May 07, 2011 5:07:41 PM
Chandrabhan Prasad
Refroming agriculture will in turn lead to an urbanised India
Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto for 1952 parliamentary elections focuses on few fundamental aspects of the Indian society, and in that, Ambedkarism defines itself.
First and foremost, manifesto envisions increase in production as the instrument to deal with the challenges of the poverty.
In today’s lexicon, production is measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). More GDP means more production. In that sense, Dr Ambedkar was much ahead of today’s ideological architect of economic reforms.
Dr Ambedkar lay emphasis on economic reforms with a focus on reforms in the agriculture sector. He argued in favour of mechanisation of agriculture, and agriculture on large farms. Today’s reformers are yet to catch up with him even though 60 years have passed since the time he wrote the manifesto
In order to ensure increased production, Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto would not be bound by any dogma or pattern as he announced in 1952. This was the essence of Dr Ambedkar’s social and economic philosophy which is referred to as Ambedkarism.
Marxists made a mistake in not taking caste as a factor in scripting transformation in our country. The economic reformers are making similar mistake by scripting reforms from above — ignoring agriculture and focusing on manufacturing and service sectors.
Since a majority of the Indian population is still dependent on agriculture, Ambedkarism would reform agriculture first to widen scope of an industrial revolution in India, which in turn, would result into urbanisation of India. Manu’s caste order was born into an agrarian set up and hence, in an India completely urbanised, Manu will loose his place.
Further, under Ambedkarism, agriculture was to be refashioned into industry — agriculture on large farms replacing small land holdings.
In other words, agriculture, too, would follow the core principles of industry — on profit and loss basis. The vast majority of Indians lives on subsistence farming and continues to suffer yet, they do not want to leave farming.
Let us examine with an example of how Ambedkarism would work in the UK. Britain is considered the motherland of industrialisation, urbanisation and capitalism. As of today, only 0.4 per cent Britons live on agriculture.
Four hundred years ago, quite like India, most Britons were involved with agriculture and a majority of them faced hunger and inequality.
Two hundred years ago when the East India Company was formed, majority of Britons lived in the villages. The speedy mechanisation of agriculture fueled industrialisation of the country. Sure, machines first came to industries. Since majority of the population lived on agriculture, without mechanisation, manufacturing sector would not have expanded.
Smaller land holdings turning into big farms coincided the mechanisation of agriculture. The evolution of Britain or the rest of Europe and later, North America, into modern industrial and urban societies depended on liberating citizens from agriculture and villages.
When machines like tractors, harvesters, threshers, high breed seeds, irrigation and pesticides came, agriculture turned into an industry.
In other words, if agriculture becomes a loss making enterprise, the owners of agricultural fields and workers will look for better options. That added to migration to cities further accelerating speed of industrial revolution.
Educated in the US and the UK, Dr Ambedkar as a visionary found that unless we reformed agriculture, there was no way to reform the Indian society. Without reforming Indian agriculture, there was no way to turn India into an economic superpower.
What unites Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers and what differentiates them are the following:
Dr Ambedkar saw increase in production as the key in ending poverty. Reformers also see higher GDP as the key in ending poverty. To me, “increase in production and higher GDP are same because production today is measured by GDP count”
To Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers both, urbanization liberates all Indians
To Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers, migration is a kind of revolution. He described migration from villages to cities as the new life movement for untouchables
But, here is where Dr Ambedkar would differ from today’s reformers:
Dr Ambedkar was inspired by the US and the European experience and envisioned that without reforming agriculture, India can never evolve into a modern industrial and urban civilization. Reformers are focused on manufacturing and service sectors
Since reformers ignored Ambedkarism, the Bharat versus India song is getting louder. Today, Jats and Gujjars are stopping trains. Tomorrow, they will start torching trains, post offices, and even police stations. All castes and communities rooting into agrarianism will follow suit. Democracy will be the next target.
Ambedkarism is thus not only about economic growth but also about annihilating the caste order. Reformers have no idea as how caste order prevents industrialisation. If India has to turn into a superpower like the US, it must follow the path that the developed societies took. And where does the US stand under Ambedkarism?
Keep watching this space.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/335439/Window-to-Ambedkarism.html
Chandrabhan Prasad
Refroming agriculture will in turn lead to an urbanised India
Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto for 1952 parliamentary elections focuses on few fundamental aspects of the Indian society, and in that, Ambedkarism defines itself.
First and foremost, manifesto envisions increase in production as the instrument to deal with the challenges of the poverty.
In today’s lexicon, production is measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). More GDP means more production. In that sense, Dr Ambedkar was much ahead of today’s ideological architect of economic reforms.
Dr Ambedkar lay emphasis on economic reforms with a focus on reforms in the agriculture sector. He argued in favour of mechanisation of agriculture, and agriculture on large farms. Today’s reformers are yet to catch up with him even though 60 years have passed since the time he wrote the manifesto
In order to ensure increased production, Dr Ambedkar’s manifesto would not be bound by any dogma or pattern as he announced in 1952. This was the essence of Dr Ambedkar’s social and economic philosophy which is referred to as Ambedkarism.
Marxists made a mistake in not taking caste as a factor in scripting transformation in our country. The economic reformers are making similar mistake by scripting reforms from above — ignoring agriculture and focusing on manufacturing and service sectors.
Since a majority of the Indian population is still dependent on agriculture, Ambedkarism would reform agriculture first to widen scope of an industrial revolution in India, which in turn, would result into urbanisation of India. Manu’s caste order was born into an agrarian set up and hence, in an India completely urbanised, Manu will loose his place.
Further, under Ambedkarism, agriculture was to be refashioned into industry — agriculture on large farms replacing small land holdings.
In other words, agriculture, too, would follow the core principles of industry — on profit and loss basis. The vast majority of Indians lives on subsistence farming and continues to suffer yet, they do not want to leave farming.
Let us examine with an example of how Ambedkarism would work in the UK. Britain is considered the motherland of industrialisation, urbanisation and capitalism. As of today, only 0.4 per cent Britons live on agriculture.
Four hundred years ago, quite like India, most Britons were involved with agriculture and a majority of them faced hunger and inequality.
Two hundred years ago when the East India Company was formed, majority of Britons lived in the villages. The speedy mechanisation of agriculture fueled industrialisation of the country. Sure, machines first came to industries. Since majority of the population lived on agriculture, without mechanisation, manufacturing sector would not have expanded.
Smaller land holdings turning into big farms coincided the mechanisation of agriculture. The evolution of Britain or the rest of Europe and later, North America, into modern industrial and urban societies depended on liberating citizens from agriculture and villages.
When machines like tractors, harvesters, threshers, high breed seeds, irrigation and pesticides came, agriculture turned into an industry.
In other words, if agriculture becomes a loss making enterprise, the owners of agricultural fields and workers will look for better options. That added to migration to cities further accelerating speed of industrial revolution.
Educated in the US and the UK, Dr Ambedkar as a visionary found that unless we reformed agriculture, there was no way to reform the Indian society. Without reforming Indian agriculture, there was no way to turn India into an economic superpower.
What unites Dr Ambedkar and today’s reformers and what differentiates them are the following:
But, here is where Dr Ambedkar would differ from today’s reformers:
Keep watching this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment