देश के विकास के लिए ग्राम-स्वराज ही एकमात्र विकल्प

ठाकुर दास बंग

भारत के चहुंओर  विकास के साथ हीं गांव को स्वाबलंबी बनाना हीं ग्राम स्वराज की परिभाषा है। आज कई गांव बड़े-बड़े उद्योग और उद्योगपति के साथ राजनेताओं के हत्थे चढ़ जाते हैं। गांवों को कई स्तर पर हेय दृष्टि से देखा जाता है, क्योंकि सरकार, उद्योगपति सोचते हैं कि सारी अर्थव्यवस्था वही चलाते हैं

ग्राम स्वराज जीवन के उन पहलुओं से होकर गुजरता है जहां जीवन का सदुपयोग हो सके और सत्ता निरंकुश न होकर जनता के हाथों में हो तथा जो गांव-गांव फैला हो, सभी वर्ग समान अधिकार से कार्य करे और सभी को उचित न्याय मिले। ग्राम-स्वराज गांधी जी की देन है जो यह बताती है कि सरकारी तंत्र की निरंकुश्ता से सतत् मुक्त होने का प्रयास करना चाहिए चाहे वह सत्ता विदेशी हो या अपनी ;राष्ट्रीयद्ध। 

इसके लिए गांधी जी एवं हम जैसे उनके सहयोगी जेल गए, लाठियां खाई, गोलियां खाई और अंततः 15 अगस्त 1947 को आजादी मिली, पर आज भारत आजाद है क्या? ग्राम स्वराज है क्या? नहीं! भारत में गांव वहीं के वहीं हैं। न उचित शिक्षा नजर आती है और ना हीं उसके लिए उचित प्रयास। सरकारी तंत्र बस काम करती है, काम करने के लिए उसका उचित सरोकार ग्रामीण परिवेश और उसके स्वराज से नहीं रह गया है। किसानों की स्थिति बद से बदत्तर होती जा रही है, वहीं दूसरी ओर गांव नशाखोरी और गुटखाखोरी के शिकार होते जा रहे हैं। कुछ जगह जैसे गढ़चिरोली एवं वर्धा इन मामलों में काफी अच्छी हैं और ग्राम स्वराज के अच्छे उदाहरण भी हैं। क्योंकि यहां अपनी मर्जी से शराब और गुटखा का त्याग किया गया है। ऐसे प्रयास हरियाणा और आंध्रप्रदेश के गांवों में भी हुआ पर असफल रहा। गांव स्वराज, गांवों को सुचारू रूप से चलाने की प्रक्रिया है। जिसके फलस्वरूप गांव के लोग शहर की तरफ पलायन न करें। बल्कि रोजगार की ऐसी व्यवस्था उनके लिए हो कि वह अपने परिवार और क्षेत्र को अच्छा बनाए रखें। गांवों में पर्याप्त मात्रा में सभी सुविधाओं का लाभ उठा सकें। परंतु आज आजादी के छह दशक बाद गांव खाली हो गए हैं। किसान मजदूर बन गए हैं और शहर में रहने चले गए हैं। जिससे कृषि काफी प्रभावित हुई है और साग-सब्जियां समेत अनाज काफी महंगे हो गए हैं। कई जगह तो किसानों की ऐसी स्थिति हो गई है कि किसान आत्महत्या तक करने लगे हैं। इसलिए सरकार को चाहिए कि वह ग्राम के विकास की ओर ध्यान दे ताकि ग्रामीण लोग भटके नहीं। ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में हीं अच्छी एवं सुविधाजनक स्थितियों का निर्माण कर राशन, शिक्षा एवं रोजगार की व्यवस्था करें। 

ग्राम स्वराज आज के समय में अधिक प्रासंगिक है। क्योंकि हम शहर में बड़े-बड़े उद्योग तो लगा रहे हैं परंतु जीवन में छोटी-छोटी चीजों का निर्माण आज भी गांव के वातावरण में संभव है। भोजन के लिए उपलब्ध होने वाली सामग्री हमें शहर या उद्योग से प्राप्त नहीं होता है। यह हमें गांव में खेती से ही प्राप्त होता है। आज सही समय पर उचित कार्य नहीं किया जा सके तो संभव है ग्राम-स्वराज रूपी गांधी जी की संकल्पना धाराशायी हो जाएगी। 

व्यक्ति से व्यक्ति का उचित मान और उसका विकास ग्राम स्वराज का ही रूप है। जिसका रूप अत्यंत विस्तृत है। परंतु गरीबी ने ग्राम को खत्म कर दिया है और शहर में भीड़ बढ़ा दिया है। भारत का चहुंओर से विकास ;क्षेत्रीय से राष्ट्रीय स्तर तकद्ध के साथ हीं गांव को स्वाबलंबी बनाना हीं ग्राम स्वराज की परिभाषा है। आज कई गांव बड़े-बड़े उद्योग और उद्योगपति के साथ राजनेताओं के हत्थे चढ़ जाते हैं। गांवों को कई स्तर पर हेय दृष्टि से देखा जाता है, क्योंकि सरकार एवं उद्योगपति सोचते हैं कि सारी अर्थव्यवस्था वही चलाते हैं। ऐसी स्थितियां भयावह हो जाती है। जिसकी वजह से कई अन्य विपरीत परिस्थितियां जैसे-बेरोजगारी, महंगाई एवं शहर की ओर लोगों का पलायन शुरू हो जाता है। ग्रामीण परिवेश में ही संपूर्ण रूप में स्वशासन की ऐसी व्यवस्था की जाए ताकि वह देश की अर्थव्यस्था में अपना उचित कार्य का निर्वाह कर सके तथा अपनी जीवनशैली को उचित रूप में जी सके। 

जब गांव का विकास होना शुरू होगा तब राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर स्वयं स्वराज को नई दृष्टि मिलेगी। महाराष्ट्र, बिहार, उत्तरप्रदेश, हरियाणा जैसे प्रदेशों में ग्राम-स्वराज के कई प्रयास किए गए और हो भी रहे हैं। जिसके अंतर्गत गांव के लोगों को जिम्मेदारी का एहसास कराना कि किस प्रकार वह पिछड़ गए हैं और कौन-कौन से तरीकों से वह अपना-अपना विस्तार कर सकते हैं शामिल हैं। ग्राम-स्वराज को आज के समय में अधिक विस्तार की जरूरत है। समाज में आज ग्रामीण स्तर पर स्वराज रूपी बड़े जनांदोलन की जरूरत है।  द 

(श्री बंग ने देश के स्वाधीनता के लिए लंबी लड़ाई लड़ी। येे सर्व सेवा संघ नामक संस्था से जुड़े रहे हैं। इन्होंने गांधीजी के साथ सेवाग्राम में कई वर्ष काम किया है। आज 95 साल की आयु में भी ग्राम-स्वराज की बात करने पर इनके आंखों में चमक सी आ जाती है)

अनुशासित आत्मनिर्भरता की पहल

राजेन्द्र सिंह
ग्राम स्वराज की शुरूआत जीवन में प्राकृतिक संसाधानों के प्रबंधन से और  जीवन में अनुशासन से शुरू होती है। ग्राम स्वराज में वैसी शिक्षा हो जो समाज के काम की हो, गांव के काम आए। अभी जो शिक्षा दी जा रही है, वह गांव के काम की नहीं है। बल्कि गांव के पढे़- लिखे बच्चे कामजोर हो जाते हैं 

ग्राम स्वराज का अर्थ है कि गांव अपने अंदर के स्वराज और बाहर के स्वराज का अनुभव करें  और उसके बाद अपनी संगठन शक्ति  से  गांव के स्वालबंन से, अपने गांव का पानी, अपने गांव का खाद और बीज बना सके और गांव में प्रत्येक आदमी को रहने के लिए जमीन और घर मिल सके,  खाने के लिए रोटी मिल सके और पीने के लिए पानी मिल सके उसके बाद ही गांव के हर एक आदमी केे अंदर  स्वराज जगेगा। और यह अंदर का स्वराज ही बाहर के स्वराज की स्थापना करता है।

