AIAWU Magazine Vol 1 Issue 3

ALL INDIA AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION BULLETIN

VOLUME: 01ISSUE: 03October 2013

WHY DO WE HAVE A PRICE RISE?

1. Why do we have a price rise? 04

2. Ination and price rise 07

3. Far from satisfaction – actuals and expenditure under agship programs 12

4. Struggle for scsp act – experience from andhra pradesh 15

5. Agrarian crisis : irreversible impact on agricultural labour 19

6. All-india consumer price index numbers for agricultural and rural 21

labourers on base 1986-87=100

7. Consumer price index for agricultural and rural labour – an analysis 26

CONTENTS

S. Ramachandra Pillai agging off KSKTU Jatha Govindan Master addressing the Jatha

Public meeting at Moradabad at Uttar Pradesh State Conference

Rally on occasion of Maharasthra state conference

Agricultural workers protesting at Pudukkottai and Trichy

Agricultural Workers Dharna at Pudukkottai

1. Why do we have a price rise? 04

2. Ination and price rise 07

3. Far from satisfaction – actuals and expenditure under agship programs 12

4. Struggle for scsp act – experience from andhra pradesh 15

5. Agrarian crisis : irreversible impact on agricultural labour 19

6. All-india consumer price index numbers for agricultural and rural 21

labourers on base 1986-87=100

7. Consumer price index for agricultural and rural labour – an analysis 26

CONTENTS

S. Ramachandra Pillai agging off KSKTU Jatha Govindan Master addressing the Jatha

Public meeting at Moradabad at Uttar Pradesh State Conference

Rally on occasion of Maharasthra state conference

Agricultural workers protesting at Pudukkottai and Trichy

Agricultural Workers Dharna at Pudukkottai

Why do we have a price rise?

With the September 2013 gure for ination rising by

6.46% for wholesale prices and 9.84% retail prices in a

month after a similar rise in August of 6.1% and 9.52%

respectively, is a matter of grave concern as this

inationary cycle has lasted for nearly ten years and its

worst impact is on food items which are over half the

expenditure of a rural working family.

Between 2004 and 2013, food prices in general rose by

157%. Cereals, the staple diet of the poorest, were high

on the scale, with rice at 137% and wheat at 117%. Pulses

the sole source of protein for most of the Indian masses,

had risen by 123%. Potato, the staple diet of the poorest

topped even the highest gure at 185%. As for vegetables

and onions they had gone quite out of the diet of the poor,

by rising up to 350% and 521% respectively. The amazing

thing is that all this was taking place while the Central

Government had been mouthing slogans that it would

soon bring the prices down without doing anything

about it.

The people have waited in vain for the Government to

start proceeding against hoarders. But one realizes they

are not likely to do that as the Food Corporation of India is

the biggest hoarder itself. While its food stocks on

October 1, 2013 reported some 24 million tones of excess

wheat with various Government agencies but it has not

been ofoaded as APL or on the market to reduce the

prices one begins to wonder what its game is? Even when

the Supreme Court instructed the government to

distribute the grain rotting in FCI godowns, the Minister

for Agriculture declared there were not constitutional

provisions for doing so. One wonders then what

constitutional provisions are there for starving the people

and allowing hoarders to raise prices even as they starve?

But then, as the Government is the biggest hoarder of

cereals in the country, one can hardly expect it to check

Suneet Chopra

lesser hoarders effectively. In fact, the Agricultural Prices

and Mandi Committees Act is heavily loaded in favour of

wholesalers who not only determine the prices of

farmers’ products but also run cartels that monopolise

products and raise prices at will. In fact, the government’s

Minimum Support Price mechanism too, being pegged at

Rs.1350 (now Rs.1400) per quintal in comparison to Rs.

1800 in the market, is considerably lower than the market

price and even the cost of production. This is a step in

favour of the monopolists and hoarders, allowing them to

take even larger prots than otherwise.

That is why despite the fact that retail food ination has

persisted at around 10% but that of cereals is 15% -17%,

the Central Government and most state governments

have done very little to make things better. This should

make us aware of how important government policy is to

maintaining the price level. Not only has the government

failed to check the price of food grains but it has even

fuelled it by increasing administered prices. Under the

Public Distribution System both during the NDA and UPA

regimes, while the increased prices of petrol and diesel

have increased transport costs on the one hand and of

production dependent on pump-sets on the other. The

price of rice for the BPL card holders increased from

Rs.350 per quintal in 1997-98 to Rs.415 per quintal in

2007-08. In the same period the APL price was increased

from Rs.550 per quintal to Rs.755. For wheat, the price for

BPL card holders was increased from Rs.250 per quintal to

Rs.415 and from Rs.450 to Rs.610 for APL card holders in

10 years. The elimination of levy sugar had led to a similar

situation. With the cash for food scheme coming into

operation now, the prices of rationed provisions will also

feed ination as the money will enter the market directly.

Moreover the quantity of grain per family will go down, so

consumption will be far more dependent on hoarders and

proteers led by the Government as the biggest hoarder.

Other hoarders will benet from the legalization of the

Futures Trade in grain which has contributed considerably

to the price rise globally and in India, according to a recent

UN study. To add to it, fertilizer prices have more than

doubled while hoarders are having a eld day with the

decontrol of potassium based fertilizers. The price rise

appears to be directly a result of government policies.

Given this cue by the state, wholesalers, who both hoard

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 05

and monopolise production, are all set to gain astronomic

prots.

The price of onions is as good an example as any to

illustrate this development. According to a report

submitted to the Government of India, as far back as

January 2013, the warning was given of how vulnerable

this market was to hoarding. 70% - 80% of the country’s

onion trade was restricted to Maharashtra (32.7%) and

Karnanataka(17.6%) although onions are the second

most consumed vegetable in the country. In fact the

biggest producer of onions is the Union Agricultural

Minister’s home state, Maharashtra. While both these

states harvest onions in winter, but given the monopolistic

control of the mandis, the small onion producers are no

match for the monopolists. Secondly, the traders also

provide loans to the farmers and exploit them. As a result,

especially as these traders are commission agents and

wholesalers, apart from being owners of storage facilities

and even order suppliers and transporters, their capacity

to arm twist both the farmers and consumers has been

allowed by the state to take on devastating proportions. A

few Nasik based traders actually monopolise the whole

market. According to the report, a single trader in

Maharashtra market accounted for up to 20.4% of the

trade. As a result the country has to pay the bill, with

hoarders raising the prices rst during the winter season

that coincides with festivals like Onam, Durga Puja,

Diwali, Eid and Christmas, and then refusing to sell the

stock of the winter harvest as happened in 2010-11. Since

the government has left the vegetable sector totally in

private hands, both the farmer and the consumer are left

to the mercy of proteers, hoarders and monopolies, with

the APMC or Mandi Act promoting cartels and not

competition.

To add to this the Government ignores this fact and helps

to raise prices by exporting the surplus just when it should

be put out for sale in the home market. In 2010, when un-

seasonal rains had destroyed the onion crop, traders were

allowed to export 1, 33,000 tons before the price was

hiked. This year the situation is no different. From April to

December 2012 India exported 30,000 tons of onions

despite bad rains and has continued to do so between

January and May this year, sending prices soaring by no less

than 244.6% since last year.

The same policy is evident in the case of food grains too.

When food grain prices were all set to soar, the

Government of India arranged the largest ever export of

grain in its history in 2012-13, exporting 10.1% million

tones of rice, 6.5 million tones of wheat and 4.8 million

tones of corn, so the prices continue to rise. Had this large

quantity of grain been diverted to the home market from

FCI godowns the prices would not have risen to such

heights. But the Government of India was only concerned

with the fact that traders had entered into long-term

contracts they had to honour. If the people starve as a

result it does not matter.

Moreover, in its reckless invitation to speculative capital,

the Union Government has allowed a run on the Rupee

which has led to a fall of 26 % in its value, increasing import

costs to the same extent, be it for buying oil, palm oil, or

onions which no doubt will get passed on to the consumer

directly. Obviously the Government is pursuing an all

round inationary policy to attract foreign direct

investment in our retail trade even if it is at the cost of

starving the mass of our people.

The situation may have been better if the Public

Distribution System had been strengthened by ensuring a

universal PDS. Such a move would not only reduce prices

of staple foods and also if fourteen other necessaries of life

like oil, sugar and salt were provided under PDS, domestic

hoarding at least would come to an end as would the

Government’s glut of rotting grain. But we nd the exact

opposite happening. Over the last ten years in most

budgets the percentage of food subsidy as compared to

the GDP has been declining as has been the per capita

availability of food grains. This naturally creates a

bottleneck on the supply side resulting in inated prices,

which the government has been at pains to deny until

recently. But the major reason for the price rise we are

suffering from over the last ve years is a result also of the

greed of the Indian Government for foreign investment in

the retail trade. So far their most desperate efforts at

opening retail trade to foreign investors have failed, so to

make the protability of our retail market attractive for

the foreign investor prices are being allowed to run riot.

The question that we are faced with then is why this move

is so important as to be enforced the way it is being done,

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201304

Why do we have a price rise?

With the September 2013 gure for ination rising by

6.46% for wholesale prices and 9.84% retail prices in a

month after a similar rise in August of 6.1% and 9.52%

respectively, is a matter of grave concern as this

inationary cycle has lasted for nearly ten years and its

worst impact is on food items which are over half the

expenditure of a rural working family.

Between 2004 and 2013, food prices in general rose by

157%. Cereals, the staple diet of the poorest, were high

on the scale, with rice at 137% and wheat at 117%. Pulses

the sole source of protein for most of the Indian masses,

had risen by 123%. Potato, the staple diet of the poorest

topped even the highest gure at 185%. As for vegetables

and onions they had gone quite out of the diet of the poor,

by rising up to 350% and 521% respectively. The amazing

thing is that all this was taking place while the Central

Government had been mouthing slogans that it would

soon bring the prices down without doing anything

about it.

The people have waited in vain for the Government to

start proceeding against hoarders. But one realizes they

are not likely to do that as the Food Corporation of India is

the biggest hoarder itself. While its food stocks on

October 1, 2013 reported some 24 million tones of excess

wheat with various Government agencies but it has not

been ofoaded as APL or on the market to reduce the

prices one begins to wonder what its game is? Even when

the Supreme Court instructed the government to

distribute the grain rotting in FCI godowns, the Minister

for Agriculture declared there were not constitutional

provisions for doing so. One wonders then what

constitutional provisions are there for starving the people

and allowing hoarders to raise prices even as they starve?

But then, as the Government is the biggest hoarder of

cereals in the country, one can hardly expect it to check

Suneet Chopra

lesser hoarders effectively. In fact, the Agricultural Prices

and Mandi Committees Act is heavily loaded in favour of

wholesalers who not only determine the prices of

farmers’ products but also run cartels that monopolise

products and raise prices at will. In fact, the government’s

Minimum Support Price mechanism too, being pegged at

Rs.1350 (now Rs.1400) per quintal in comparison to Rs.

1800 in the market, is considerably lower than the market

price and even the cost of production. This is a step in

favour of the monopolists and hoarders, allowing them to

take even larger prots than otherwise.

That is why despite the fact that retail food ination has

persisted at around 10% but that of cereals is 15% -17%,

the Central Government and most state governments

have done very little to make things better. This should

make us aware of how important government policy is to

maintaining the price level. Not only has the government

failed to check the price of food grains but it has even

fuelled it by increasing administered prices. Under the

Public Distribution System both during the NDA and UPA

regimes, while the increased prices of petrol and diesel

have increased transport costs on the one hand and of

production dependent on pump-sets on the other. The

price of rice for the BPL card holders increased from

Rs.350 per quintal in 1997-98 to Rs.415 per quintal in

2007-08. In the same period the APL price was increased

from Rs.550 per quintal to Rs.755. For wheat, the price for

BPL card holders was increased from Rs.250 per quintal to

Rs.415 and from Rs.450 to Rs.610 for APL card holders in

10 years. The elimination of levy sugar had led to a similar

situation. With the cash for food scheme coming into

operation now, the prices of rationed provisions will also

feed ination as the money will enter the market directly.

Moreover the quantity of grain per family will go down, so

consumption will be far more dependent on hoarders and

proteers led by the Government as the biggest hoarder.

Other hoarders will benet from the legalization of the

Futures Trade in grain which has contributed considerably

to the price rise globally and in India, according to a recent

UN study. To add to it, fertilizer prices have more than

doubled while hoarders are having a eld day with the

decontrol of potassium based fertilizers. The price rise

appears to be directly a result of government policies.

Given this cue by the state, wholesalers, who both hoard

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 05

and monopolise production, are all set to gain astronomic

prots.

The price of onions is as good an example as any to

illustrate this development. According to a report

submitted to the Government of India, as far back as

January 2013, the warning was given of how vulnerable

this market was to hoarding. 70% - 80% of the country’s

onion trade was restricted to Maharashtra (32.7%) and

Karnanataka(17.6%) although onions are the second

most consumed vegetable in the country. In fact the

biggest producer of onions is the Union Agricultural

Minister’s home state, Maharashtra. While both these

states harvest onions in winter, but given the monopolistic

control of the mandis, the small onion producers are no

match for the monopolists. Secondly, the traders also

provide loans to the farmers and exploit them. As a result,

especially as these traders are commission agents and

wholesalers, apart from being owners of storage facilities

and even order suppliers and transporters, their capacity

to arm twist both the farmers and consumers has been

allowed by the state to take on devastating proportions. A

few Nasik based traders actually monopolise the whole

market. According to the report, a single trader in

Maharashtra market accounted for up to 20.4% of the

trade. As a result the country has to pay the bill, with

hoarders raising the prices rst during the winter season

that coincides with festivals like Onam, Durga Puja,

Diwali, Eid and Christmas, and then refusing to sell the

stock of the winter harvest as happened in 2010-11. Since

the government has left the vegetable sector totally in

private hands, both the farmer and the consumer are left

to the mercy of proteers, hoarders and monopolies, with

the APMC or Mandi Act promoting cartels and not

competition.

To add to this the Government ignores this fact and helps

to raise prices by exporting the surplus just when it should

be put out for sale in the home market. In 2010, when un-

seasonal rains had destroyed the onion crop, traders were

allowed to export 1, 33,000 tons before the price was

hiked. This year the situation is no different. From April to

December 2012 India exported 30,000 tons of onions

despite bad rains and has continued to do so between

January and May this year, sending prices soaring by no less

than 244.6% since last year.

The same policy is evident in the case of food grains too.

When food grain prices were all set to soar, the

Government of India arranged the largest ever export of

grain in its history in 2012-13, exporting 10.1% million

tones of rice, 6.5 million tones of wheat and 4.8 million

tones of corn, so the prices continue to rise. Had this large

quantity of grain been diverted to the home market from

FCI godowns the prices would not have risen to such

heights. But the Government of India was only concerned

with the fact that traders had entered into long-term

contracts they had to honour. If the people starve as a

result it does not matter.

Moreover, in its reckless invitation to speculative capital,

the Union Government has allowed a run on the Rupee

which has led to a fall of 26 % in its value, increasing import

costs to the same extent, be it for buying oil, palm oil, or

onions which no doubt will get passed on to the consumer

directly. Obviously the Government is pursuing an all

round inationary policy to attract foreign direct

investment in our retail trade even if it is at the cost of

starving the mass of our people.

The situation may have been better if the Public

Distribution System had been strengthened by ensuring a

universal PDS. Such a move would not only reduce prices

of staple foods and also if fourteen other necessaries of life

like oil, sugar and salt were provided under PDS, domestic

hoarding at least would come to an end as would the

Government’s glut of rotting grain. But we nd the exact

opposite happening. Over the last ten years in most

budgets the percentage of food subsidy as compared to

the GDP has been declining as has been the per capita

availability of food grains. This naturally creates a

bottleneck on the supply side resulting in inated prices,

which the government has been at pains to deny until

recently. But the major reason for the price rise we are

suffering from over the last ve years is a result also of the

greed of the Indian Government for foreign investment in

the retail trade. So far their most desperate efforts at

opening retail trade to foreign investors have failed, so to

make the protability of our retail market attractive for

the foreign investor prices are being allowed to run riot.

The question that we are faced with then is why this move

is so important as to be enforced the way it is being done,

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201304

even at the cost of the lives and livelihood of the mass of

Indian people? The answer is clear. The Government is

directed by a coterie of people led by the Prime Minister

who are blind economic fundamentalists committed to an

archaic understanding that certain laws of the classical

development of capitalism cannot be avoided on the path

of progress.

