The stir against land acquisition took a tragic and macabre turn when a
farmer hanged himself during an Aam Admi Party (AAP) rally in the heart
of the national capital. The mortifying episode only showed how the
political exploitation of a complex problem was diverting attention from
what really needed to be done.
Arguably, the answer to farmers'
suicides lies in boosting the agriculture sector through more irrigation
facilities, provision of cheap credit and crop insurance, better
marketing facilities after eliminating middle men and encouraging big
retailers to step in, and making the availability of seeds and
fertilizer much easier.
Equally important are initiatives like
weaning away the subsistence farmers from their lands which have ceased
to be productive either through overuse or sub-divisions among
successive generations of cultivators.
It is only through
industrialization that the pressure on such lands can be eased as the
peasants move from farms to factories. A transition of this nature is
the essence of development.
But Indian politicians are wary of following this line lest it shows them to be anti-farmer and pro-industrialist.
Such
an image, they believe, will be detrimental to their political
prospects because of the belief that the simple-minded toilers in the
fields are the epitome of all virtues while the suited-and-booted
businessmen are rapacious exploiters. Indeed, this romantic view of the
countryside has been the stuff of Indian fiction and films for
generations.
Hence Rahul Gandhi's tirade against the capitalists
and against the Narendra Modi government for being in cahoots with them -
"suit-boot ki sarkar", as he called the government.
Evidently,
his sabbatical in a Buddhist monastery in Myanmar - if rumours are to be
believed - has made even more of a Communist than the Communists
themselves, for even the latter are not totally against private sector
investments, including those from abroad. As the comrades have said,
foreign investments are all right if they provide employment and bring
in new technology.
However, for the 44-year-old prince of the
Congress dynasty, a strident assumption of the role of a champion of the
underprivileged is the only way for the party to emerge from the hole
in which it now finds itself.
As a self-confessed admirer of his
grandmother, Indira Gandhi, it is possible that Rahul Gandhi is harking
back to her "garibi hatao" (remove poverty) pledge to breathe new life
into the Congress.
But what worked for Indira four-and-a-half
decades ago may not work at a time when socialism has collapsed
worldwide - except in North Korea - and the Indian comrades themselves
are now one of the weakest forces on the political scene.
To
expect the "poor vs rich" gambit to succeed, therefore, is a shot in the
dark, especially by someone who was born with the silver spoon in his
mouth.
There are other reasons why the ploy is unlikely to work.
As even a loyalist of the dynasty, Digvijay Singh, has acknowledged, the
economic reforms lifted millions out of lowly poverty levels to join
the ranks of the lower middle class, or the "neo middle class", as Modi
calls them.
Moreover, these groups have acquired the mindset of
the "aspirational" middle class, according to Digvijay Singh. As a
result, they no longer care for subsidies but are eager to avail of the
employment opportunities promised by Modi's emphasis on development.
Since
an essential feature of the anticipated development is the prime
minister's ace "Make in India" plans, the government's eagerness to push
through the amended land acquisition law is understandable.
Unfortunately,
the spate of farmers' suicides, and especially the one during the AAP
rally, is likely to force the government to go slow.
Yet, the
essential correctness of the industrialization process cannot be denied.
Rahul Gandhi, therefore, can be said to be trying to turn the clock
back by his anti-business stance.
In doing so, however, he is
positioning himself against the Congress' own history considering that
Jawaharlal Nehru favoured industrialization as his "dams are the temples
of modern India" observation showed, and Rajiv Gandhi wanted to take
the country into the 21st century.
Rahul Gandhi's present emphasis on "socialism", therefore, is tantamount to swimming against the tide.
He
is also courting the danger of alienating the middle class - the "neos"
and others - who evidently voted overwhelmingly a year ago for Modi's
development agenda based on encouraging the private sector.
While
Rahul Gandhi is playing the "socialist" card even if the Congress may
find it difficult to sustain his anti-industry stance, Modi is dogged by
ill-luck as the havoc caused by unseasonal rains and the continuing
suicides show.
Notwithstanding his current troubles, however, he
remains one of the few who has some idea of where he wants to take the
country, whereas his opponents, of whom Rahul Gandhi and his mother,
Congress president Sonia Gandhi, are the leading lights, are seemingly
motivated by stalling industrialization even if it scuppers the prospect
of the Indian growth rate overtaking China's in the near future, as has
been forecast.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at [email protected])