 एक होता स्वराज और एक होता है सुराज।  स्वराज की शुरूआत अपने अंदर से करनी होती है और सुराज वह होता है जिस अवस्था में  सबको बराबरी, समता सादगी शामिल हो। आज के समय गांव में और समाज में जिस तरह की नकारात्मकता दिखाई दे रही है, उसके चलते ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना करना मुश्किल लगता है। लेकिन इस मुश्किल के बावजूद कोई दूसरा रास्ता है भी नहीं, हमें यदि समाज को अच्छे काम में लगाना है तो  समाज को अपनी जिम्मेदारी का अहसास कराकर ही यह संभव होगा। यदि गांव में ग्राम स्वराज नहीं होगा तो गांव में अराजकता ही होगी। आज जिस तरह गांवों में अराजकता बढ़ रही है, चूंकि अब गांव के लोगों ने मिलकर, संगठित होकर अपने गांव के भले के लिए  सोचना छोड़ दिया है। इसी का लाभ उठाकर राजनैतिक दलों ने गांव को बांट दिया है। गांव पूर्णतया बंट गए हैं। राजनैतिक दलों के कारण ही ग्राम स्वराज के सपने को पूरा करने  में संकट है, लेकिन आपने देखा होगा राजस्थान में लोगों ने जिनका अपना पानी नहीं था, खेती नहीं थी, जंगल नहीं था, उनका यह सब हुआ। जिन क्षेत्रों में हम काम कर रहे हैं, वहां के जंगलों में ग्रामीणों का अनुशासन चलता है, इतना बड़ा सरिस्का का जंगल बर्बाद हो गया था, माइनिंग के कारण जंगल बंट गए थे, जंगली जानवर खत्म हो गए थे, टाइगर खत्म हो गए थे, तो लोगों ने खड़े होकर इस काम को दोबारा स्थापित करने की कोशिश की है, सरिस्का में भी सामुदायिक संबंध गहरा हुआ है, इसलिए मुझे लगता है ग्राम स्वराज की शुरूआत जीवन में प्राकृतिक संसाधानों के प्रबंधन से और  जीवन में अनुशासन से शुरू होती है। 

ग्राम स्वराज में वैसी शिक्षा हो जो समाज के काम की हो, गांव के काम आए। अभी जो शिक्षा दी जा रही है, वह गांव के काम की नहीं है। बल्कि गांव के पढे़-लिखे बच्चे कामजोर हो जाते हैं । उनका काम करने का मन नहीं रहता है, तो ऐसी शिक्षा जो काम करने से रोकती हो ऐसी शिक्षा जो कामचोर बनाती हो, ऐसी शिक्षा वह शिक्षा नहीं होती, जिससे समाज कारगर बनता है। गांव का काम करते-करते देश और देश की व्यवस्था तंत्र के बारे में सोच सकते हैं। वह हम इसलिए सोच सकते हैं क्योंकि  हम गांव में अपने हाथों से काम करते हैं, गांव को हम विकास की राह पर चलाना चाहते हैं, इसी रास्ते पर गांव के बच्चे, गांव के लड़के-लड़कियां चले और गांव को ग्राम स्वराज की राह पर चलाए तो उस पढ़ाई में से ही उनका आगे बढ़ने का रास्ता खुल जाता है। ग्राम स्वराज में बड़ा आर्थिक माडल होता है, समता का, बराबरी का जिसमें से गांव के लोगों का गांव के संसाधनों पर मालिकाना और एक तरह से उन साधनों के साथ संबंध दिखता है। उदाहरण के तौर पर गांव का तालाब गांव का साझा है तो सारा गांव उसे अपना माने और उसकी रक्षा सुरक्षा करें। अब गांव के तालाब यदि ठीक भी हो जाए तो गांव खड़ा होकर उसका प्रबंधन नहीं करता। लोग उसमें कचरा डालते हैं । जब तक गांव में यह भाव नहीं आएगा कि गांव की जो साझी संपदा है, साझे काम है। उनमें हम गलत कामों को रोकेंगे। एक तरफ गलत कामों को रोकना और दूसरी ओर अच्छे कामों को करना तो उससे गांव स्वराज का रास्ता खुलेगा। 

(लेखक मैग्सेसे अवार्ड से सम्मानित सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता है)

पूंजीवाद से ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना अधूरी

सच्चिदानंद सिंहा

वैश्विकरण ग्राम स्वराज का विपरित व्यवस्था है। वह वक्त आने वाला है, जब हम फिर गांव की ओर लौटेंगे। आज से 50-60 साल बाद ये सारी व्यवस्था खत्म होने वाली है। तभी गांधी के ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना साकार होगी