What are these principles? The rst is that the expanding

frontiers of capitalist production require the existence of a

population of propertyless wage labourers. But the

important point is that they are not to be given

employment but only to be a reserve army of labour to

allow the capitalist class to bargain more forcefully with

the existing working class. But if the process creates far

more jobless than are needed as a result of mechanization

and increasing work-load to wring out prots and throws

them into an increasing population of criminals, goons and

maas, then this process of development becomes

destructive to society, calling for the overthrow of the

system and of the economic ideas that guide it. If we fail to

do so, then the disintegration of the society itself will

follow us and this will result in anarchic outbursts, wars

and the subversion of democratic rights achieved by the

working class in struggle.

Then there is the principle of the concentration of capital

in fewer and fewer hands as a result of competitive ruin,

which in our country means the dispossession of the

peasantry and the takeover of their tiny parcels of land by

maas, agro-industry, planters and so-called developers,

which not only increase the number of people in the

labour market but also decrease the amount of land

available for agriculture. That this too has become

dysfunctional is obvious from the increase of the number

of people below the poverty line, without any assets to live

on the hungry and illfed the unemployed, and those who

have been forced to sell their lands and have committed

suicide in our villages in lakhs, creating both chaos and

enormous waste of human potential. This too is a sign that

the path these economic fundamentalists are following is

destructive of creative potential and not productive at all.

But at the same time the increasing strength of the rural

landless can become the basis of the overthrow of this

inefcient and iniquitous system if we organize them in

struggle.

This state of affairs offers us only one alternative ; to seek

out a better system of channelising resources resorting to

going beyond private monopolies, and relying on proper

planning and its execution in the hands of a state of the

working class and peasantry with powerful instruments of

democratic institutions right down to grass root level.

Some form of socialist solutions to counter these

destructive trends are necessary and must be worked for

step by step without delay. This requires a stiff battle

against the trends of corporatisation, market monopolies

and speculative nancial predators targeting common

resources, and for strengthening social ownership,

cooperatisation and increased support to peoples needs

being met with the resources available as a priority.

We need to conduct militant struggles against the price

rise with the strengthening of a powerful public

distribution system, action against hoarding both by the

wholesalers and the state, and against corruption in the

implementation of government schemes, institutions and

controls on vested interests looting the assets of the

people and driving them to desperation. This can only be

done by the organized struggles of workers peasants and

agricultural labour on their genuine issues till their

demands are met. In this process, the All India

Agricultural Workers Union has a special role in linking

rural and urban struggles , those of peasants and workers,

both being ground down to the reserve army of the

dispossessed, and to guide them to take control of their

destiny rather than commit suicide, ght each other for

scraps and lose their right to live as equal citizens in a state

of despair. Struggles and the hope of a better future

through these alone can help us deal with the mess the

ruling classes are drawing people into.

Ination and price rise

Hannan Mollah

Ination is a common economic factor in our day to day

life. Simply it means to us rise in price. In a capitalist

system, commodity is produced for sale and motive

behind the production is to earn prot. This commodity is

related between producer and consumer, through

market. The market is the sole guiding force in the

capitalist economy. The market determines the price of

each commodity, on the basis of demand and supply

guaranteeing certain levels of prot. If demand is more

than supply price will go up and if supply is more than

demand, the price will come down. But the things are not

so simple. The producer produces commodity for

maximum price and to gain maximum price, there are so

many manipulations.

Normally, the price should e based on the cost of

production+ prot formula. . Suppose, a piece of cloth is

produced at the cost of Rs.100/- and there may be normal

prot of Rs.15/- then the price will be Rs.115/-. But if there

is less cloth in the market and many people come to

purchase it, the seller will sell it at Rs.130/- or 145-.which

means 200 % to 300 % additional prot from the normal

level. But if there is more cloth in the market, and few

people come to the market, the saler may sell at the cost

price 115/- or few rupees less, but he cannot do it

continuously. More prot is always welcome but more

loss cannot be tolerated in capitalism.

Changes of prices is calculated between two periods. For

example, price of cloth is Rs.50/- in October 2010 and by

October 2013 it is Rs.55/- that means 10% increase. This

10% increase in the rate of the cloth in three years, and it

is called rate of ination. It is one of the instruments of

exploitation in the hands of capitalist state. The rate of

ination keeps changing from time to time. Either it

increases or it decreases. A decrease in the rate of ination

does not necessarily a decrease in price of certain

commodities. It is only decrease in the rate of increase

compared to the previous period. Hence, whenever, a

news item comes in newspapers or TV channels, saying

that in a particular month rate of ination for a particular

commodity is declined, it need not be considered as the

decrease in absolute price of that commodity.

Now we look at how the market manipulates ination.. At

particular time, different factors, developments,

situations inuence the change in prices of commodities

and services, that is ination. Depending upon the reasons

of ination, it is called, as demand led ination or

expenditure led ination. If the availability of a commodity

is lesser a the available money in the market, the price will

increase. Situation where prot margin is higher, increase

in wages and other incomes, insertion of speculative

money into economy, foreign remittances, credit based

cash ow-are some of the probable reasons for supply led

ination. And expenditure ination results when cost of

production increases due to various reasons such as

increased taxes, wages, non-availability of raw materials,

cost overrun of imported goods etc.

There are other types of ination such as currency

ination. If there is more supply of money in the market by

printing notes, or if there is budget decit, it may be decit

ination, if there is massive demand in the market it may

lead to prot ination, or there may be tax led ination or

there may be foreign currency decit led ination or credit

led ination, etc. Also, if the changes in the ination is

regulated through open market, it is known as open

ination and where the ination is regulated by

government, it is known as repressed ination. But

whatever may be the cause of ination, it denitely

increases prices of commodities and it brings new burden

on common people. During ination, the purchasing

power of the people reduces and money can buy less

things which causes difculties in the life of common

people, thus the value of money decreases.

Some argues that a moderate ination is helpful in the

economy. That is why neo-liberal economists prefers a 2-

3% of the ination. That is the reason when the

multilateral agencies prescribe certain conditions, such as,

ination should not cross 5% depend on the strength of

the economy. But Keynes argued that when the economy

is inicted with rampant unemployment, the rate of

ination could not be sound criteria for the policy makers

to depend upon. Though other economists discarded this

argument at that time, since 2008 global nancial crisis, the

economists and policy makers are demanding the

governments not to consider the inationary aspect of

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 07AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201306

even at the cost of the lives and livelihood of the mass of

Indian people? The answer is clear. The Government is

directed by a coterie of people led by the Prime Minister

who are blind economic fundamentalists committed to an

archaic understanding that certain laws of the classical

development of capitalism cannot be avoided on the path

of progress.

What are these principles? The rst is that the expanding

frontiers of capitalist production require the existence of a

population of propertyless wage labourers. But the

important point is that they are not to be given

employment but only to be a reserve army of labour to

allow the capitalist class to bargain more forcefully with

the existing working class. But if the process creates far

more jobless than are needed as a result of mechanization

and increasing work-load to wring out prots and throws

them into an increasing population of criminals, goons and

maas, then this process of development becomes

destructive to society, calling for the overthrow of the

system and of the economic ideas that guide it. If we fail to

do so, then the disintegration of the society itself will

follow us and this will result in anarchic outbursts, wars

and the subversion of democratic rights achieved by the

working class in struggle.

Then there is the principle of the concentration of capital

in fewer and fewer hands as a result of competitive ruin,

which in our country means the dispossession of the

peasantry and the takeover of their tiny parcels of land by

maas, agro-industry, planters and so-called developers,

which not only increase the number of people in the

labour market but also decrease the amount of land

available for agriculture. That this too has become

dysfunctional is obvious from the increase of the number

of people below the poverty line, without any assets to live

on the hungry and illfed the unemployed, and those who

have been forced to sell their lands and have committed

suicide in our villages in lakhs, creating both chaos and

enormous waste of human potential. This too is a sign that

the path these economic fundamentalists are following is

destructive of creative potential and not productive at all.

But at the same time the increasing strength of the rural

landless can become the basis of the overthrow of this

inefcient and iniquitous system if we organize them in

struggle.

This state of affairs offers us only one alternative ; to seek

out a better system of channelising resources resorting to

going beyond private monopolies, and relying on proper

planning and its execution in the hands of a state of the

working class and peasantry with powerful instruments of

democratic institutions right down to grass root level.

Some form of socialist solutions to counter these

destructive trends are necessary and must be worked for

step by step without delay. This requires a stiff battle

against the trends of corporatisation, market monopolies

and speculative nancial predators targeting common

resources, and for strengthening social ownership,

cooperatisation and increased support to peoples needs

being met with the resources available as a priority.

We need to conduct militant struggles against the price

rise with the strengthening of a powerful public

distribution system, action against hoarding both by the

wholesalers and the state, and against corruption in the

implementation of government schemes, institutions and

controls on vested interests looting the assets of the

people and driving them to desperation. This can only be

done by the organized struggles of workers peasants and

agricultural labour on their genuine issues till their

demands are met. In this process, the All India

Agricultural Workers Union has a special role in linking

rural and urban struggles , those of peasants and workers,

both being ground down to the reserve army of the

dispossessed, and to guide them to take control of their

destiny rather than commit suicide, ght each other for

scraps and lose their right to live as equal citizens in a state

of despair. Struggles and the hope of a better future

through these alone can help us deal with the mess the

ruling classes are drawing people into.

Ination and price rise

Hannan Mollah

Ination is a common economic factor in our day to day

life. Simply it means to us rise in price. In a capitalist

system, commodity is produced for sale and motive

behind the production is to earn prot. This commodity is

related between producer and consumer, through

market. The market is the sole guiding force in the

capitalist economy. The market determines the price of

each commodity, on the basis of demand and supply

guaranteeing certain levels of prot. If demand is more

than supply price will go up and if supply is more than

demand, the price will come down. But the things are not

so simple. The producer produces commodity for

maximum price and to gain maximum price, there are so

many manipulations.

Normally, the price should e based on the cost of

production+ prot formula. . Suppose, a piece of cloth is

produced at the cost of Rs.100/- and there may be normal

prot of Rs.15/- then the price will be Rs.115/-. But if there

is less cloth in the market and many people come to

purchase it, the seller will sell it at Rs.130/- or 145-.which

means 200 % to 300 % additional prot from the normal

level. But if there is more cloth in the market, and few

people come to the market, the saler may sell at the cost

price 115/- or few rupees less, but he cannot do it

continuously. More prot is always welcome but more

loss cannot be tolerated in capitalism.

Changes of prices is calculated between two periods. For

example, price of cloth is Rs.50/- in October 2010 and by

October 2013 it is Rs.55/- that means 10% increase. This

10% increase in the rate of the cloth in three years, and it

is called rate of ination. It is one of the instruments of

exploitation in the hands of capitalist state. The rate of

ination keeps changing from time to time. Either it

increases or it decreases. A decrease in the rate of ination

does not necessarily a decrease in price of certain

commodities. It is only decrease in the rate of increase

compared to the previous period. Hence, whenever, a

news item comes in newspapers or TV channels, saying

that in a particular month rate of ination for a particular

commodity is declined, it need not be considered as the

decrease in absolute price of that commodity.

Now we look at how the market manipulates ination.. At

particular time, different factors, developments,

situations inuence the change in prices of commodities

and services, that is ination. Depending upon the reasons

of ination, it is called, as demand led ination or

expenditure led ination. If the availability of a commodity

is lesser a the available money in the market, the price will

increase. Situation where prot margin is higher, increase

in wages and other incomes, insertion of speculative

money into economy, foreign remittances, credit based

cash ow-are some of the probable reasons for supply led

ination. And expenditure ination results when cost of

production increases due to various reasons such as

increased taxes, wages, non-availability of raw materials,

cost overrun of imported goods etc.

There are other types of ination such as currency

ination. If there is more supply of money in the market by

printing notes, or if there is budget decit, it may be decit

ination, if there is massive demand in the market it may

lead to prot ination, or there may be tax led ination or

there may be foreign currency decit led ination or credit

led ination, etc. Also, if the changes in the ination is

regulated through open market, it is known as open

ination and where the ination is regulated by

government, it is known as repressed ination. But

whatever may be the cause of ination, it denitely

increases prices of commodities and it brings new burden

on common people. During ination, the purchasing

power of the people reduces and money can buy less

things which causes difculties in the life of common

people, thus the value of money decreases.

Some argues that a moderate ination is helpful in the

economy. That is why neo-liberal economists prefers a 2-

3% of the ination. That is the reason when the

multilateral agencies prescribe certain conditions, such as,

ination should not cross 5% depend on the strength of

the economy. But Keynes argued that when the economy

is inicted with rampant unemployment, the rate of

ination could not be sound criteria for the policy makers

to depend upon. Though other economists discarded this

argument at that time, since 2008 global nancial crisis, the

economists and policy makers are demanding the

governments not to consider the inationary aspect of

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 07AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201306

monitory policies as it is hunting growth and in turn the

employment potential of the economy. This argument is

very much evident in India when the industry, analysts

demand certain measures in the name of economic

growth without taking into consideration of their

inationary consequences. But, despite all ideological

controversies, it is the fact that prot always goes up

when the rate of ination is sustained at high levels or

keeps increasing from time to time. And it also brings

tears in the eyes of common people who cannot purchase

their daily necessities due to high price.

In Indian context, ination is calculated in three different

method. One is based on wholesale price, second is based

on consumer price index and nally gross domestic

production deator method. The wholesale price index

is based on changes in the price at the wholesale stockists

or producers. It is calculated after considering the price

variations, adjustment in prices of 435 commodities.

Earlier it was calculated on the wholesale price index of

1993-94 nancial years as base years. But now it is

changed to 2010 nancial year as base year. This is

categorized as consumer price index (CPI) for industrial

workers (base year 1984-85) for agricultural workers and

rural labourers (base year 1986-87). Based on National

Sample Survey income and expenditure survey analysis,

the CPI for workers in calculated. Throughout the

country, 78 towns have been identied to collect the

samples. Basing on this, dearness allowance will be xed

for the government employees and also the minimum

wages for different scheduled employment categories.

This is a reective index to gauge the changes in the prices

of commodities of services. Other three categories are

merely serving the purpose of calculating the impact of

poverty and price volatility on the agricultural & rural

labourers as well as the urban non manual labour.

The other method is calculation of the ination based on

gross national product deator method. In this method all

aspects of economy will be covered including service

sector. Based on the central statistical organization data,

GDP, will be calculated at constant price and the

calculation will be done based on the two year back GDP

levels.

In our country, the Government primarily considers on

wholesale price index (WPI) to calculate ination while

formulating its policies. The average gap between the

wholesale price and consumer price index is around 60%.

That means when government formulates policy by

discounting 60 % of the impact. That is the reason for the

failure of the government polices in controlling the prices.

When we consider consumer price index, only then we

can understand the real impact on the economy as well as

public life in real terms. Besides, the government gives

lower weightage for the necessaries of life which

constitutes up to 80% in common man’s house hold

budget. So there are so many ips and aps in calculation

of ination in our country. As a result, always we see the

rising graphs of necessaries of life from time to time,

inspite of government’s celebrating of decreasing levels of

ination, which does not reect actual reality on the

grounds.

As we have seen the ination always causes the rise of

price and decreasing purchasing power of common man.

There is no relief for them, specially for the poor and

agricultural workers. They do not get any compensation

for rising prices and their wage is always far behind the

increasing price. So ination is a curse on the life of people.

During the second UPA government’s rule there is

continuous double digit ination resulting unprecedented

price-rise in the country. The Prime Minister Manmohan

Singh the pioneer of neo-liberal policy, has given

assurance for at least ten times in last four years that

ination will be controlled and price will come down. But

he is continuously proved wrong. Whereas the common

people is suffering from unprecedented price-rise, there

is also unprecedented rise of prot of the capitalists,

specially of the monopolists and MNCs.

All India Agricultural Workers Union always demanded

that the Government should take effective measure to

control ination and pric-rise. We are more concerned

about the price-rise of essential commodities. For that we

demand that 14 essential commodities for day to day

necessaries of common people, should be provided by

the government through public distribution system, at

subsidized rates. in reasonable and less than the market

price. Universal public distribution system is an effective

instrument to control the impact of ination on poor. We

demanded 35 Kg of foodgrains at the rate of Rs.2/- per kilo

to all families and that will have big impact on price

situation and ination in the country. Besides the

government should take effective administrative measure

by strengthening the prevention of black marketing laws

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 09AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201308

Composition of Whole Sale Price Index Ination

Weight 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 April - July (2013-14)

All Commodities 100 9.6 8.9 7.4 5.0

1.Primary Articles 28.1181 17.7% 9.8% 9.8% 7.0%

Contribution 4.2 2.5 2.5 1.8

A. Food rticles 14.3371 15.6% 7.3% 9.9% 9.0%

Contribution 2.7% 1.3% 1.8% 1.6%

B.Non-Food Articles 4.2576 22.3% 9.6% 10.5% 6.4%

Contribution 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

C Minerals 1.5235 24.8% 26.6% 8.2% -3.7%

Contribution 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% -0.1%

2.Fuel& Power 14.9102 12.3% 14.0% 10.3% 8.5%

Contribution 1.8% 2.2% 1.7% 1.4%

3.Manufactured Products 64.9716 5.7% 7.3% 5.4% 3.1%

Contribution 3.5% 4.3% 3.1% 1.8%

A. Manufactured Food Products 9.9740 3.7% 7.1% 8.1% 6.3%

Contribution 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6%

B Chemical & Chemical Products 12.0177 5.3% 8.6% 6.6% 3.4%

Contribution 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4%

C Basic Metals, Alloy & 10.7478 8.7% 11.1% 6.3% -2.0%Metal Products

Contribution 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2%

D Machinery & Machine Tools 8.9315 2.8% 3.1% 2.6% 2.6%

Contribution 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

and check hoarding of essential commodities and punish

the black marketers.

