cooperatives, which inbibe some elements of trade unionism, have not made much headway because the rural poor are kept out of cooperative movement.

A second possible method of organising the poor is mobilisation by political parties in terms of their objective of acquiring a mass political base and educating the common people. Through their cadre and other party functionaries, political parties can organise small groups belonging to different economic or social classes. But such an approach presupposes a wide spectrum of cadre-mass parties of the kind that does not exist in India.

Political parties of all hue and variety often operate through the rural power structure which is practically pitted against the poor, and in some cases against the class interest as a whole. Even organising the rural ploretariat, not to speak of other class of rural poor, points to difficulties of organising the rural masses.

A third way of getting the poor organised is by deliberately transforming the political, administrative and social structure into a highly decentralised system of power. Most prevailing models of democracy exclude direct participation of the people in political institutions except once electing so-called their representatives to parliament and state legislatures. Literally, this process over the years has turned out to be nothing more than a ritual.

The argument that the local political power structure is highly iniquitous and that the decentralisation of power will go against the interests of the poor is at best, a half-truth and is put forward by those who now control the power structure and are unwilling to part with it. There is no evidence to show that decentralisation along with democratisation has stood in the way of the poor benefiting from the process of social and economic development.

However, it is a patent fact that one of the important instruments which have proved a hurdle in the operation of the rural poor is the local bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of the colonial days was structured as an authoritarian instrument, the same system continues. In fact, the local bureaucracy is part of both the local and the higher power structure and does not in any way look with favour upon any scheme of organising the rural poor which would then challenge their power. It is partly for this reason that the bureaucracy is generally against decentralisation in general and its extension to the rural areas in particular. Whatever programmes are there for the under-privileged, the bureaucrats would like to run them through system of patronage.

Fourth, since there are limits to trade unionism being extended to the rural areas, cooperatives might be the best method of organising the rural society in which the poor can also join. This is not new idea. Cooperatives have been a great success in many areas in a variety of fields such as marketing and distribution of inputs and credit. But the movement has generally acted in favour of rich and middle peasants who have some assets of their own. The rural poor have never been able to benefit from the cooperatives to any significant degree. In fact, the cooperative movement have become an instrument for the appropriation of the resources allocated for local development by a small minority of the rich farmers.

A fifth method widely advanced and practised is the use of voluntary association in organising the weaker sections and the urban under-oriented voluntary organisations in the rural areas has not always been a happy experience. In fact, in some cases it has proved positively harmful. Only those voluntary organisations which are both totally rural-oriented and rural located or based in small or medium towns, nearest to the rural areas, can make some headway. (INAV)