गांधी के ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना आर्थिक उदारीकरण के कारण मुल्क की मिट्टी में दफन हो गई। ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना थी कि गांव के लोगों का जीवन स्थानीय संसाधन पर निर्भर हो। कुटीर उद्योग, बुनियादी शिक्षा आदि इसके मूल तत्व हैं। सर्वोदय, स्वावलंबन, समतामूलक समाज का निर्माण इसका मूल उद्देश्य है। गांव के लोग अपने गांव के विकास के लिए फैसले ले सके। ऐसी शिक्षा मिले, जिसमें बच्चे मिट्टी, लकड़ी के साथ जीना सीखे। उत्पादन, विनिमय, नियोजन सभी स्वतंत्र हो। गांव की समस्याओं पर गांव में ही चर्चा हो। ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना साकार हो, तो ग्राम गणराज्य होगा। तभी स्वतंत्र इकाई बनेगी।

आजादी के पहले गांधी ने जिस ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना की थी, उसका सबसे पहला प्रयोग उन्होंने दक्षिण अफ्रीका में किया था। गांधीजी के मन में रस्किन की किताब ‘अनटू दिस लास्ट’ पढ़ने के बाद ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना जन्म ली थी। इसे जमीन पर उतारने के लिए उन्होंने दक्षिण अफ्रीका में फिनिक्स फाॅर्म और टाॅल्सटाय फाॅर्म नामक दो फाॅर्म स्थपित किया। इसमें उन्होंने सामुदायिक खेती, काॅमन किचन, अखबार का प्रकाशन सहजीवन आदि शामिल किया। इकोलाॅजी को ध्यान में रखकर शौचालय बनवाया। पारसी, क्रिश्चियन, मुसलमान, हिंदू समेत कई धर्मों के लोग साथ रहते थे और एक ही किचन में सबके लिए खाना बनता था। सत्याग्रहियों का परिवार इसी फाॅर्म में रहता था। जब गांधी देश लौटे, तो ग्राम स्वराज की कल्पना को आजादी के आंदोलन के साथ जोड़ा। 1946 में उन्होंने नेहरू को पत्र लिख कर भारत के परिदृश्य की ओर इशारा करते हुए ग्राम स्वराज पर  सोचने को कहा। 

आज सब कुछ केंद्रीकृत हो गई है। मनरेगा से काम होता। गांव की जरूरत के अनुसार योजना नहीं बन रही है। इंदिरा आवास भी केंद्रीकृत है। गांव के लिए बन रही केंद्रीय योजनाओं में विसंगतियां हैं। पर्यावरण को नजरअंदाज कर दिया जाता है। कंक्रीट पर आधारित विकास से इकोलाॅजी नष्ट हो रही है। ईंट से खेतीवाली जमीन खराब हो रही है। प्लास्टिक व ईंट नष्ट नहीं होते हैं। गांव का इकोलाॅजी नष्ट हो रही है। फूस का घर मिट्टी में मिल कर जैविक प्रक्रिया करते थे। जमीन उपजाऊ होती थी। आज यह सब बर्बाद हो रहा है। आज जिस पंचायती राज व्यवस्था को लोग ग्राम स्वराज की संज्ञा दे देते हैं, वह वास्तव में ग्राम स्वराज नहीं है। यहां भी ऊपर से निर्णय होते हैं। एक पंचायत में अमूमन 5-6 हजार की आबादी होती है और 3-4 किलोमीटर का दायरा होता है। ग्राम सभा के कोरम के लिए 20 प्रतिशत उपस्थिति चाहिए। यानी 5 हजार की आबादी में एक हजार की उपस्थिति होगी, तभी ग्राम सभा में निर्णय हो पाएगा, जो संभव नहीं है। 