At the same time, the government should take proper

steps to increase purchasing power of common people

and agricultural workers. The MNREGA was enacted due

to our long demand and struggles but the workers are

neither getting 100 days work in a year nor decided

minimum wages. The huge amount of money under this

project is being looted or siphoned off by the nexus

between corrupt politicians, ofcials and contractors.

This should be checked and 250 days work in a year at

Rs.300/- wage should be ensured so that agricultural

workers and rural labourers can survive in this realm of

uncontrolled ination. Our union also should mobilize

large section of the agricultural and rural workers to ght

against this menace of ination and price-rise.

The whole sale price index, always used by the

government, does not show the actual impact on of

ination on common people. The reality can be

understood only when we examine the consumer price

index. If affects the common people as the price of food

and other essential goods are increasing at higher rates. So

the data of CPI given below is to understand the impact of

the ination on poor.

monitory policies as it is hunting growth and in turn the

employment potential of the economy. This argument is

very much evident in India when the industry, analysts

demand certain measures in the name of economic

growth without taking into consideration of their

inationary consequences. But, despite all ideological

controversies, it is the fact that prot always goes up

when the rate of ination is sustained at high levels or

keeps increasing from time to time. And it also brings

tears in the eyes of common people who cannot purchase

their daily necessities due to high price.

In Indian context, ination is calculated in three different

method. One is based on wholesale price, second is based

on consumer price index and nally gross domestic

production deator method. The wholesale price index

is based on changes in the price at the wholesale stockists

or producers. It is calculated after considering the price

variations, adjustment in prices of 435 commodities.

Earlier it was calculated on the wholesale price index of

1993-94 nancial years as base years. But now it is

changed to 2010 nancial year as base year. This is

categorized as consumer price index (CPI) for industrial

workers (base year 1984-85) for agricultural workers and

rural labourers (base year 1986-87). Based on National

Sample Survey income and expenditure survey analysis,

the CPI for workers in calculated. Throughout the

country, 78 towns have been identied to collect the

samples. Basing on this, dearness allowance will be xed

for the government employees and also the minimum

wages for different scheduled employment categories.

This is a reective index to gauge the changes in the prices

of commodities of services. Other three categories are

merely serving the purpose of calculating the impact of

poverty and price volatility on the agricultural & rural

labourers as well as the urban non manual labour.

The other method is calculation of the ination based on

gross national product deator method. In this method all

aspects of economy will be covered including service

sector. Based on the central statistical organization data,

GDP, will be calculated at constant price and the

calculation will be done based on the two year back GDP

levels.

In our country, the Government primarily considers on

wholesale price index (WPI) to calculate ination while

formulating its policies. The average gap between the

wholesale price and consumer price index is around 60%.

That means when government formulates policy by

discounting 60 % of the impact. That is the reason for the

failure of the government polices in controlling the prices.

When we consider consumer price index, only then we

can understand the real impact on the economy as well as

public life in real terms. Besides, the government gives

lower weightage for the necessaries of life which

constitutes up to 80% in common man’s house hold

budget. So there are so many ips and aps in calculation

of ination in our country. As a result, always we see the

rising graphs of necessaries of life from time to time,

inspite of government’s celebrating of decreasing levels of

ination, which does not reect actual reality on the

grounds.

As we have seen the ination always causes the rise of

price and decreasing purchasing power of common man.

There is no relief for them, specially for the poor and

agricultural workers. They do not get any compensation

for rising prices and their wage is always far behind the

increasing price. So ination is a curse on the life of people.

During the second UPA government’s rule there is

continuous double digit ination resulting unprecedented

price-rise in the country. The Prime Minister Manmohan

Singh the pioneer of neo-liberal policy, has given

assurance for at least ten times in last four years that

ination will be controlled and price will come down. But

he is continuously proved wrong. Whereas the common

people is suffering from unprecedented price-rise, there

is also unprecedented rise of prot of the capitalists,

specially of the monopolists and MNCs.

All India Agricultural Workers Union always demanded

that the Government should take effective measure to

control ination and pric-rise. We are more concerned

about the price-rise of essential commodities. For that we

demand that 14 essential commodities for day to day

necessaries of common people, should be provided by

the government through public distribution system, at

subsidized rates. in reasonable and less than the market

price. Universal public distribution system is an effective

instrument to control the impact of ination on poor. We

demanded 35 Kg of foodgrains at the rate of Rs.2/- per kilo

to all families and that will have big impact on price

situation and ination in the country. Besides the

government should take effective administrative measure

by strengthening the prevention of black marketing laws

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 09AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201308

Composition of Whole Sale Price Index Ination

Weight 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 April - July (2013-14)

All Commodities 100 9.6 8.9 7.4 5.0

1.Primary Articles 28.1181 17.7% 9.8% 9.8% 7.0%

Contribution 4.2 2.5 2.5 1.8

A. Food rticles 14.3371 15.6% 7.3% 9.9% 9.0%

Contribution 2.7% 1.3% 1.8% 1.6%

B.Non-Food Articles 4.2576 22.3% 9.6% 10.5% 6.4%

Contribution 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

C Minerals 1.5235 24.8% 26.6% 8.2% -3.7%

Contribution 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% -0.1%

2.Fuel& Power 14.9102 12.3% 14.0% 10.3% 8.5%

Contribution 1.8% 2.2% 1.7% 1.4%

3.Manufactured Products 64.9716 5.7% 7.3% 5.4% 3.1%

Contribution 3.5% 4.3% 3.1% 1.8%

A. Manufactured Food Products 9.9740 3.7% 7.1% 8.1% 6.3%

Contribution 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6%

B Chemical & Chemical Products 12.0177 5.3% 8.6% 6.6% 3.4%

Contribution 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4%

C Basic Metals, Alloy & 10.7478 8.7% 11.1% 6.3% -2.0%Metal Products

Contribution 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2%

D Machinery & Machine Tools 8.9315 2.8% 3.1% 2.6% 2.6%

Contribution 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

and check hoarding of essential commodities and punish

the black marketers.

At the same time, the government should take proper

steps to increase purchasing power of common people

and agricultural workers. The MNREGA was enacted due

to our long demand and struggles but the workers are

neither getting 100 days work in a year nor decided

minimum wages. The huge amount of money under this

project is being looted or siphoned off by the nexus

between corrupt politicians, ofcials and contractors.

This should be checked and 250 days work in a year at

Rs.300/- wage should be ensured so that agricultural

workers and rural labourers can survive in this realm of

uncontrolled ination. Our union also should mobilize

large section of the agricultural and rural workers to ght

against this menace of ination and price-rise.

The whole sale price index, always used by the

government, does not show the actual impact on of

ination on common people. The reality can be

understood only when we examine the consumer price

index. If affects the common people as the price of food

and other essential goods are increasing at higher rates. So

the data of CPI given below is to understand the impact of

the ination on poor.

Rural labourers

(CPI-RL)

Description General

1 9

Base (1986-87=100)

Average of Months

1995-96 337 280 313 … … … 237 238b

1996-97 369 307 342 … … … 256 256

1997-98 388 336 366 … … … 264 266

1998-99 445 372 414 … … … 293 294

1999-00 446 404 428 … … … 306 307

2000-01 453 433 444 … … … 305 307

2001-02 466 460 463 … … … 309 311

2002-03 477 488 482 … … … 319 321

2003-04 495 507 500 … … … 331 333

2004-05 506 538 520 … … … 340 342

2005-06 527a 563a 542a … … … 353 355

2006-07 126 124 125 … … … 380 382

2007-08 136 130 133 … … … 409 409

2008-09 153 138 145 … … … 450 451

2009-10 176 151 163 … … … 513 513

2010-11 194 168 180 … … … 564 564

2011-12 206 185 195 113.1 110.4 111.9 611 611

Last Month of

1995-96 339 292 319 … … … 237 238

1996-97 373 322 351 … … … 262 262

1997-98 401 352 380 … … … 272 273

1998-99 431 391 414 … … … 296 296

1999-00 446 418 434 … … … 306 307

2000-01 446 444 445 … … … 300 302

2001-02 462 476 468 … … … 309 311

2002-03 479 498 487 … … … 324 326

2003-04 494 517 504 … … … 332 334

2004-05 502 555 525 … … … 340 342

2005-06 115a 122a 119a … … … 358 360

2006-07 129 125 127 … … … 392 393

2007-08 141 134 137 … … … 423 423

2008-09 156 141 148 … … … 463 464

5.3 : ALL INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS

Industrial workers (CPI-IW) New Series (CPI-NS) Agricultural

labourers (CPI-AL)

Food Non-Food General General Rural Urban All-India

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1982=100 & 2001=100) (2010=100) (1986-87=100)

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 11AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201310

Source: 1. Labour Bureau, Shimla for consumer price indices for Industrial Workers (IW), Agricultural Labourers (AL) and Rural Labourers

(RL), Source: 2. C.S.O. for consumer price indices for new series (CPI-NS).

P: Provisional

a The current series of CPI for Industrial Workers with 2001 base was introduced w.e.f. January, 2006 and the gures from 2005-06 (last

month) are based on new base. The earlier series on base 1982=100 was simultaneously discontinued. The conversion factor from the

current to the old series is 4.63 in case of the General Index, and 4.58 for Food Index.

b Average index from November, 1995 to March 1996.

Note 1: Annual gures are yearly averages of months. Note 2: Weights of CPI-IW for food & non-food with base 1982=100 are 57% &

43% respectively and with base 2001=100 are 46.20% & 53.80% respectively. Note 3: CPI- New Series (Rural, Urban & All-India) was

introduced w.e.f. January 2011. The CPI-UNME has since been totally discontinued.

Rural labourers

(CPI-RL)

Description General

1 9

Base (1986-87=100)

Industrial workers (CPI-IW) New Series (CPI-NS) Agricultural

labourers (CPI-AL)

Food Non-Food General General Rural Urban All-India

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1982=100 & 2001=100) (2010=100) (1986-87=100)

2009-10 181 161 170 … … … 536 536

2010-11 196 176 185 106.9 103.9 105.6 585 584

2011-12 212 192 201 116.2 114.6 115.5 625 626

2011-12

April 197 177 186 107.5 104.5 106.2 587 587

May 198 178 187 108.7 105.0 107.1 592 592

June 201 179 189 109.9 107.3 108.8 598 597

July 204 184 193 111.7 108.9 110.5 604 604

August 205 185 194 113.1 109.9 111.7 610 610

September 209 187 197 114.4 111.1 113.0 615 614

October 212 186 198 115.2 112.0 113.8 619 620

November 212 188 199 115.4 112.5 114.1 621 621

December 207 188 197 114.5 112.3 113.6 618 619

January 206 191 198 114.9 112.8 114.0 618 619

February 207 192 199 115.4 113.5 114.6 621 623

March 212 192 201 116.2 114.6 115.5 625 626

2012-13

April 218 194 205 117.9 116.1 117.1 633 634

May 219 195 206 119.1 117.1 118.2 638 640

June 222 196 208 120.5 118.5 119.6 646 648

July 227 199 212 122.6 119.9 121.4 656 658

August 230 200 214 124.3 121.1 122.9 666 667

September 232 200 215 125.6 121.9 124.0 673 675

October 233 203 217 126.6 122.6 124.9 680 681

November 235 203 218 126.9 123.4 125.4 685 686

December 235 205 219 126.8P 124.0P 125.6P 688 689

Rural labourers

(CPI-RL)

Description General

1 9

Base (1986-87=100)

Average of Months

1995-96 337 280 313 … … … 237 238b

1996-97 369 307 342 … … … 256 256

1997-98 388 336 366 … … … 264 266

1998-99 445 372 414 … … … 293 294

1999-00 446 404 428 … … … 306 307

2000-01 453 433 444 … … … 305 307

2001-02 466 460 463 … … … 309 311

2002-03 477 488 482 … … … 319 321

2003-04 495 507 500 … … … 331 333

2004-05 506 538 520 … … … 340 342

2005-06 527a 563a 542a … … … 353 355

2006-07 126 124 125 … … … 380 382

2007-08 136 130 133 … … … 409 409

2008-09 153 138 145 … … … 450 451

2009-10 176 151 163 … … … 513 513

2010-11 194 168 180 … … … 564 564

2011-12 206 185 195 113.1 110.4 111.9 611 611

Last Month of

1995-96 339 292 319 … … … 237 238

1996-97 373 322 351 … … … 262 262

1997-98 401 352 380 … … … 272 273

1998-99 431 391 414 … … … 296 296

1999-00 446 418 434 … … … 306 307

2000-01 446 444 445 … … … 300 302

2001-02 462 476 468 … … … 309 311

2002-03 479 498 487 … … … 324 326

2003-04 494 517 504 … … … 332 334

2004-05 502 555 525 … … … 340 342

2005-06 115a 122a 119a … … … 358 360

2006-07 129 125 127 … … … 392 393

2007-08 141 134 137 … … … 423 423

2008-09 156 141 148 … … … 463 464

5.3 : ALL INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS

Industrial workers (CPI-IW) New Series (CPI-NS) Agricultural

labourers (CPI-AL)

Food Non-Food General General Rural Urban All-India

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1982=100 & 2001=100) (2010=100) (1986-87=100)

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 11AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201310

Source: 1. Labour Bureau, Shimla for consumer price indices for Industrial Workers (IW), Agricultural Labourers (AL) and Rural Labourers

(RL), Source: 2. C.S.O. for consumer price indices for new series (CPI-NS).

P: Provisional

a The current series of CPI for Industrial Workers with 2001 base was introduced w.e.f. January, 2006 and the gures from 2005-06 (last

month) are based on new base. The earlier series on base 1982=100 was simultaneously discontinued. The conversion factor from the

current to the old series is 4.63 in case of the General Index, and 4.58 for Food Index.

b Average index from November, 1995 to March 1996.

Note 1: Annual gures are yearly averages of months. Note 2: Weights of CPI-IW for food & non-food with base 1982=100 are 57% &

43% respectively and with base 2001=100 are 46.20% & 53.80% respectively. Note 3: CPI- New Series (Rural, Urban & All-India) was

introduced w.e.f. January 2011. The CPI-UNME has since been totally discontinued.

Rural labourers

(CPI-RL)

Description General

1 9

Base (1986-87=100)

Industrial workers (CPI-IW) New Series (CPI-NS) Agricultural

labourers (CPI-AL)

Food Non-Food General General Rural Urban All-India

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1982=100 & 2001=100) (2010=100) (1986-87=100)

2009-10 181 161 170 … … … 536 536

2010-11 196 176 185 106.9 103.9 105.6 585 584

2011-12 212 192 201 116.2 114.6 115.5 625 626

2011-12

April 197 177 186 107.5 104.5 106.2 587 587

May 198 178 187 108.7 105.0 107.1 592 592

June 201 179 189 109.9 107.3 108.8 598 597

July 204 184 193 111.7 108.9 110.5 604 604

August 205 185 194 113.1 109.9 111.7 610 610

September 209 187 197 114.4 111.1 113.0 615 614

October 212 186 198 115.2 112.0 113.8 619 620

November 212 188 199 115.4 112.5 114.1 621 621

December 207 188 197 114.5 112.3 113.6 618 619

January 206 191 198 114.9 112.8 114.0 618 619

February 207 192 199 115.4 113.5 114.6 621 623

March 212 192 201 116.2 114.6 115.5 625 626

2012-13

April 218 194 205 117.9 116.1 117.1 633 634

May 219 195 206 119.1 117.1 118.2 638 640

June 222 196 208 120.5 118.5 119.6 646 648

July 227 199 212 122.6 119.9 121.4 656 658

August 230 200 214 124.3 121.1 122.9 666 667

September 232 200 215 125.6 121.9 124.0 673 675

October 233 203 217 126.6 122.6 124.9 680 681

November 235 203 218 126.9 123.4 125.4 685 686

December 235 205 219 126.8P 124.0P 125.6P 688 689

Far from Satisfaction -Actuals and Expenditureunder Flagship Programs

as in the case another four programs centre is bearing 85 -

90 % of the nancial costs. The nancial responsibility for

the remaining schemes are more or less equally shared

considerably by the state governments as well.

1. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana(PMGSY) (100)

2. Accelerated Irrigation Benet Programme(AIBP)

(50:50)

3. Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana(RGGVY)

(90:10)

4. Accelerated Power Development & Reforms

Programme(APDRP) (25:75)

5. Indira Awaas Yojana - (IAY) (75:25)

6. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme -

(NREGS) (90:10)

7. National Horticulture Mission(NHM) (85:15)

8. Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana(RKVY) (100)

9. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan - (SSA) (60:40)

10. Mid Day Meal Scheme - (MDM) (75:25)

11. Integrated Child Development Scheme- (ICDS)

(50:50)

12. National Social Assistance Programme(NSAP) (100)

13. National Rural Health Mission - (NRHM) (85:15)

14. Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

(JNNURM) (50:20:30)

15. Total Sanitation Campaign - (TSC)(60:28:12)

16. National Rural Water Supply Programme (NRWSP)

(100)

Additionally on the eve the general elections central

government cleared some more schemes such as

delivering mobile hand sets to the rural working women,

primarily agricultural labour, educational reforms worth 3

laksh crores, rechristening of Swarja Jayanti Swarojgar

Yojana into National Urban Livelihood Mission and so on

apart from the game changer National Food Security Act.

A. Vijayaraghavan

Recently the news papers lled with the reports of “ UPA

Committed to give basic facilities to all – Sonia”, Center

writing states to improve MGNREGA”, “ All set to launch

new agship Food security scheme” “ Flagship schemes

for housing, skill training for urban poor cleared” etc. The

UPA I government came up with the new terminology of

agship programs for he rst time. Though the schemes

which were proposed under this banner are not at all

completely new, recognizing the role of their economic

linkages ushering in comprehensive development is a new

phenomenon. The 11th Five Year Plan document

visualized this linkage and said, “ though the 10th Five Year

Plan achieved 7.7 % growth, it is perceived that the

growth is not sufciently inclusive for many groups,

especially SC, ST, minorities. Gender inequalities remain a

passive problem”. To bridge this gap in developmental

indices the UPA came up with idea of agship schemes and

thus oated 13 such programs. Some of them are

completely new where as some of them are restructured

programs of old ones. Over the time three more were

added to the kitty and thus as on now 16 such programs

are under implementation as on now. The ultimate

objective behind the Flagship programs is to achieve

broad-based improvement in the living standards and to

ensure that growth is widely spread so that its benets are

adequately shared by all, especially the poor and weaker

sections of the society.

The list given below consists of schemes and also scheme

wise nancial responsibilities between the central and

state governments as indicated with the brackets.

National Food Security Act is latest in this series. Of these

four programs are completely centrally sponsored where

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 13AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201312

Since beginning of these agship programs the neo-liberal

intellectuals cried foul and worried about the return of so

called welfare state. But the Comptroller and Auditor

General of India it its latest report ( Report 1 of 2013-

Financial Audit) laid bare the claims of the government

when it reviewed the expenditure on agship schemes in

different years. Over the last four years cumulative

spending in the name of seven agship schemes stood at

4,07,058.5 crores against the budgetary allocations of

4,13,307.69 crores. In another sense contrary to the

general perception that the UPA government is spending

more on the social welfare schemes, the table explains

the gradual reduction in expenditure under these

schemes. Certain schemes such as RGGVY experienced

drastic reduction upto 62 % where as the election

winning MGNREGA program seems lost the favor of the

government. This is evident in fact that in any single year

government failed to utilize the budgetary allocations at

least leaving aside the drawing additional resources.

Way back in 2009 i tse l f nding problems in

implementation, the Prime Minister’s Ofce set up a

Delivery and Monitoring Unit to coordinate and sort out

the delivery mechanisms. Despite that arrangement,

there is no major improvements in on the ground.

Recognising this, the National Advisory Council, which

advises the government on policy matters constituted a

three member sub committee to review the

implementation problems and suggest way out under the

chairmanship of Mihir Shah, who also happened to be

planning commission member. Mihir Shah committee

came out with recommendations on three basic aspects

of the implementation of agship schemes. They are, a)

streamlining the funds ow, b) improvements in

transparency aspects, c) preparing the knowledge banks

at district level implementation. Mihir Shah committee

also nds it difcult when it comes to the nancing the

schemes. That is why its rst recommendation centers

around streamlining of fund ows. This is what the CAG

report also indicates when it looks at the budgetary

allocations and expenditure levels under different

programs.

Let us consider the allocations and actual expenditure for

nancial year 2011-12 as test case. The cumulative

allocations for seven agship schemes for the 2011-12

nancial year stands at 126312 crores and actual

expenditure at 109379 crores. Except in the case of

PMGSY in the year 2010-11 which experienced almost

double amount spent than the budget allocation, for all

the agship schemes the situation stands same. Year by

year the expenditure on these schemes is decreasing.

When we look at the nature of the schemes the

MGNREGA is the only scheme that is intended to

enhance the livelihood sources and wages for the

majority of the rural poor and also is a program of

permanency. Hence out of the near about 4 lakhs crores

of allocations, MGNREGA component itself is about

1,79,079.2 crores. But actual expenditure is only 125842

crores short of nearly 53, 237.2 croresm which is a

whopping 29.72 %. That means, over the last four years

itself, out of the allocations under MGNREGA,

government could not spend nearly 30 % of allocations !

According to the estimates available from the rural

development ministry websites (off course they are

questionable ) monitoring unit reports that for the

nancial year 2008-09, the beneciaries under the

program was 4, 51,15, 358 where as for the 2011-12

nancial year it stood at 5, 49, 54, 225 ( nearly 5.5 crores)

which means increase of 1 crore. As it is the program

based consisting daily wage component, increase in the

number of beneciaries with out increase in expenditure

budget means decrease in the real wages under the

program which is against the law itself.

But the CAG report mentioned in the table below

informs us that the actual expenditure is decreasing over

the period gradually. This brings into focus the actual

magnitude of the program. According to the act, it is

mandatory to provide 100 days employment at

prescribed wages. But the basic analysis of the CAG

report and its comparison with monitoring reports from

the ministry of rural development makes it clear that

neither the beneciaries are getting 100 days

employment not the prescribed wages. The statistical

play reveals that with mere 2000 crores increase in

Far from Satisfaction -Actuals and Expenditureunder Flagship Programs

as in the case another four programs centre is bearing 85 -

90 % of the nancial costs. The nancial responsibility for

the remaining schemes are more or less equally shared

considerably by the state governments as well.

1. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana(PMGSY) (100)

2. Accelerated Irrigation Benet Programme(AIBP)

(50:50)

3. Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana(RGGVY)

(90:10)

4. Accelerated Power Development & Reforms

Programme(APDRP) (25:75)

5. Indira Awaas Yojana - (IAY) (75:25)

6. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme -

(NREGS) (90:10)

7. National Horticulture Mission(NHM) (85:15)

8. Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana(RKVY) (100)

9. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan - (SSA) (60:40)

10. Mid Day Meal Scheme - (MDM) (75:25)

11. Integrated Child Development Scheme- (ICDS)

(50:50)

12. National Social Assistance Programme(NSAP) (100)

13. National Rural Health Mission - (NRHM) (85:15)

14. Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

(JNNURM) (50:20:30)

15. Total Sanitation Campaign - (TSC)(60:28:12)

16. National Rural Water Supply Programme (NRWSP)

(100)

Additionally on the eve the general elections central

government cleared some more schemes such as

delivering mobile hand sets to the rural working women,

primarily agricultural labour, educational reforms worth 3

laksh crores, rechristening of Swarja Jayanti Swarojgar

Yojana into National Urban Livelihood Mission and so on

apart from the game changer National Food Security Act.

A. Vijayaraghavan

Recently the news papers lled with the reports of “ UPA

Committed to give basic facilities to all – Sonia”, Center

writing states to improve MGNREGA”, “ All set to launch

new agship Food security scheme” “ Flagship schemes

for housing, skill training for urban poor cleared” etc. The

UPA I government came up with the new terminology of

agship programs for he rst time. Though the schemes

which were proposed under this banner are not at all

completely new, recognizing the role of their economic

linkages ushering in comprehensive development is a new

phenomenon. The 11th Five Year Plan document

visualized this linkage and said, “ though the 10th Five Year

Plan achieved 7.7 % growth, it is perceived that the

growth is not sufciently inclusive for many groups,

especially SC, ST, minorities. Gender inequalities remain a

passive problem”. To bridge this gap in developmental

indices the UPA came up with idea of agship schemes and

thus oated 13 such programs. Some of them are

completely new where as some of them are restructured

programs of old ones. Over the time three more were

added to the kitty and thus as on now 16 such programs

are under implementation as on now. The ultimate

objective behind the Flagship programs is to achieve

broad-based improvement in the living standards and to

ensure that growth is widely spread so that its benets are

adequately shared by all, especially the poor and weaker

sections of the society.

The list given below consists of schemes and also scheme

wise nancial responsibilities between the central and

state governments as indicated with the brackets.

National Food Security Act is latest in this series. Of these

four programs are completely centrally sponsored where

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 13AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201312

Since beginning of these agship programs the neo-liberal

intellectuals cried foul and worried about the return of so

called welfare state. But the Comptroller and Auditor

General of India it its latest report ( Report 1 of 2013-

Financial Audit) laid bare the claims of the government

when it reviewed the expenditure on agship schemes in

different years. Over the last four years cumulative

spending in the name of seven agship schemes stood at

4,07,058.5 crores against the budgetary allocations of

4,13,307.69 crores. In another sense contrary to the

general perception that the UPA government is spending

more on the social welfare schemes, the table explains

the gradual reduction in expenditure under these

schemes. Certain schemes such as RGGVY experienced

drastic reduction upto 62 % where as the election

winning MGNREGA program seems lost the favor of the

government. This is evident in fact that in any single year

government failed to utilize the budgetary allocations at

least leaving aside the drawing additional resources.

Way back in 2009 i tse l f nding problems in

implementation, the Prime Minister’s Ofce set up a

Delivery and Monitoring Unit to coordinate and sort out

the delivery mechanisms. Despite that arrangement,

there is no major improvements in on the ground.

Recognising this, the National Advisory Council, which

advises the government on policy matters constituted a

three member sub committee to review the

implementation problems and suggest way out under the

chairmanship of Mihir Shah, who also happened to be

planning commission member. Mihir Shah committee

came out with recommendations on three basic aspects

of the implementation of agship schemes. They are, a)

streamlining the funds ow, b) improvements in

transparency aspects, c) preparing the knowledge banks

at district level implementation. Mihir Shah committee

also nds it difcult when it comes to the nancing the

schemes. That is why its rst recommendation centers

around streamlining of fund ows. This is what the CAG

report also indicates when it looks at the budgetary

allocations and expenditure levels under different

programs.

Let us consider the allocations and actual expenditure for

nancial year 2011-12 as test case. The cumulative

allocations for seven agship schemes for the 2011-12

nancial year stands at 126312 crores and actual

expenditure at 109379 crores. Except in the case of

PMGSY in the year 2010-11 which experienced almost

double amount spent than the budget allocation, for all

the agship schemes the situation stands same. Year by

year the expenditure on these schemes is decreasing.

When we look at the nature of the schemes the

MGNREGA is the only scheme that is intended to

enhance the livelihood sources and wages for the

majority of the rural poor and also is a program of

permanency. Hence out of the near about 4 lakhs crores

of allocations, MGNREGA component itself is about

1,79,079.2 crores. But actual expenditure is only 125842

crores short of nearly 53, 237.2 croresm which is a

whopping 29.72 %. That means, over the last four years

itself, out of the allocations under MGNREGA,

government could not spend nearly 30 % of allocations !

According to the estimates available from the rural

development ministry websites (off course they are

questionable ) monitoring unit reports that for the

nancial year 2008-09, the beneciaries under the

program was 4, 51,15, 358 where as for the 2011-12

nancial year it stood at 5, 49, 54, 225 ( nearly 5.5 crores)

which means increase of 1 crore. As it is the program

based consisting daily wage component, increase in the

number of beneciaries with out increase in expenditure

budget means decrease in the real wages under the

program which is against the law itself.

But the CAG report mentioned in the table below

informs us that the actual expenditure is decreasing over

the period gradually. This brings into focus the actual

magnitude of the program. According to the act, it is

mandatory to provide 100 days employment at

prescribed wages. But the basic analysis of the CAG

report and its comparison with monitoring reports from

the ministry of rural development makes it clear that

neither the beneciaries are getting 100 days

employment not the prescribed wages. The statistical

play reveals that with mere 2000 crores increase in

expenditure ( 27,250 crores in 2008-09 and 29, 213

crores in 2011-12) resulted in creation of employment

opportunities for another one crore people (4, 51, 15,

358 to 5, 49, 54, 225) which makes government data

questionable.

Similar the case of Indiara Avas Yojana. The scheme is

basically designed to ensure proper basic housing for all

the poor and destitute households. 1998 habitat policy

gave a llip to this scheme and has experienced

considerable enhancements in the budget allocations.

According to one study, over the 27 years, since the

beginning of the scheme, government spent 35,450 crore

for rural housing, that means, on average 1312 croes per

annum ! The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) conrms

the wide gap between the budgetary allocations as well as

actual expenditure. The CPR concludes, the spending as a

proportion of available funds (releases and unspent

balances from previous years) was consistent at 84

percent between 2006-07 and 2009-10 nancial years.

But during the 2008-09, the actual spending came down

to 58 % of budget allocations. That was also the year in

which international nancial crisis broke out and

countries started facing the budgetary constraints. The

condition of remaining agship programs is not different

from that of the above mentioned two.

Also there is one more aspect that needs to be considered

while examining the expenditure on the agship

programs. Ranging from MGNREGA to NRHM to

JNNURM all the agship programs are falling pray to the

corrupt practices at varied levels due to the lack of proper

monitoring mechanisms, lack of social audit, and even due

to the nexus between the administrative authorities and

contractors resulting in the severe criticism from among

the different quarters. This corruption has been being

used as a weapon to scuttle down the programs as a

whole disregarding the role and social impact they are

leading to.

Apart from this there are two more important aspects to

this question. One is the reasons behind the difference

between the budget allocations and actual expenditures

over the period. One must remember the fact that what

ever the budget announcements, the government is

governed by the budget responsibility and scal

management irrespective of the ruling parties at the

center. This scal responsibility and budget management

act ( popularly called as FRBM act) imposes the ceiling on

the over all expenditure of the government and also xes

the bench mark in terms of scal decit. As we know, for

more than a year the neo liberal policy analysts both

foreign and indigenous experts are warning the

government about the widening current account decit

as well as. The nance minister’s statement suggesting the

universal cut of 15 % on all government expenditure is an

indication to this effect.

The second issue this analysis brings forth is about the

varied levels of implementation. Apart from the scal

restraint on the part of central government, lack of

proper stress on the execution of these programs is also a

reason for reduction in expenditure. Some of these

schemes comes with nancial obligations on the state

governments. Please refer above box for scheme wise

details of state governments nancial obligations. As the

state governments are stung with lack of resources, it is

nancially convenient for them also not to implement

these schemes at the prescribed levels. All these schemes

and programs are demand driven and as much demand

arises that much of the expenditure it demands. Both the

reasons, nancial constraints on the part of central and

state governments, as well as tardy implementation levels

results in the reduction of allocations. The duty of rank

and le of All India Agricultural Workers Union is to

mobilize the section wise people for whose benets these

programs are designed and see that the benets reaches

to all and in the process ght the corruption that hampers

the schemes progress and imposes burden on the

agricultural workers families. Towards this direction we

need to focus our energies.

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 15AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201314

Struggle for SCSP Act - Experience from Andhra Pradesh

development failed to ensure the benets reach the under

privileged sections of people. Thus a demand came up for

a dedicated allotment of funds for a directed development

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes instead of

ending up as beneciaries of incidental development. As

result of serious introspection within the government

about this fact, a policy instrument was devised to meet

this development gap, and thus the concept of Special

Central Assistance to the States came in. This has been

reframed now as Scheduled Cast Sub Plan, and Tribal Sub

Plan. It too almost 25 years for the central government to

come up with guidelines for implementation of Sub Plan.

