Does the Indian Farmer need technology?

[Guest guest]

Nirguna prabhu,

 

Thanks for your kind note. For the reference of others, I'm posting the

Tavleen

Singh article from India Today that you mentioned. She states that "What the

Indian farmer really needs is technology."

 

She's well-meaning to look at Indian farmers and try to figure out how to help

them, but unfortunately she is ignorant and brainwashed. I should add that she

is no more ignorant and brainwashed than 98-100% of the members of the U.S.

Congress, who believe basically the same thing that she does.

 

If she had actually studied the Populist Movement (1873-1896) in the U.S. and

its aftermath -- and also studied Marx, Gandhi and E.F. Schumacher, she would

understand that a means of protecting the small farmer does not exist within

the

framework of capitalism.

 

The Populist Movement was the largest democratic effort in the history of the

United States -- but partly because it tried to find a solution within the

capitalist system it was a failure. Hundreds of thousands of farmers from all

ethnic groups and all across the country joined together to fight the cheating

banks, land owners and railway companies who were cheating and oppressing them.

One way they fought was to make cooperatives for buying supplies and selling

their products. Decades later, after their political demise with the defeat of

William Jennings Bryant, Henry Wallace, who had been raised in Populist Kansas,

actually brought many of the goals of the Populist movement into reality --

when

Wallace became Secretary of Agriculture under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

But historians understand that although the policies which the Populists strove

for, did help farmers, they mainly helped the big farmers. The end picture is

that whereas in the late 1800's well over 50 percent of the population were

farmers -- but by the year 2000, only about 1 percent of the population were

farmers. Capitalist competition had wiped out most farmers. Even today, it is

becoming a huge sociological problem that the midwest is becoming largely

deserted. Towns are dying from underpopulation.

 

The point is this: Capitalist agricultural techniques -- capital-intensive

technology and inputs -- and market-oriented production -- inevitably wipe out

small farmers. So what Tavleen Singh believes is the solution is in fact a

slow

way of killing farmers, and destroying their families as they are sent to the

cities to become low-paid factory workers or unemployed -- languishing in

living

conditions even worse than what they knew in the country.

 

U.S. Congress members and this Indian columnist do not realize that the only

way

to actually help the small farmer is to abolish capitalism -- "thoroughly

overhaul society" -- and set up viable subsistence -- self-sufficient or

self-reliant -- farming villages. These villages will not offer the specter of

concentrated wealth that capitalism offers, because capitalism means

concentrating wealth among a few -- and properly protected subsistence farming

would mean a much more equitable distribution of wealth.

 

As long as we desire to enjoy great luxury, it will not be possible to help

people like these farmers. But, people can give up that desire for luxury if

they actually do experience a higher taste by engaging in Krsna consciousness.

 

Capitalism is a religion -- or rather a cult. We have all been brainwashed by

this cult, which hold out the promise of immense material enjoyment.

Capitalism

is a religion. People who are not sure whether or not God exists have an

unshakeable faith that if the free market is allowed to function, then "the

Invisible Hand" will provide the greatest good to the greatest number of

people. For a serious student of history, there is no evidence that this is

true, nevertheless, it is the unshakeable belief of most "modern" people.

Capitalism is the religion of materialism. And capitalist technology in

agriculture, such as the tractor, is an important item of faith in the

capitalist theology.

 

Tavleen Singh needs to realize that capitalism is always a competition, with

the

stronger forces always defeating the weaker. So it is with capital-intensive

technology (as opposed to small-scale or appropriate technology) in

agriculture. Over the years, the strongest farmers (not necessarilty the best)

will gradually wipe out all the smaller ones. Capitalism is just like a

baseball or soccer tournament. In the beginning, you may have a hundred teams

competing, but by the end of the season, there will be only a few teams left to

compete. So it has been with the history of market-oriented capitalist

agriculture in the U.S. -- of all the hundreds of thousands of Populist

farmers,

only a tiny handful of their descendents can still farm the land a hundred

years

later.

 

What Srila Prabhupada is proposing is something quite different. He proposes

to

"thoroughly overhaul society." "Thoroughly" -- meaning even the economic

system, even the system of government. And indeed, as Lenin accurately pointed

out, subsistence agriculture cannot survive for long, unprotected in a

capitalist environment.

 

In one sense, the spiritual principle of cow protection is almost like a trick

of Srila Prabhupada's to force us to develop models of subsistence agricultural

villages. Because cows must be protected, it means we can't slaughter bulls.

But to practically protect bulls, they must be trained for agriculture. But to

use bulls for agriculture, produces a product which is too expensive to sell in

a capitalist market and use the funds to support a family. Using the bulls for

agriculture can only support a family, if the family consumes the produce

directly (as advocated by Srila Prabhupada in numerous conversations in "Srila

Prabhupada on Varnasrama and Farm Community Development"). But the family can

only consume its product directly when they are living in a protected

subsistence agricultural village -- properly trained and with no mortgage or

rent to pay on their land. But such a village can only be set up by an

enlightened Krsna conscious government.

 

But, if such a village could be set up ("a small unit of ideal community" as

Prabhupada says) it would be a hundred times more potent for attracting people

to Krsna consciousness than anything we have today.

 

But: ISKCON leaders are not interested in developing subsistence agricultural

villages based on cow protection and working the oxen. Narayana Maharaja and

his sahejiya followers are not interested in developing subsistence

agricultural

villages based on cow protection and working the oxen. And, also the rtviks,

who claim Srila Prabhupada as their only guru are also not at all interested in

fulfilling his ardent desire on this account.

 

I'm sorry to say, but I believe most of these leaders, in all the various

competing camps, with possibly a few exceptions, are either ignorant or

cheaters

on this account.

 

The purpose of sex is to have a child. That child can be raised in Krsna

consciousness and become a wonderful devotee. The devotional process of

raising

such a child will benefit not only the child -- but also his father and mother

and other family members -- because of the exceptional spiritual insight that

Krsna will give them in their day-to-day lives.

 

But, the whole process is cut off if the couple attempts to circumvent having a

child by using birth control. There will be no child. The practical spiritual

benefit and spiritual realizations that could have accrued to that couple and

their relations are never realized.

 

Similarly when our so-called spiritual leaders attempt to circumvent the

responsibilities implied by raising Dharma the bull and engaging him to work

for

a family farm, it means that all the spiritual realizations and preaching

potency which could have developed are cut off. They are never realized.

 

Instead of figuring out how to develop the "small unit of ideal community"

which

would be needed to properly care for the bull -- they attempt to solve the

problem by creating concentration camps of cattle as in ISKCON Vrndavana or

ISKCON Mayapur (inspired by the capitalist model). The bull is never trained.

Or, they shun cow protection all together. The model of simple living and high

thinking in a Krsna conscious village is never developed. And, in the worst

cases, the swamis simply sit on a velvet cushion and fantasize about the

activities of Krsna and the gopis, while holding their hand out for donations

to

build "spiritual Disneylands.". Without the proper engagement of our father,

Dharma the Bull, real spiritual progress will never be realized. And the Krsna

consciousness movement will never become powerful enough to attract all the

people of the world.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

P.S. I'm sending Tavleeen Singh's article in a separate post. I believe that

Vandana Siva ("The Violence of the Green Revolution") Arundhati Roy ("The Cost

of Living") , and even E.F. Schumacher ("Small Is Beautiful") have far better

insight on the futility of capitalistic solutions for the problems of India's

farmers.