पंचायती राज व्यवस्था नौकरशाही में बदल गई है। ग्रामसभा की परिकल्पना को एसेंबली ने भी मान्यता दी थी। लेकिन उद््देश्य की पूर्ति नहीं हो रही है। ग्राम के साथ सेवक जोड़ कर बना दिया गया ‘ग्राम सेवक’। वही तय करता है कि गांव में कैसे और किन योजनाओं की राशि बंटेंगी। पैसा जनता का और तय करता है नौकरशाह। पंचायत में भी भ्रष्टाचार ने जड़ जमा लिया है। वृ(ा व विधवा को पेंशन नहीं मिल रही है। हां, इधर कुछ परिवर्तन जरूर हुए हैं। जमींदारी प्रथा में दमन था, वह खत्म हुआ है। अब दलितों व गरीबों को भी सताना आसान नहीं रहा। लेकिन समता के स्तर पर सार्थक परिवर्तन नहीं हुए हैं। विषमता बढ़ी है। गैरबराबरी बढ़ी है। मशीनीकरण के कारण खाई बढ़ी है। अमीर और अमीर हुआ है, गरीब और गरीब। युवा गांव में रहना नहीं चाहते हैं। जमीन बेच कर लोग शहर की ओर पलायन कर रहे हैं। बाजार ने गांव को अपने आगोश में ले लिया है। मेरे गांव का उदाहरण ले लीजिए। इस गांव में 20-30 मोटरगाडि़यां हैं। एक छोटे से गांव में 40-50 बाइक हैं। गांव के लोग खेती से भाग रहे हैं। बड़े जोत वाले किसान भी चाहते हैं कि सरकारी नौकरी हो जाए। शहर में एक-दो प्लाॅट जमीन और मकान हो जाए, ताकि आराम से जिंदगी कट जाए। गांव का एक व्यक्ति है, जिसने 4 बिगहा जमीन 48 लाख में बेच कर शहर में जमीन खरीदी। मकान बनवाया और हरेक महीने 7-8 हजार रुपये किराया का जुगाड़ कर लिया।  

जो जमीन पर काम करने वाले लोग हैं, उनके बीच सिलिंग एक्ट बनाकर जमीन बांट देनी चाहिए। आज गांव में ज्यादा जमीन रखने की दिलचस्पी घटी है। भूमिहीन भी शहर में ही रहना चाहते हैं। जापान और ताइवान की तरह मुआवजा देकर भूमिहीनों में जमीन बांटी जानी चाहिए। जब सरकार भूमि अधिग्रहण के लिए पैसे दे रही है, तो इन्हें भी दें। 

(लेखक समाजवादी चिन्तक हैं)

Digital sw@raj

Sankar Ray 

Who between the two personalities in the history of mankind understood villages and villagers better is not the issue in this discourse as there was a huge area of unity of thought between them.