The basic concept of sub plan is prorate allocation of funds

for the development of targeted groups of population

who are historically experiencing the lack of government

support. Hence it is obvious to look at the data of

scheduled caste population across the states. The census

report 2011 gives us details about the state wise

distribution of scheduled caste population both in rural

and urban areas (Table 1). According to 2011 Census,

Paturu Ramayya

The concept of Special Central Assistance ( SCA) as the

Scheduled Caste Sub Plan and Tribal Sub Plan, was the

outcome of realisation that the general path of

developmental that post independent India had

embarked, could not give enough space for the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was found that there is

development gap between the general public and those of

SCs and STs. It is this realisation that lead to the Special

Central Assistance (SCA), the precursor to the SCSP and

TSP coming into being in 1979. In effect, it can be said that

the so called trickledown theory of economic

Major Flagship Programmes of the Government in the part four years – Actual expenditures and budget estimates

Sr. Programme 2008-09 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 No

BE Acuals BE Acuals BE Acuals BE Acuals

1 SSA 13100.00 12625.80 13100 12825 15000 19637 20413 20841

2 MDM 8000. 6540 8000 6932 9440 9118 10061 9891

3 MGNREGA 29939.60 27250 39100 33538 40100 35841 40000 29213

4 RGGVY 5500 5500 6300 5000 5500 5000 6000 2237

5 IAY 5645.77 8795.79 8800 8800 10000 10337 10000 9872

6 PMGSY 3615.00 14698.39 12000 11340 12000 22400 20000 19342

7 NRHM 9191.82 10477.52 155934 15670 17138 16238 19838 17983

Total 74983.19 85887.5 102834 93143 109178 118649 126312 109379

Note : Statistics for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are from CAG Report 1 of 2013. Data for the year 2008-09 collected from different

government sources.

Note 2 : Abbreviations

SSA = Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, MDM = Mid Day Meal Scheme , MGNREGA = Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

Guarantee Act, RGGVY = Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyudeekaran Yojana, IAY = Indira Avas Yojana, PMGSY = Pradhan Mantri Gram

Swarojgar Yojana, NRHM = National Rural Health Mission

expenditure ( 27,250 crores in 2008-09 and 29, 213

crores in 2011-12) resulted in creation of employment

opportunities for another one crore people (4, 51, 15,

358 to 5, 49, 54, 225) which makes government data

questionable.

Similar the case of Indiara Avas Yojana. The scheme is

basically designed to ensure proper basic housing for all

the poor and destitute households. 1998 habitat policy

gave a llip to this scheme and has experienced

considerable enhancements in the budget allocations.

According to one study, over the 27 years, since the

beginning of the scheme, government spent 35,450 crore

for rural housing, that means, on average 1312 croes per

annum ! The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) conrms

the wide gap between the budgetary allocations as well as

actual expenditure. The CPR concludes, the spending as a

proportion of available funds (releases and unspent

balances from previous years) was consistent at 84

percent between 2006-07 and 2009-10 nancial years.

But during the 2008-09, the actual spending came down

to 58 % of budget allocations. That was also the year in

which international nancial crisis broke out and

countries started facing the budgetary constraints. The

condition of remaining agship programs is not different

from that of the above mentioned two.

Also there is one more aspect that needs to be considered

while examining the expenditure on the agship

programs. Ranging from MGNREGA to NRHM to

JNNURM all the agship programs are falling pray to the

corrupt practices at varied levels due to the lack of proper

monitoring mechanisms, lack of social audit, and even due

to the nexus between the administrative authorities and

contractors resulting in the severe criticism from among

the different quarters. This corruption has been being

used as a weapon to scuttle down the programs as a

whole disregarding the role and social impact they are

leading to.

Apart from this there are two more important aspects to

this question. One is the reasons behind the difference

between the budget allocations and actual expenditures

over the period. One must remember the fact that what

ever the budget announcements, the government is

governed by the budget responsibility and scal

management irrespective of the ruling parties at the

center. This scal responsibility and budget management

act ( popularly called as FRBM act) imposes the ceiling on

the over all expenditure of the government and also xes

the bench mark in terms of scal decit. As we know, for

more than a year the neo liberal policy analysts both

foreign and indigenous experts are warning the

government about the widening current account decit

as well as. The nance minister’s statement suggesting the

universal cut of 15 % on all government expenditure is an

indication to this effect.

The second issue this analysis brings forth is about the

varied levels of implementation. Apart from the scal

restraint on the part of central government, lack of

proper stress on the execution of these programs is also a

reason for reduction in expenditure. Some of these

schemes comes with nancial obligations on the state

governments. Please refer above box for scheme wise

details of state governments nancial obligations. As the

state governments are stung with lack of resources, it is

nancially convenient for them also not to implement

these schemes at the prescribed levels. All these schemes

and programs are demand driven and as much demand

arises that much of the expenditure it demands. Both the

reasons, nancial constraints on the part of central and

state governments, as well as tardy implementation levels

results in the reduction of allocations. The duty of rank

and le of All India Agricultural Workers Union is to

mobilize the section wise people for whose benets these

programs are designed and see that the benets reaches

to all and in the process ght the corruption that hampers

the schemes progress and imposes burden on the

agricultural workers families. Towards this direction we

need to focus our energies.

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 15AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201314

Struggle for SCSP Act - Experience from Andhra Pradesh

development failed to ensure the benets reach the under

privileged sections of people. Thus a demand came up for

a dedicated allotment of funds for a directed development

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes instead of

ending up as beneciaries of incidental development. As

result of serious introspection within the government

about this fact, a policy instrument was devised to meet

this development gap, and thus the concept of Special

Central Assistance to the States came in. This has been

reframed now as Scheduled Cast Sub Plan, and Tribal Sub

Plan. It too almost 25 years for the central government to

come up with guidelines for implementation of Sub Plan.

The basic concept of sub plan is prorate allocation of funds

for the development of targeted groups of population

who are historically experiencing the lack of government

support. Hence it is obvious to look at the data of

scheduled caste population across the states. The census

report 2011 gives us details about the state wise

distribution of scheduled caste population both in rural

and urban areas (Table 1). According to 2011 Census,

Paturu Ramayya

The concept of Special Central Assistance ( SCA) as the

Scheduled Caste Sub Plan and Tribal Sub Plan, was the

outcome of realisation that the general path of

developmental that post independent India had

embarked, could not give enough space for the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was found that there is

development gap between the general public and those of

SCs and STs. It is this realisation that lead to the Special

Central Assistance (SCA), the precursor to the SCSP and

TSP coming into being in 1979. In effect, it can be said that

the so called trickledown theory of economic

Major Flagship Programmes of the Government in the part four years – Actual expenditures and budget estimates

Sr. Programme 2008-09 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 No

BE Acuals BE Acuals BE Acuals BE Acuals

1 SSA 13100.00 12625.80 13100 12825 15000 19637 20413 20841

2 MDM 8000. 6540 8000 6932 9440 9118 10061 9891

3 MGNREGA 29939.60 27250 39100 33538 40100 35841 40000 29213

4 RGGVY 5500 5500 6300 5000 5500 5000 6000 2237

5 IAY 5645.77 8795.79 8800 8800 10000 10337 10000 9872

6 PMGSY 3615.00 14698.39 12000 11340 12000 22400 20000 19342

7 NRHM 9191.82 10477.52 155934 15670 17138 16238 19838 17983

Total 74983.19 85887.5 102834 93143 109178 118649 126312 109379

Note : Statistics for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are from CAG Report 1 of 2013. Data for the year 2008-09 collected from different

government sources.

Note 2 : Abbreviations

SSA = Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, MDM = Mid Day Meal Scheme , MGNREGA = Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

Guarantee Act, RGGVY = Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyudeekaran Yojana, IAY = Indira Avas Yojana, PMGSY = Pradhan Mantri Gram

Swarojgar Yojana, NRHM = National Rural Health Mission

that letter itself Mukul Wasnik requested the Planning

Commission to “ issue revised guidelines with a suitably

differentiated approach vis – a –vis various groups of

Ministries. In other words, depending on the nature of

their work, Ministries may be asked to earmark less or

more than 16.2 %,” as the departments and ministries

failed to comply with the present guidelines which

mandates the earmarking of 16.2% of their plan outlay for

Scheduled Caste Sub Plan.

Table 2

SCSP Outlays

Seventh Plan 1.08% (SCSP+ TSP)

Eighth Plan 3.36 %

Ninth Plan 10.63%

Tenth Plan (2002-04) 10.63%

2006-07 (RE) 4.83%

2007-08 6.11%

2010-11 7.25%

2011-12 8.98%

When we look at the table -2, it is evident that in no plan

period, since in inception of Sub Plan, the government not

allocated the required percentage of funds for the

Scheduled caste sub plan till now. Table two indicates the

plan wise under allocations. Not only that despite the

Government Released A draft be for schedule cast sub

plan, Budgetary allocation in 2013-14 nancial year for the

sub plan under varies departments stands majer. Even

that meagerly earmarked funds have been diverted for

different purposes other than the development of

scheduled caste population. Every state government has

its own tale in this regards The situation in Andhra

Pradesh is also not different from that of the nation. Over

the last 19 years nearly 30, 000 crore of funds earmarked

for the development of scheduled castes in the state were

diverted for other purposes.. It is this context that

compelled the Kula Vivaksha Vyatireka Porata Sangham (

Organisation to ght the caste discrimination) drew the

public attention and mobilized public opinion on the need

of providing the constitutional guarantee for the

scheduled caste population is 16.6 percent of India’s

population ( 20,13,78,562) slightly increased from 16.2 %

from 2001. Going by the census estimates, each state has

to earmark a percentage of funds in proportion to the

scheduled caste population, from their budgets for the

development of scheduled caste population. But on the

ground the reality is quite different from the policy

announcements.

Despite the policy’s existence for nearly three decades, in

no single year the budgetary allocations of central

governments including plan expenditure are below the

sub plan mandate. Governments, it is proved from the

experience of three decades, are not willing to develop

the suitable mechanisms for the development programs

of SCs and STs which becomes an alibi for not earmarking

the necessary funds under sub plans. In recent history

itself, there are several instances of diversion of funds

earmarked for scheduled caste sub plans like one we have

seen in commonwealth games in Delhi. The union

minister for tribal welfare himself went on record about

such diversion of funds in case of TSP. Apart from the lack

of suitable administrative mechanism, and legal mandate

for earmarking and execution of funds under SCSP, the

process of earmarking also riddle with lack of

transparency and arbitrariness. Centre for Budget

Governance and Accountability had done a detailed study

on the state of allocations for these sub plans.

On the one hand the concept of Scheduled caste sub plan

fraught with the lack of funds, attention and

implementation and on the other hand, the planning

commission came up with an alternative measures that

guide the budgetary allocations. Before going into the

details, let us shed some light on the background of the

new criteria which represents the paradigmatic shift in

earmarking the funds for Scheduled Castes Sub Plan and

Tribal Sub Plan. Followed by the fact that majority of the

central ministries/ departments as well as several

governments failed to earmark required proportion of

funds under Scheduled Caste Sub Plan and Tribal Sub Plan,

the then Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment,

Mukul Wasnik sought in 2009 that the Planning

Commission, sort out the riddle and apprise the Ministry

of outlays earmarked by various Ministries under SCSP. In

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 17AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201316

scheduled caste sub plan implementation way back in

2003 for the rst time. Since then, until 2007 the KVPS

and agricultural workers union conducted district level

conventions and before the budget presentation in 2007,

under the leadership of KVPS vice president B. V

Raghavulu, sat on indenite hunger fast along with 25

other KVPS leaders on the demand of proportionate

allocation of funds in the budget and creation of nodal

agency to over see the implementation of the sub plan in

the state. These demands draw widespread support and

solidarity from 380 NGOs and other dalit organizations.

Finally the agitation forced the government of Andhra

Pradesh to release a GO Ms. No. 117/ 2007 instituting a

nodal agency under the chairmanship of cabinet minister

for social welfare and also budgeted suitable funds for

Scheduled caste sub plan as well as Scheduled Tribes sub

plan.

After conduction wide spread consultations the KVPS

came to conclusion that to rectify the lacunae in the

implementation of sub plans, and to provide the

administrative directions, the executive orders are to be

shaped into a legislation and thus provide a legal sanctity

to the executive decisions. Unless they are backed by

legal mandate, the executive nds it easy to undermine

the need of the sub plan. On this demand, the KVPS along

with All India Agricultural Workers Union in Andhra

Pradesh conducted state wise multi-phased agitation

which was culminated in a Chalo Assembly program on

March 19, 2011 during the budget session of assembly.

The state government tried unsuccessfully its best to

disrupt the hunger strike camp by arresting and shifting

the leaders on fast to hospitals at midnights. The agitation

also witnessed a 35000 strong activists from all mass

organizations thronged state assembly which forced the

state government to send a delegation to hold discussions

with the leaders who are on fast in hospitals. After the

negotiations, the Chief minister announced a sub

committee with intellectuals to look into the enactment

of SCSP/TSP legislation. Again, once the sub committee

submitted its report, the government sat on it for more

than one year which compelled the KVPS and agricultural

workers union to undertook one more phase of agitation

and also obtained the support of 59 SC/ST members of

legislative assembly and legislative council demanding the

discussion on the sub committee report in assembly.

Subsequent to this the chief minister announced on

March 27th 2012 that the government is going to

introduce a bill on SC, ST sub plans and appointed a

cabinet sub committee to set the process rolling and

nally the legislation came into existence in the beginning

of 2013.

The experience from Andhra Pradesh shows that unless

there is a widespread mass movements the government

is not ready to keep its own commitments. Though the

central government brought out a model bill in the lines of

legislation adopted by Andhra Pradesh, nothing moved

further. During the elections, from all those who comes

seeking our votes, we shall take a commitment that on

election, they shall work for enactment of SCSP / TSP

legislations in respective states as well as at the central

government level. To achieve that we need to organize

the dalits on two levels. One is educating them about the

advantages of the sub plan as well as the lack of

government commitment in implementation at one level

and at another level, need of nation wide mass

mobilization in achieving the legal right for sub plan funds.

Towards that we need to build a mass movement by

involving large number of like minded people who are

sympathetic to the dalit cause in India. All India

Agricultural Workers Union shall gear up to lead that mass

based wider movement. Table 1

Percentage of Scheduled Caste population to total population : 2001, 2011 Census

Percentage of SC Population 2001 Percentage of SC Population 2011

State Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

India 17.9 11.8 16.2 18.5 12.6 16.6

Jammu & Kashmir 8.3 6.3 7.6 8.2 5.1 7.4

Himachal Pradesh 25.6 16.6 24.7 26.0 17.8 25.2

that letter itself Mukul Wasnik requested the Planning

Commission to “ issue revised guidelines with a suitably

differentiated approach vis – a –vis various groups of

Ministries. In other words, depending on the nature of

their work, Ministries may be asked to earmark less or

more than 16.2 %,” as the departments and ministries

failed to comply with the present guidelines which

mandates the earmarking of 16.2% of their plan outlay for

Scheduled Caste Sub Plan.

Table 2

SCSP Outlays

Seventh Plan 1.08% (SCSP+ TSP)

Eighth Plan 3.36 %

Ninth Plan 10.63%

Tenth Plan (2002-04) 10.63%

2006-07 (RE) 4.83%

2007-08 6.11%

2010-11 7.25%

2011-12 8.98%

When we look at the table -2, it is evident that in no plan

period, since in inception of Sub Plan, the government not

allocated the required percentage of funds for the

Scheduled caste sub plan till now. Table two indicates the

plan wise under allocations. Not only that despite the

Government Released A draft be for schedule cast sub

plan, Budgetary allocation in 2013-14 nancial year for the

sub plan under varies departments stands majer. Even

that meagerly earmarked funds have been diverted for

different purposes other than the development of

scheduled caste population. Every state government has

its own tale in this regards The situation in Andhra

Pradesh is also not different from that of the nation. Over

the last 19 years nearly 30, 000 crore of funds earmarked

for the development of scheduled castes in the state were

diverted for other purposes.. It is this context that

compelled the Kula Vivaksha Vyatireka Porata Sangham (

Organisation to ght the caste discrimination) drew the

public attention and mobilized public opinion on the need

of providing the constitutional guarantee for the

scheduled caste population is 16.6 percent of India’s

population ( 20,13,78,562) slightly increased from 16.2 %

from 2001. Going by the census estimates, each state has

to earmark a percentage of funds in proportion to the

scheduled caste population, from their budgets for the

development of scheduled caste population. But on the

ground the reality is quite different from the policy

announcements.

Despite the policy’s existence for nearly three decades, in

no single year the budgetary allocations of central

governments including plan expenditure are below the

sub plan mandate. Governments, it is proved from the

experience of three decades, are not willing to develop

the suitable mechanisms for the development programs

of SCs and STs which becomes an alibi for not earmarking

the necessary funds under sub plans. In recent history

itself, there are several instances of diversion of funds

earmarked for scheduled caste sub plans like one we have

seen in commonwealth games in Delhi. The union

minister for tribal welfare himself went on record about

such diversion of funds in case of TSP. Apart from the lack

of suitable administrative mechanism, and legal mandate

for earmarking and execution of funds under SCSP, the

process of earmarking also riddle with lack of

transparency and arbitrariness. Centre for Budget

Governance and Accountability had done a detailed study

on the state of allocations for these sub plans.

On the one hand the concept of Scheduled caste sub plan

fraught with the lack of funds, attention and

implementation and on the other hand, the planning

commission came up with an alternative measures that

guide the budgetary allocations. Before going into the

details, let us shed some light on the background of the

new criteria which represents the paradigmatic shift in

earmarking the funds for Scheduled Castes Sub Plan and

Tribal Sub Plan. Followed by the fact that majority of the

central ministries/ departments as well as several

governments failed to earmark required proportion of

funds under Scheduled Caste Sub Plan and Tribal Sub Plan,

the then Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment,

Mukul Wasnik sought in 2009 that the Planning

Commission, sort out the riddle and apprise the Ministry

of outlays earmarked by various Ministries under SCSP. In

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 17AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201316

scheduled caste sub plan implementation way back in

2003 for the rst time. Since then, until 2007 the KVPS

and agricultural workers union conducted district level

conventions and before the budget presentation in 2007,

under the leadership of KVPS vice president B. V

Raghavulu, sat on indenite hunger fast along with 25

other KVPS leaders on the demand of proportionate

allocation of funds in the budget and creation of nodal

agency to over see the implementation of the sub plan in

the state. These demands draw widespread support and

solidarity from 380 NGOs and other dalit organizations.

Finally the agitation forced the government of Andhra

Pradesh to release a GO Ms. No. 117/ 2007 instituting a

nodal agency under the chairmanship of cabinet minister

for social welfare and also budgeted suitable funds for

Scheduled caste sub plan as well as Scheduled Tribes sub

plan.

After conduction wide spread consultations the KVPS

came to conclusion that to rectify the lacunae in the

implementation of sub plans, and to provide the

administrative directions, the executive orders are to be

shaped into a legislation and thus provide a legal sanctity

to the executive decisions. Unless they are backed by

legal mandate, the executive nds it easy to undermine

the need of the sub plan. On this demand, the KVPS along

with All India Agricultural Workers Union in Andhra

Pradesh conducted state wise multi-phased agitation

which was culminated in a Chalo Assembly program on

March 19, 2011 during the budget session of assembly.

The state government tried unsuccessfully its best to

disrupt the hunger strike camp by arresting and shifting

the leaders on fast to hospitals at midnights. The agitation

also witnessed a 35000 strong activists from all mass

organizations thronged state assembly which forced the

state government to send a delegation to hold discussions

with the leaders who are on fast in hospitals. After the

negotiations, the Chief minister announced a sub

committee with intellectuals to look into the enactment

of SCSP/TSP legislation. Again, once the sub committee

submitted its report, the government sat on it for more

than one year which compelled the KVPS and agricultural

workers union to undertook one more phase of agitation

and also obtained the support of 59 SC/ST members of

legislative assembly and legislative council demanding the

discussion on the sub committee report in assembly.

Subsequent to this the chief minister announced on

March 27th 2012 that the government is going to

introduce a bill on SC, ST sub plans and appointed a

cabinet sub committee to set the process rolling and

nally the legislation came into existence in the beginning

of 2013.

The experience from Andhra Pradesh shows that unless

there is a widespread mass movements the government

is not ready to keep its own commitments. Though the

central government brought out a model bill in the lines of

legislation adopted by Andhra Pradesh, nothing moved

further. During the elections, from all those who comes

seeking our votes, we shall take a commitment that on

election, they shall work for enactment of SCSP / TSP

legislations in respective states as well as at the central

government level. To achieve that we need to organize

the dalits on two levels. One is educating them about the

advantages of the sub plan as well as the lack of

government commitment in implementation at one level

and at another level, need of nation wide mass

mobilization in achieving the legal right for sub plan funds.

Towards that we need to build a mass movement by

involving large number of like minded people who are

sympathetic to the dalit cause in India. All India

Agricultural Workers Union shall gear up to lead that mass

based wider movement. Table 1

Percentage of Scheduled Caste population to total population : 2001, 2011 Census

Percentage of SC Population 2001 Percentage of SC Population 2011

State Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

India 17.9 11.8 16.2 18.5 12.6 16.6

Jammu & Kashmir 8.3 6.3 7.6 8.2 5.1 7.4

Himachal Pradesh 25.6 16.6 24.7 26.0 17.8 25.2

Percentage of SC Population 2001 Percentage of SC Population 2011

State Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

Punjab 33.0 20.7 28.9 37.5 22.7 31.9

Chandigarh 16.0 17.7 17.5 17.2 18.9 18.9

Uttarakhand 19.9 12.0 17.9 21.3 13.0 18.8

Haryana 21.4 14.4 19.3 22.5 15.8 20.2

NCT of Delhi 19.9 16.7 16.9 19.6 16.7 16.8

Rajashtan 17.9 14.8 17.2 18.5 15.7 17.8

Uttar Pradesh 23.4 12.5 21.1 23.0 112.7 20.7

Bihar 16.4 10.0 15.7 16.6 10.4 15.9

Sikkim 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.4 5.2 4.6

Arunachal Pradesh 0.4 1.4 0.6 NSC NSC NSC

Nagaland NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

Manipur 1.3 6.8 2.8 2.7 5.9 3.8

Mizoram 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1

Tripura` 17.2 18.3 17.4 16.1 22.6 17.8

Meghalaya 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6

Assam 6.7 7.9 6.9 6.8 9.2 7.2

West Bengal 26.9 13.1 23.0 27.5 15.0 23.5

Jharkhand 12.4 10.0 11.8 12.6 10.5 12.1

Odisha 17.2 12.7 16.5 17.8 13.8 17.1

Chattisgarh 11.4 12.4 11.6 12.8 12.8 12.8

Madhya Pradesh 15.6 14.0 15.2 15.7 15.3 15.6

Gujrat 6.9 7.5 7.1 6.6 7.0 6.7

Daman & Diu 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.6 2.2 2.5

D&N Haveli 1.7 2.5 1.9 0.7 3.0 1.8

Maharashtra 10.9 9.2 10.2 12.2 11.4 11.8

Andhra Pradesh 18.4 10.2 16.2 19.2 10.7 16.4

Karnataka 18.4 12.0 16.2 20.0 12.6 17.1

Goa 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7

Lakshadweep NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

Kerala 10.8 6.9 9.8 10.4 7.7 9.1

Tamil Nadu 23.8 12.9 19.0 25.5 14.2 20.0

Puducherry 270.2 10.7 16.2 27.9 10.1 15.7

A & N Islands NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201318

Agrarian crisis: Irreversible impact on agricultural labour

The agrarian crisis in India badly impacts the agricultural

labour whose subsistence livelihood is mainly derived

from agriculture and its ancillary occupations. Though

these downtrodden sections of society were suffering

from multifaceted miseries that are historically loaded on

them, the recent crisis triggered by neo-liberal policies

had created unbearable conditions of life. As everybody

knows that since ancient times a signicant chunk of

people were prohibited from holding land and other

property rights. Though such rights belong to the

mundane earthly relat ions of product ion and

appropriation, the denial was imposed under the garb of

religious overtones. Even today, in some parts of the

country, ‘dalits’, ‘nomadic tribes’ and some OBC

segments of population are not allowed to own, possess

and operate land thus accumulating perpetual

landlessness. The tribal communities in our country

denoted as Scheduled tribes primarily depend on forest

and forest land. Due to the onslaught of imperialist driven

pro-corporate economic and land policies, large tracts of

forest and forest land are being bestowed to big-business

depriving tribal communities. The callous reluctance of

the bureaucrats in the implementation of the forest rights

act that recognises and vests the rights of Scheduled tribes

and other traditional forest dwellers manifests the neo-

liberal mindset of the administration.

Even after Independence, the so-called land reform

policies implemented by the Central and various state

governments left unnished, except in few states like

Kerala, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir nowhere any

serious attempts were done to distribute the land to

landless and land-poor. On the contrary, the accumulation

Kumar Shiralkar

and concentration of land of middle and marginal peasants

went on relentlessly as a result of capitalist path of

development during the successive governments. Due to

the successive government’s adherence to the

prescriptions of WB, IMF and WTO, already skewed land

owning pattern has tilted against the poor and middle

peasants. Land policies over the last two decades

beneting neo-rich land maas, capitalist landlords and

corporates created new land monopolies. Authentic data

shows that 10 per cent of the population control over 55

per cent of the cultivable land while 60 per cent operates

only 5 per cent of the same. As per Agricultural Census

2010-11, small and marginal holdings of less than 2 hectare

account for 85 per cent of the total operational holdings

and 44 per cent of total operated area. The increasing

demand for conversion of agricultural land for non-

agricultural uses is limiting the area available for

cultivation. The average size of operational holdings was

2.82 hectare in1970-71. It came down to 1.55 ha in 1990-

91, then to 1.33 ha in 2000-01 and to 1.16 hectare in 2010-

11. This is happening as an inescapable outcome of the

imperialist sponsored structural liberalism.

To grasp the true meaning of the agrarian crisis one has to

look into the burning problems and issues of landless

agricultural workers, other categories of rural wage

workers and poor-middle peasants. One of such

problems is ever-growing local unemployment and forced

migration. The rate of employment in agriculture has been

drastically declined during the last 20 years of neo-liberal

regime. The unabated mechanisation in agriculture has

played havoc in the lives of millions living in rural areas. Just

a cursory look on the number of machines used in

agriculture can give us an idea of the devastating picture.

The number of tractors used for agricultural purposes in

1982 was 4982 that rose to 22600 in 2003 and up to

December 2012 it touched to 419270 (16 tractors for

1000 ha). The number of combine harvesters in 1982 was

386 that augmented to 4073 in 2003 and mounted to

10000 in 2010. Fifty two per cent of India’s work force

(22.5 crore) is engaged in agriculture for its livelihood.

The average per annum wage increase in agriculture

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 19

Percentage of SC Population 2001 Percentage of SC Population 2011

State Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

Punjab 33.0 20.7 28.9 37.5 22.7 31.9

Chandigarh 16.0 17.7 17.5 17.2 18.9 18.9

Uttarakhand 19.9 12.0 17.9 21.3 13.0 18.8

Haryana 21.4 14.4 19.3 22.5 15.8 20.2

NCT of Delhi 19.9 16.7 16.9 19.6 16.7 16.8

Rajashtan 17.9 14.8 17.2 18.5 15.7 17.8

Uttar Pradesh 23.4 12.5 21.1 23.0 112.7 20.7

Bihar 16.4 10.0 15.7 16.6 10.4 15.9

Sikkim 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.4 5.2 4.6

Arunachal Pradesh 0.4 1.4 0.6 NSC NSC NSC

Nagaland NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

Manipur 1.3 6.8 2.8 2.7 5.9 3.8

Mizoram 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1

Tripura` 17.2 18.3 17.4 16.1 22.6 17.8

Meghalaya 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6

Assam 6.7 7.9 6.9 6.8 9.2 7.2

West Bengal 26.9 13.1 23.0 27.5 15.0 23.5

Jharkhand 12.4 10.0 11.8 12.6 10.5 12.1

Odisha 17.2 12.7 16.5 17.8 13.8 17.1

Chattisgarh 11.4 12.4 11.6 12.8 12.8 12.8

Madhya Pradesh 15.6 14.0 15.2 15.7 15.3 15.6

Gujrat 6.9 7.5 7.1 6.6 7.0 6.7

Daman & Diu 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.6 2.2 2.5

D&N Haveli 1.7 2.5 1.9 0.7 3.0 1.8

Maharashtra 10.9 9.2 10.2 12.2 11.4 11.8

Andhra Pradesh 18.4 10.2 16.2 19.2 10.7 16.4

Karnataka 18.4 12.0 16.2 20.0 12.6 17.1

Goa 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7

Lakshadweep NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

Kerala 10.8 6.9 9.8 10.4 7.7 9.1

Tamil Nadu 23.8 12.9 19.0 25.5 14.2 20.0

Puducherry 270.2 10.7 16.2 27.9 10.1 15.7

A & N Islands NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC NSC

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201318

Agrarian crisis: Irreversible impact on agricultural labour

The agrarian crisis in India badly impacts the agricultural

labour whose subsistence livelihood is mainly derived

from agriculture and its ancillary occupations. Though

these downtrodden sections of society were suffering

from multifaceted miseries that are historically loaded on

them, the recent crisis triggered by neo-liberal policies

had created unbearable conditions of life. As everybody

knows that since ancient times a signicant chunk of

people were prohibited from holding land and other

property rights. Though such rights belong to the

mundane earthly relat ions of product ion and

appropriation, the denial was imposed under the garb of

religious overtones. Even today, in some parts of the

country, ‘dalits’, ‘nomadic tribes’ and some OBC

segments of population are not allowed to own, possess

and operate land thus accumulating perpetual

landlessness. The tribal communities in our country

denoted as Scheduled tribes primarily depend on forest

and forest land. Due to the onslaught of imperialist driven

pro-corporate economic and land policies, large tracts of

forest and forest land are being bestowed to big-business

depriving tribal communities. The callous reluctance of

the bureaucrats in the implementation of the forest rights

act that recognises and vests the rights of Scheduled tribes

and other traditional forest dwellers manifests the neo-

liberal mindset of the administration.

Even after Independence, the so-called land reform

policies implemented by the Central and various state

governments left unnished, except in few states like

Kerala, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir nowhere any

serious attempts were done to distribute the land to

landless and land-poor. On the contrary, the accumulation

Kumar Shiralkar

and concentration of land of middle and marginal peasants

went on relentlessly as a result of capitalist path of

development during the successive governments. Due to

the successive government’s adherence to the

prescriptions of WB, IMF and WTO, already skewed land

owning pattern has tilted against the poor and middle

peasants. Land policies over the last two decades

beneting neo-rich land maas, capitalist landlords and

corporates created new land monopolies. Authentic data

shows that 10 per cent of the population control over 55

per cent of the cultivable land while 60 per cent operates

only 5 per cent of the same. As per Agricultural Census

2010-11, small and marginal holdings of less than 2 hectare

account for 85 per cent of the total operational holdings

and 44 per cent of total operated area. The increasing

demand for conversion of agricultural land for non-

agricultural uses is limiting the area available for

cultivation. The average size of operational holdings was

2.82 hectare in1970-71. It came down to 1.55 ha in 1990-

91, then to 1.33 ha in 2000-01 and to 1.16 hectare in 2010-

11. This is happening as an inescapable outcome of the

imperialist sponsored structural liberalism.

To grasp the true meaning of the agrarian crisis one has to

look into the burning problems and issues of landless

agricultural workers, other categories of rural wage

workers and poor-middle peasants. One of such

problems is ever-growing local unemployment and forced

migration. The rate of employment in agriculture has been

drastically declined during the last 20 years of neo-liberal

regime. The unabated mechanisation in agriculture has

played havoc in the lives of millions living in rural areas. Just

a cursory look on the number of machines used in

agriculture can give us an idea of the devastating picture.

The number of tractors used for agricultural purposes in

1982 was 4982 that rose to 22600 in 2003 and up to

December 2012 it touched to 419270 (16 tractors for

1000 ha). The number of combine harvesters in 1982 was

386 that augmented to 4073 in 2003 and mounted to

10000 in 2010. Fifty two per cent of India’s work force

(22.5 crore) is engaged in agriculture for its livelihood.

The average per annum wage increase in agriculture

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 19

ALL-INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LABOURERS ON BASE 1986-87=100

September, 2013

The tables below give us an idea of how the lives and livelihood of agricultural labour is specically affected by the

price rise.

All-India Consumer Price Index Number (General & Group-wise)

Group Agricultural Labourers Rural Labourers

Aug., 2013 Sept., 2013 Aug., 2013 Sept., 2013

General Index 754 759 753 759

Food 747 751 748 752

Pan, Supari, etc. 1000 1004 1009 1013

Fuel & Light 827 837 824 834

Clothing, Bedding & Footwear 719 728 725 737

Miscellaneous 689 696 683 691

during 2001-2010 noted down in government documents

is 9 per cent compared to 6.3 per cent for industrial

workers. But the ination reected in Consumer Price

Index for agricultural workers stands at 694 and has

increased by 12.30 per cent in January 2012, the average

per annum increase during 2001-2012 being more than

10.5 per cent. That means in terms real wages, there is no

increase in agricultural labour wages, we can say.

Generally the arguments about the crisis in agriculture are

focussed on the rate of growth of agricultural output, the

comparative ratio of contribution of agricultural

production to GDP, the viability-protability-sustainability

of agricultural enterprise, the ever-augmenting cost of

inputs, the denial of remunerative prices for agricultural

produce, the decontrol of quantitative restrictions on

import, the sweeping reduction of import duties on

foreign agricultural products, the consistent trend of

declining public expenditure and investment in

agriculture-irrigation-rural development, shrinking

subsidies in agricultural, dearth of institutional credit for

agriculture and reliance on private moneylenders etc. All

the arguments put forth do contain a grain of truth though

the statistical acrobatics may pose counter arguments by

catering different numbers and gures. Let us not get lost

in these deliberate exchanges. Instead better we

concentrate our attention on the root causes and

consequences of this crisis on the health of toiling human

beings and natural resources.

The so-called economic reform policies and the

undertaken structural changes launched in 1990s and

continued by the UPA-II government vigorously are

challenging the fundamental foundation of the eco-

system. The advocates of nance capital driven free

market fundamentalism and ‘ever-Green Revolution’

(after 1960s rst ‘Green Revolution’) never tire to admire

the ever-growing use of untested GM seeds, chemical

fertilisers and pesticides. Many of those who oppose

these policies place their point of view chiey stating the

high prices of these input commodities, diminishing

subsidies and the consequent non-viable agricultural

occupation. The use of GM seeds had and having negative

impact on the employment in agriculture which is the

main source of livelihood for 1/3rd of population. We

should consciously avoid to get trapped in this type of

dispute. Our task must be to question the very necessity

of these harmful commodities. Our activity must revolve

to carefully delineate the irreversible impact on soil,

aquifers and the hazardous effects on environment and to

guide and direct the efforts to minimise them as well as on

employment potential. Awareness of the rural toiling

masses about the devastating effects of inorganic

chemicals has to be enhanced so that they would start

rethinking about the agricultural practices on the basis of

the traditional knowledge synchronised with the modern

pro-people scientic research.

The agricultural crisis is going to be aggravated by the twin

forces: one pushed by the protagonists of national and

multi-national proteers and the other by the ‘natural’

calamities: drought, ood, upheavals in climate changes

etc. But we know that the natural calamities do have a

primordial history and human beings have accustomed

and adapted to them. Our worry is how to cope with the

selshly added ‘unnatural’ elements in ‘natural’ calamities.

The answer to do away this worry lies in ghting against

the ‘unnatural’ inhuman behaviour and ‘prot-making’

practices. This ght can only be waged by the conscious

creative agriculturists in rural India who are now being

trampled under the pro big-business policy makers. The

struggle should be supported and participated by the pro

people scientists, intellectuals and urban organised

working class to convey speedy socio-economic justice to

the vast majority of our populace.

1 Andhra Pradesh 29.6 235.1 21.1 176.6 9.20 78.78

2 Arunachal Pradesh 31.4 3.8 25.9 3.5 34.67 4.91

3 Assam 34.4 97.7 37.9 116.4 31.98 101.27

4 Bihar 54.4 493.8 53.5 543.5 33.74 358.15

5 Chhattisgarh 49.4 111.5 48.7 121.9 39.93 104.11

6 Delhi 13 19.3 14.2 23.3 9.91 16.96

7 Goa 24.9 3.4 8.7 1.3 5.09 0.75

8 Gujarat 31.6 171.4 23.0 136.2 16.63 102.23

9 Haryana 24.1 54.6 20.1 50.0 11.16 28.83

10 Himachal Pradesh 22.9 14.6 9.5 6.4 8.06 5.59

S.No States

Number and Percentage of Population below poverty line by states-2004-05,2009-10 & 2011-12

(Tendulkar Methodology)

Total2004-05

Total2009-10

Ttal2011-12

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201320 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 21

ALL-INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LABOURERS ON BASE 1986-87=100

September, 2013

The tables below give us an idea of how the lives and livelihood of agricultural labour is specically affected by the

price rise.

All-India Consumer Price Index Number (General & Group-wise)

Group Agricultural Labourers Rural Labourers

Aug., 2013 Sept., 2013 Aug., 2013 Sept., 2013

General Index 754 759 753 759

Food 747 751 748 752

Pan, Supari, etc. 1000 1004 1009 1013

Fuel & Light 827 837 824 834

Clothing, Bedding & Footwear 719 728 725 737

Miscellaneous 689 696 683 691

during 2001-2010 noted down in government documents

is 9 per cent compared to 6.3 per cent for industrial

workers. But the ination reected in Consumer Price

Index for agricultural workers stands at 694 and has

increased by 12.30 per cent in January 2012, the average

per annum increase during 2001-2012 being more than

10.5 per cent. That means in terms real wages, there is no

increase in agricultural labour wages, we can say.

Generally the arguments about the crisis in agriculture are

focussed on the rate of growth of agricultural output, the

comparative ratio of contribution of agricultural

production to GDP, the viability-protability-sustainability

of agricultural enterprise, the ever-augmenting cost of

inputs, the denial of remunerative prices for agricultural

produce, the decontrol of quantitative restrictions on

import, the sweeping reduction of import duties on

foreign agricultural products, the consistent trend of

declining public expenditure and investment in

agriculture-irrigation-rural development, shrinking

subsidies in agricultural, dearth of institutional credit for

agriculture and reliance on private moneylenders etc. All

the arguments put forth do contain a grain of truth though

the statistical acrobatics may pose counter arguments by

catering different numbers and gures. Let us not get lost

in these deliberate exchanges. Instead better we

concentrate our attention on the root causes and

consequences of this crisis on the health of toiling human

beings and natural resources.

The so-called economic reform policies and the

undertaken structural changes launched in 1990s and

continued by the UPA-II government vigorously are

challenging the fundamental foundation of the eco-

system. The advocates of nance capital driven free

market fundamentalism and ‘ever-Green Revolution’

(after 1960s rst ‘Green Revolution’) never tire to admire

the ever-growing use of untested GM seeds, chemical

fertilisers and pesticides. Many of those who oppose

these policies place their point of view chiey stating the

high prices of these input commodities, diminishing

subsidies and the consequent non-viable agricultural

occupation. The use of GM seeds had and having negative

impact on the employment in agriculture which is the

main source of livelihood for 1/3rd of population. We

should consciously avoid to get trapped in this type of

dispute. Our task must be to question the very necessity

of these harmful commodities. Our activity must revolve

to carefully delineate the irreversible impact on soil,

aquifers and the hazardous effects on environment and to

guide and direct the efforts to minimise them as well as on

employment potential. Awareness of the rural toiling

masses about the devastating effects of inorganic

chemicals has to be enhanced so that they would start

rethinking about the agricultural practices on the basis of

the traditional knowledge synchronised with the modern

pro-people scientic research.

The agricultural crisis is going to be aggravated by the twin

forces: one pushed by the protagonists of national and

multi-national proteers and the other by the ‘natural’

calamities: drought, ood, upheavals in climate changes

etc. But we know that the natural calamities do have a

primordial history and human beings have accustomed

and adapted to them. Our worry is how to cope with the

selshly added ‘unnatural’ elements in ‘natural’ calamities.

The answer to do away this worry lies in ghting against

the ‘unnatural’ inhuman behaviour and ‘prot-making’

practices. This ght can only be waged by the conscious

creative agriculturists in rural India who are now being

trampled under the pro big-business policy makers. The

struggle should be supported and participated by the pro

people scientists, intellectuals and urban organised

working class to convey speedy socio-economic justice to

the vast majority of our populace.

1 Andhra Pradesh 29.6 235.1 21.1 176.6 9.20 78.78

2 Arunachal Pradesh 31.4 3.8 25.9 3.5 34.67 4.91

3 Assam 34.4 97.7 37.9 116.4 31.98 101.27

4 Bihar 54.4 493.8 53.5 543.5 33.74 358.15

5 Chhattisgarh 49.4 111.5 48.7 121.9 39.93 104.11

6 Delhi 13 19.3 14.2 23.3 9.91 16.96

7 Goa 24.9 3.4 8.7 1.3 5.09 0.75

8 Gujarat 31.6 171.4 23.0 136.2 16.63 102.23

9 Haryana 24.1 54.6 20.1 50.0 11.16 28.83

10 Himachal Pradesh 22.9 14.6 9.5 6.4 8.06 5.59

S.No States

Number and Percentage of Population below poverty line by states-2004-05,2009-10 & 2011-12

(Tendulkar Methodology)

Total2004-05

Total2009-10

Ttal2011-12

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201320 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 21

S.No StatesTotal

2004-05Total

2009-10Ttal

2011-12

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

11 Jammu & Kashmir 13.1 14.5 9.4 11.5 10.35 13.27

12 Jharkhand 45.3 132.1 39.1 126.2 36.96 124.33

13 Karnataka 33.3 186.5 23.6 142.3 20.91 129.76

14 Kerala 19.6 62 12.0 39.6 7.05 23.95

15 Madhya Pradesh 48.6 315.7 36.7 261.8 31.65 234.06

16 Maharashtra 38.2 392.4 24.5 270.8 17.35 197.92

17 Manipur 37.9 9 47.1 12.5 36.89 10.22

18 Meghalaya 16.1 4.1 17.1 4.9 11.87 3.61

19 Mizoram 15.4 1.5 21.1 2.3 20.40 2.27

20 Nagaland 8.8 1.7 20.9 4.1 18.88 3.76

21 Orissa 57.2 221.6 37.0 153.2 32.59 138.53

22 Puducherry 14.2 1.5 1.2 0.1 8.26 23.18

23 Punjab 20.9 53.6 15.9 43.5 14.71 102.92

24 Rajasthan 34.4 209.8 24.8 167.0 8.19 0.51

25 Sikkim 30.9 1.7 13.1 0.8 11.28 82.63

26 Tamil Nadu 29.4 194.1 17.1 121.8 14.05 5.24

27 Tripura 40 13.4 17.4 6.3 11.26 11.60

28 Uttar Pradesh 40.9 730.7 37.7 737.9 29.43 598.19

29 Uttarakhand 32.7 29.7 18.0 17.9 19.98 184.98

30 West Bengal 34.2 288.3 26.7 240.3 9.69 1.24

31 Andaman & Nicobar 3 0.11 0.4 0.01 1.00 0.04 island

32 Chndigarh 11.6 1.1 9.2 0.95 21.81 2.35

33 Dadra and Nagar 49.3 1.26 39.1 1.27 39.31 1.43

34 Daman and Diu 8.8 0.15 33.3 0.75 9.86 0.26

35 Lakshwadeep 6.4 0.04 6.8 0.04 2.77 0.02

All India 37.2 4072.2 29.8 3546.8 21.92 2697.83

Name Farmers Agri Workers Workers Farmers Agri Workers Workers Farmers Agri Workers on Agriculture

A B C D E F A+D B+E Grand Total

Andaman and Nicobar Islands 12997 2680 15677 3570 2101 5671 16247 4781 21028

Andhra Pradesh 6087607 13201989 19289596 403915 3765765 4169680 6491522 16967754 23459276

Arunachal Pradesh 248120 20259 268379 54603 15912 70515 302723 36171 338894

Assam 3138554 903294 4041848 923073 942052 1865125 4041848 1845346 5887194

Bihar 5413181 9537418 14950599 1783045 8808231 10591276 1783045 27153880 28936925

Chandigarh 2169 1396 3565 409 291 700 2578 1687 4265

Chhattisgarh 3038094 2505999 5544093 966702 2585883 3552585 4004796 5091882 9096678

Dadra and Nagar Haveli 22707 6184 28891 5457 11615 17072 28164 17799 45963

Daman and Diu 1649 491 2140 667 281 948 2316 772 3088

Goa 24062 10758 34820 7292 16002 23294 31354 26760 58114

Gujarat 4746956 4491751 9238707 700544 2347664 3048208 5447500 6839415 12286915

Haryana 1963311 891273 2854584 517490 636860 1154350 2480801 1528133 4008934

Himachal Pradesh 919786 68668 988454 1142276 106370 1248646 2062062 175038 2237100

Jammu and Kashmir 566469 159519 725988 678847 388186 1067033 1245316 547705 1793021

Jharkand 2001362 1238774 3240136 1813470 3197278 5010748 3814832 4436052 8250884

Karnataka 6038309 5119921 11158230 542340 2036042 2578382 6580649 7155985 13736634

Kerala 544932 919136 1464068 125321 403714 529035 670253 1322850 1993103

Lakhshadeep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madhya Pradesh 8214993 6630821 14845814 1629446 5561446 7190892 9844439 17753713 27598152

Maharashtra 11478075 11068928 22547003 1091298 2417212 3508510 12569373 13486140 26055513

Manipur 365712 43774 409486 92179 67287 159466 457891 111061 568952

Meghalaya 411270 114642 525912 83405 83722 167127 494675 198364 693039

Mizoram 202514 26464 228978 27089 15323 42412 229603 41787 271390

Nagaland 420379 22571 442950 117323 40391 157714 537702 62961 600663

NCT of Delhi 27759 31474 59233 5639 8001 13640 33398 39475 72873

Odisha 3279769 2420540 5700309 824220 4319453 5143673 4103989 6739993 10843982

Puducherry 10763 50607 61370 1336 17784 19120 12099 68391 80490

Punjab 1803860 1168021 2971881 130651 420434 551085 1934511 1588455 3522966

Rajasthan 9845353 2195304 12040657 3773517 2744360 6517877 13618870 4939664 18558534

Sikkim 82707 11582 94289 34694 14404 49098 117410 25986 143396

Tamil Nadu 3855375 7234101 11089476 393082 2372446 2765528 4248457 9606547 13855004

Tripura 246707 201863 448570 49240 151755 200995 295947 353618 649565

Utter Pradesh 15576415 9749915 25326330 3481473 10189308 13670781 19057888 19939223 38997111

Uttarakand 1045674 247256 1292930 534749 156045 690794 1580423 403301 1983724

West Bengal 4203767 5869498 10073265 912921 4319344 5232265 5116688 10188842 15305530

Total 95841357 86166871 182008228 22851283 58162962 81014245 118669264 144329833 262999097

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201322 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 23

Dependant on AgricultureMain Workers Total Main Marginal Workers

Total Marginal Total Marginal + MainPopulation

S.No StatesTotal

2004-05Total

2009-10Ttal

2011-12

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

% age of Persons

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

No. of Persons (lakhs

11 Jammu & Kashmir 13.1 14.5 9.4 11.5 10.35 13.27

12 Jharkhand 45.3 132.1 39.1 126.2 36.96 124.33

13 Karnataka 33.3 186.5 23.6 142.3 20.91 129.76

14 Kerala 19.6 62 12.0 39.6 7.05 23.95

15 Madhya Pradesh 48.6 315.7 36.7 261.8 31.65 234.06

16 Maharashtra 38.2 392.4 24.5 270.8 17.35 197.92

17 Manipur 37.9 9 47.1 12.5 36.89 10.22

18 Meghalaya 16.1 4.1 17.1 4.9 11.87 3.61

19 Mizoram 15.4 1.5 21.1 2.3 20.40 2.27

20 Nagaland 8.8 1.7 20.9 4.1 18.88 3.76

21 Orissa 57.2 221.6 37.0 153.2 32.59 138.53

22 Puducherry 14.2 1.5 1.2 0.1 8.26 23.18

23 Punjab 20.9 53.6 15.9 43.5 14.71 102.92

24 Rajasthan 34.4 209.8 24.8 167.0 8.19 0.51

25 Sikkim 30.9 1.7 13.1 0.8 11.28 82.63

26 Tamil Nadu 29.4 194.1 17.1 121.8 14.05 5.24

27 Tripura 40 13.4 17.4 6.3 11.26 11.60

28 Uttar Pradesh 40.9 730.7 37.7 737.9 29.43 598.19

29 Uttarakhand 32.7 29.7 18.0 17.9 19.98 184.98

30 West Bengal 34.2 288.3 26.7 240.3 9.69 1.24

31 Andaman & Nicobar 3 0.11 0.4 0.01 1.00 0.04 island

32 Chndigarh 11.6 1.1 9.2 0.95 21.81 2.35

33 Dadra and Nagar 49.3 1.26 39.1 1.27 39.31 1.43

34 Daman and Diu 8.8 0.15 33.3 0.75 9.86 0.26

35 Lakshwadeep 6.4 0.04 6.8 0.04 2.77 0.02

All India 37.2 4072.2 29.8 3546.8 21.92 2697.83

Name Farmers Agri Workers Workers Farmers Agri Workers Workers Farmers Agri Workers on Agriculture

A B C D E F A+D B+E Grand Total

Andaman and Nicobar Islands 12997 2680 15677 3570 2101 5671 16247 4781 21028

Andhra Pradesh 6087607 13201989 19289596 403915 3765765 4169680 6491522 16967754 23459276

Arunachal Pradesh 248120 20259 268379 54603 15912 70515 302723 36171 338894

Assam 3138554 903294 4041848 923073 942052 1865125 4041848 1845346 5887194

Bihar 5413181 9537418 14950599 1783045 8808231 10591276 1783045 27153880 28936925

Chandigarh 2169 1396 3565 409 291 700 2578 1687 4265

Chhattisgarh 3038094 2505999 5544093 966702 2585883 3552585 4004796 5091882 9096678

Dadra and Nagar Haveli 22707 6184 28891 5457 11615 17072 28164 17799 45963

Daman and Diu 1649 491 2140 667 281 948 2316 772 3088

Goa 24062 10758 34820 7292 16002 23294 31354 26760 58114

Gujarat 4746956 4491751 9238707 700544 2347664 3048208 5447500 6839415 12286915

Haryana 1963311 891273 2854584 517490 636860 1154350 2480801 1528133 4008934

Himachal Pradesh 919786 68668 988454 1142276 106370 1248646 2062062 175038 2237100

Jammu and Kashmir 566469 159519 725988 678847 388186 1067033 1245316 547705 1793021

Jharkand 2001362 1238774 3240136 1813470 3197278 5010748 3814832 4436052 8250884

Karnataka 6038309 5119921 11158230 542340 2036042 2578382 6580649 7155985 13736634

Kerala 544932 919136 1464068 125321 403714 529035 670253 1322850 1993103

Lakhshadeep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madhya Pradesh 8214993 6630821 14845814 1629446 5561446 7190892 9844439 17753713 27598152

Maharashtra 11478075 11068928 22547003 1091298 2417212 3508510 12569373 13486140 26055513

Manipur 365712 43774 409486 92179 67287 159466 457891 111061 568952

Meghalaya 411270 114642 525912 83405 83722 167127 494675 198364 693039

Mizoram 202514 26464 228978 27089 15323 42412 229603 41787 271390

Nagaland 420379 22571 442950 117323 40391 157714 537702 62961 600663

NCT of Delhi 27759 31474 59233 5639 8001 13640 33398 39475 72873

Odisha 3279769 2420540 5700309 824220 4319453 5143673 4103989 6739993 10843982

Puducherry 10763 50607 61370 1336 17784 19120 12099 68391 80490

Punjab 1803860 1168021 2971881 130651 420434 551085 1934511 1588455 3522966

Rajasthan 9845353 2195304 12040657 3773517 2744360 6517877 13618870 4939664 18558534

Sikkim 82707 11582 94289 34694 14404 49098 117410 25986 143396

Tamil Nadu 3855375 7234101 11089476 393082 2372446 2765528 4248457 9606547 13855004

Tripura 246707 201863 448570 49240 151755 200995 295947 353618 649565

Utter Pradesh 15576415 9749915 25326330 3481473 10189308 13670781 19057888 19939223 38997111

Uttarakand 1045674 247256 1292930 534749 156045 690794 1580423 403301 1983724

West Bengal 4203767 5869498 10073265 912921 4319344 5232265 5116688 10188842 15305530

Total 95841357 86166871 182008228 22851283 58162962 81014245 118669264 144329833 262999097

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201322 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 23

Dependant on AgricultureMain Workers Total Main Marginal Workers

Total Marginal Total Marginal + MainPopulation

Ination during the two terms UPA Government

COMMODITIES Weight 4-Apr 9-Apr 13-Apr

ALL COMMODITIES 100 97.5 125 171.5

I PRIMARY ARTICLES 20.11815 97 140.8 228

(A) FOOD ARTICLES 14.33709 97.5 140.1 219.8

a. FOOD GRAINS (CEREALS+PULSES) 4.08982 96.7 154.7 216.5

a1. CEREALS 3.37323 96 152.9 213.1

b. FRUITS & VEGETABLES 3.8427 96.1 134.1 206.4

b1. VEGETABLES 1.73553 86.7 133.2 216.1

d. EGGS, MEAT & FISH 2.41384 97.5 126.9 253.8

e. CONDIMENTS & SPICES 0.56908 106.2 154.3 229.8

f. OTHER FOOD ARTICLES 0.18347 91.4 192.3 251.6

(B) NON-FOOD ARTICLES 4.25756 100.5 128.3 209.7

a. FIBRES 0.87737 109.2 130.3 219.1

b. OIL SEEDS 1.78051 98.4 130.1 210.1

c. OTHER NON-FOOD ARTICLES 1.38642 98.7 116.6 210.2

d. FLORICULTURE 0.21326 92.9 181.9 164.3

(C) MINERALS 1.5235 82 182.6 355

a. METALLIC MINERALS 0.48859 81.5 252.1 447.6

b. OTHER MINERALS 0.13463 98.9 140.9 217.6

c. CRUDE PETROLEUM 0.90028 79.8 151.2 325.3

II FUEL & POWER 14.91021 92.8 124.2 194.6

A. COAL 2.09419 89.2 151 210.4

B. MINERAL OILS 9.36439 90.8 125.2 214

C. ELECTRICITY 3.45163 100.4 105 132.4

III MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS 64.97164 98.6 120.2 148.7

(A) FOOD PRODUCTS 9.97396 98.2 126.5 165.8

a. DAIRY PRODUCTS 0.56798 101.4 126 176.3

b. CANNING, PRESERVING & 0.35785 98.9 116.9 146.6

PROCESSING OF FOOD

Ination during the two terms UPA Government

COMMODITIES Weight 4-Apr 9-Apr 13-Apr

c. GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS 1.34017 97.5 130.4 165.5

d. BAKERY PRODUCTS 0.44354 99.2 114.8 133.6

e. SUGAR, KHANDSARI & GUR 2.08859 91 131 184.9

f. EDIBLE OILS 3.04293 101.1 114.2 145.2

g. OIL CAKES 0.49441 104.2 158.2 225

h. TEA & COFFEE PROCCESSING 0.71106 102.3 142.5 169.3

i. MANUFACTURE OF SALT 0.0481 99.8 165.3 185.4

j.OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS 0.87933 96.7 129.5 171.8

(B) BEVERAGES, TOBACCO &

TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1.76247 98.4 133.6 181.2

C ) TEXTILES 7.32639 100.1 102.9 133.6

(D) WOOD & WOOD PRODUCTS 0.58744 99 138.5 174

(E) PAPER & PAPER PRODUCTS 2.0335 99.4 116.5 140

(F) LEATHER & LEATHER PRODUCTS 0.83509 99.1 127.9 135.1

(G) RUBBER & PLASTIC PRODUCTS 2.98697 98.5 116.2 139.5

(H) CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 12.0177 97.9 116.2 145.8

c. FERTILIZERS & PESTICIDES 3.14464 99.4 108.2 147.6

f. DRUGS & MEDICINES 0.4561 99.8 112.5 125.5

g. PERFUMES, COSMETICS, 1.13048 98.7 132.5 152.6

TOILETRIES ETC

(K) MACHINERY & MACHINE TOOLS 8.93148 99.1 117.9 129.6

a. AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY & 0.13899 99 121.6 137.4

IMPLEMENTS

b. INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY 1.83759 98.3 130 147.4

g. ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, 2.34277 99.8 123.6 134.2

EQUIPMENT &BATTERIES

l. COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENTS 0.11821 100.2 95.8 93.7

(L) TRANSPORT, EQUIPMENT & PARTS 5.21282 99.3 116.9 132.4

c. CEMENT & LIME 1.38646 103.1 148.1 171.8

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201324 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 25

Ination during the two terms UPA Government

COMMODITIES Weight 4-Apr 9-Apr 13-Apr

ALL COMMODITIES 100 97.5 125 171.5

I PRIMARY ARTICLES 20.11815 97 140.8 228

(A) FOOD ARTICLES 14.33709 97.5 140.1 219.8

a. FOOD GRAINS (CEREALS+PULSES) 4.08982 96.7 154.7 216.5

a1. CEREALS 3.37323 96 152.9 213.1

b. FRUITS & VEGETABLES 3.8427 96.1 134.1 206.4

b1. VEGETABLES 1.73553 86.7 133.2 216.1

d. EGGS, MEAT & FISH 2.41384 97.5 126.9 253.8

e. CONDIMENTS & SPICES 0.56908 106.2 154.3 229.8

f. OTHER FOOD ARTICLES 0.18347 91.4 192.3 251.6

(B) NON-FOOD ARTICLES 4.25756 100.5 128.3 209.7

a. FIBRES 0.87737 109.2 130.3 219.1

b. OIL SEEDS 1.78051 98.4 130.1 210.1

c. OTHER NON-FOOD ARTICLES 1.38642 98.7 116.6 210.2

d. FLORICULTURE 0.21326 92.9 181.9 164.3

(C) MINERALS 1.5235 82 182.6 355

a. METALLIC MINERALS 0.48859 81.5 252.1 447.6

b. OTHER MINERALS 0.13463 98.9 140.9 217.6

c. CRUDE PETROLEUM 0.90028 79.8 151.2 325.3

II FUEL & POWER 14.91021 92.8 124.2 194.6

A. COAL 2.09419 89.2 151 210.4

B. MINERAL OILS 9.36439 90.8 125.2 214

C. ELECTRICITY 3.45163 100.4 105 132.4

III MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS 64.97164 98.6 120.2 148.7

(A) FOOD PRODUCTS 9.97396 98.2 126.5 165.8

a. DAIRY PRODUCTS 0.56798 101.4 126 176.3

b. CANNING, PRESERVING & 0.35785 98.9 116.9 146.6

PROCESSING OF FOOD

Ination during the two terms UPA Government

COMMODITIES Weight 4-Apr 9-Apr 13-Apr

c. GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS 1.34017 97.5 130.4 165.5

d. BAKERY PRODUCTS 0.44354 99.2 114.8 133.6

e. SUGAR, KHANDSARI & GUR 2.08859 91 131 184.9

f. EDIBLE OILS 3.04293 101.1 114.2 145.2

g. OIL CAKES 0.49441 104.2 158.2 225

h. TEA & COFFEE PROCCESSING 0.71106 102.3 142.5 169.3

i. MANUFACTURE OF SALT 0.0481 99.8 165.3 185.4

j.OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS 0.87933 96.7 129.5 171.8

(B) BEVERAGES, TOBACCO &

TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1.76247 98.4 133.6 181.2

C ) TEXTILES 7.32639 100.1 102.9 133.6

(D) WOOD & WOOD PRODUCTS 0.58744 99 138.5 174

(E) PAPER & PAPER PRODUCTS 2.0335 99.4 116.5 140

(F) LEATHER & LEATHER PRODUCTS 0.83509 99.1 127.9 135.1

(G) RUBBER & PLASTIC PRODUCTS 2.98697 98.5 116.2 139.5

(H) CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 12.0177 97.9 116.2 145.8

c. FERTILIZERS & PESTICIDES 3.14464 99.4 108.2 147.6

f. DRUGS & MEDICINES 0.4561 99.8 112.5 125.5

g. PERFUMES, COSMETICS, 1.13048 98.7 132.5 152.6

TOILETRIES ETC

(K) MACHINERY & MACHINE TOOLS 8.93148 99.1 117.9 129.6

a. AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY & 0.13899 99 121.6 137.4

IMPLEMENTS

b. INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY 1.83759 98.3 130 147.4

g. ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, 2.34277 99.8 123.6 134.2

EQUIPMENT &BATTERIES

l. COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENTS 0.11821 100.2 95.8 93.7

(L) TRANSPORT, EQUIPMENT & PARTS 5.21282 99.3 116.9 132.4

c. CEMENT & LIME 1.38646 103.1 148.1 171.8

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201324 AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 2013 25

Consumer Price Index for Agricultural and Rural Labour - An analysis

This table shows us the percentage of change in the price of food items and general ination,

showing who is hardest hit by the government policies in not regulating prices.

State Weight 2005-06 2011-12 % of Change

General General General General Food Food Food Food

All India 100 69.51 358 351 622 610 57.55 57.45

Andhra Pradesh 12.97 8.28 371 376 668 674 55.53 55.78

Assam 1.69 1.24 362 343 622 620 58.19 55.32

Bihar 11.38 8.66 347 338 552 521 62.86 64.87

Gujerat 5.2 3.55 369 377 627 649 58.85 58.08

Haryana 1.81 1.17 376 388 690 722 54.49 53.73

Himachal Pradesh 0.1 0.06 343 347 513 530 66.86 65.47

Jammu&Kashmir 0.26 0.19 359 365 608 642 59.04 56.85

Karnataka 6.67 4.37 341 333 665 674 52.46 49.40

Kerala 5.02 3.35 356 347 601 596 59.23 58.22

Madhya Pradesh 6.86 4.97 352 352 615 607 57.23 57.99

Maharashtra 9.96 6.46 368 372 691 719 53.25 51.73

Manipur 0.1 0.07 328 307 594 554 55.21 55.41

Meghalaya 0.13 0.1 382 371 633 631 60.34 58.79

Orissa 5.07 3.94 334 316 562 534 59.43 59.17

Punjab 3.02 1.85 380 394 685 716 55.47 55.02

Rajasthan 2.14 1.34 377 377 668 646 56.43 58.35

Tamil Nadu 8.47 5.83 355 327 605 542 58.67 60.33

Tripura 0.15 0.1 351 336 548 550 64.05 61.09

Uttar Pradesh 9.61 6.35 371 375 595 592 62.35 63.34

West Bengal 9.39 7.27 342 318 592 556 57.77 57.19

Source : The statistics are calculated basing on the planning commission data.

Govidan Master addressing the KSKTU Jatha A. Vijayaraghavan ( staning photo on right side) addressing the gathering

KSKTU Rally

Women audience at a public meeting at Smalkha, Haryana

Suneet Chopra, Hannan Mollah on dias Agricultural workers leaders on dias at Moradabad on the occasion of UP State Conference

Maharashtra conference

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201326

Agricultural workers Rally in Agartala

Consumer Price Index for Agricultural and Rural Labour - An analysis

This table shows us the percentage of change in the price of food items and general ination,

showing who is hardest hit by the government policies in not regulating prices.

State Weight 2005-06 2011-12 % of Change

General General General General Food Food Food Food

All India 100 69.51 358 351 622 610 57.55 57.45

Andhra Pradesh 12.97 8.28 371 376 668 674 55.53 55.78

Assam 1.69 1.24 362 343 622 620 58.19 55.32

Bihar 11.38 8.66 347 338 552 521 62.86 64.87

Gujerat 5.2 3.55 369 377 627 649 58.85 58.08

Haryana 1.81 1.17 376 388 690 722 54.49 53.73

Himachal Pradesh 0.1 0.06 343 347 513 530 66.86 65.47

Jammu&Kashmir 0.26 0.19 359 365 608 642 59.04 56.85

Karnataka 6.67 4.37 341 333 665 674 52.46 49.40

Kerala 5.02 3.35 356 347 601 596 59.23 58.22

Madhya Pradesh 6.86 4.97 352 352 615 607 57.23 57.99

Maharashtra 9.96 6.46 368 372 691 719 53.25 51.73

Manipur 0.1 0.07 328 307 594 554 55.21 55.41

Meghalaya 0.13 0.1 382 371 633 631 60.34 58.79

Orissa 5.07 3.94 334 316 562 534 59.43 59.17

Punjab 3.02 1.85 380 394 685 716 55.47 55.02

Rajasthan 2.14 1.34 377 377 668 646 56.43 58.35

Tamil Nadu 8.47 5.83 355 327 605 542 58.67 60.33

Tripura 0.15 0.1 351 336 548 550 64.05 61.09

Uttar Pradesh 9.61 6.35 371 375 595 592 62.35 63.34

West Bengal 9.39 7.27 342 318 592 556 57.77 57.19

Source : The statistics are calculated basing on the planning commission data.

Govidan Master addressing the KSKTU Jatha A. Vijayaraghavan ( staning photo on right side) addressing the gathering

KSKTU Rally

Women audience at a public meeting at Smalkha, Haryana

Suneet Chopra, Hannan Mollah on dias Agricultural workers leaders on dias at Moradabad on the occasion of UP State Conference

Maharashtra conference

AIAWU | BULLETIN - OCTOBER - 201326

Agricultural workers Rally in Agartala

Published by

ALL INDIA AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION4, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001, Ph: 0112307366, 01123782890, Email: [email protected], Printing at: Progressive printers, A-21, Jhilmil Area, G.T. Road, Delhi-110095.Designed by: FMC Advertising, Hyderabad. M:9848111080, www.fmcadvertising.com