In a message of blessings to the members of central core team of co-operative society at the Viswa Bharati in  Rabindranath Tagore's wrote in 1928 ,"The true essence of  motherland is in the villages. There is the abode of life, the Goddess Lakshmi is seated there. But that seat has not been ready for a long time. The plutocrats (Dhananapati Kuver) drew people's attention to his dungeon, Yakshapuri. Ages back, we forgot to invocate the serenity (Shri) in the granary. Along with that, gone away  from the country are the beauty, health, learning, bliss and only a little of life remains. Today, water bodies in the countryside are dried up, air polluted, roads inaccessible, storage nil. Social binding is  loosened, jealousy and bad practices prevail. As a result, frailty of habitations is getting frailer."
 It was the great muse (although litterateur only partially describes the unique man of the millennium) talked of pollution 84 years ago when the environment as a scientific discipline was in the nebulous stage Rabindranath was a deep ecologist, thought Marjorie Sykes, who had worked with both Tagore and Gandhi. She firmly stated that it was not Gandhi who originated the well-known saying: 'The Earth has enough for everyone's need but not for anyone's greed.' The myriad-minded poet focused on the  Mother Earth and her children first in his essay 'City and Village', Sykes pointed out. . She did not take it seriously, the Indologist admitted. "Many years later, when I was a volunteer working on the Elmhirst Papers at the Dartington Hall Trust Archive, the name Rabindranath Tagore came to my attention again, and I learned of Leonard Elmhirst's work in India for Tagore on rural reconstruction. Finally, while studying Literature with the Open University, I encountered Gitanjali, which is most Westerners' first (and often only) experience of Tagore's writing, while studying W.B. Yeats, whose blood was stirred by this collection of 'song offerings'. And I have to confess, that the Tagore who wrote 'City and Village' appealed to me then far more than the Indian mystic, meaning Gandhiji.
 In his programme of Swadeshi Samaj in 1905, synchronising with his valiant protest against Lord Curzon's Partition of  Bengal, for which he wrote several timeless patriotic songs, Rabindranath Tagore, along with another lawyer with vociferous patriotism , enunciated his ideas for reconstruction of rural societies , based on traditional knowledge and values. "Villages in the country must be built up to be complete self-sufficient and able to supply all their needs."
 But I do not say that Gandhiji copied Tagore in his Gram Swaraj which is a continuity of Hind Swaraj, the Mahatma wrote 101 years ago. Amit Bandyopdhyay who was deeply involved in the Naxalite movement and now a fellow traveler of CPI(Marxist-Leninist) Liberation group, essentially a scholar of history told this writer, " Nobody understood India as Rabindranath and Gandhi". It's difficult to disagree with him. Little wonder, the two great minds had a deep mutual reverence and camaraderie.   Who between the two uncommon personalities in the history of mankind understood villages and villagers better is not the issue in this discourse as there was a huge area of unity of thought between them.
However, my objective is to evaluate Tagore as a thinker about village society. In 1944, Karl Polanyi formulated the concept of 'market society' in his seminal work Great Transformations. Tagore envisioned this in his essays on cooperatives in the late 1920s. Polanyi wrote - "No society could, naturally, live for any length of time unless it possessed an economy of some sort; but previously to our time no economy has ever existed that, even in principle, was controlled by markets. . . . Gain and profit made on exchange never before played an important part in human economy" Tagore wrote that internal 'symmetry' is the basis of society.
In an essay on the special character of Indian cooperative societal structure (not to be mixed with the juridical perception of co-operative societies),  he criticised 'capital' strongly, envisaging the barbaric and predatory goals of the emerging system.
"Capital is such a thing that has surpassed all resources of society and creates a huge inequality….Machinery-dependent capital accumulation and the natural power of common people comprise an extreme asymmetry that forced common folk to accept defeat at every step."
Two decades thereafter, the Polish sociological economist wrote - "Though human society is naturally conditioned by economic factors, the motives of human individuals are only exceptionally determined by the needs of material want-satisfaction. That nineteenth century society was organised on the assumption that such a motivation could be made universal was a peculiarity of the age. It was, therefore, appropriate to allow a comparatively wide scope to the play of economic motives when analyzing that society"
 Polanyi treads along the Marxian path. Incredible as it may, Marx envisioned the motive force of  communist or socialist society as "Collective self-activity" while Tagore perceived the  cooperative system, based on 'Sammilito atma-kortutwa' (United self-authority).
 Sociologists, economists and scientists need to study Tagore's thoughts on 'human society' and ecological ideas. When the neo-liberal capitalist experiment tends to destroy the humanity, Tagore and Gandhi are our symbol of hope.

Global village vs Indian village

 Devdutt

When the economic liberalization policy was announced in 1991, the government spokesmen had said that "the government sought to make small industry a vibrant and dynamic instrument of industrial change in the country." 

WTO trade regime in the decade of nineties has brought a crisis of livelihood in rural Indian. The prices have fallen since id '90s threatening the viability of small farming.

The village still remains the essential category in people's mind as the core of India's National Agriculture is a way of life, a tradition which for centuries has shaped the thought, the culture and the economic life of the people of India… Agriculture, therefore, is and will continue to be central to all strategies for planned socio-economic development."
The Economic Survey (2002-03) admitted the adverse impact of WTO agreement on agriculture, viz. flooding of Indian market with cheap agriculture imports though imposition of tariffs (bound rates) under WTO which in respect of nuts, tea and cotton are 15%, food grains 70% to 100%, edible ails 45% to 300% and 40% to 50% for fruits.
The WTO trade regime in the decade of nineties has brought a crisis of livelihood in rural India.
The price of all primary commodities (including wheat and rice) has fallen since mid '90's. It threatens the viability of medium level farmers, is used to advocate removal of land ceilings and tenancy regulations.
In 1991, according to census figures, 90% of the workers are in rural and unorganized sector, which comprises Dalits, SC, ST, and majority of OBCs, minorities and economically backward classes. Now this percentage has gone up to 93 under the impact of globalization and the depressed state of Indian economy during 1993-94 to 1999-2000. The number of cultivations in agriculture has gone down by six million while the number of agricultural workers has gone up by three millions.
The process of liberalization and economic globalization and economic globalization has been depriving the already marginalized sections or rural communities of their access, right and control over land, water, vegetation and common property resources. For example, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in May 2002 declared to lease three lakh hectares of common land for agri-business, storage and market.
The proposed land leasing plans, it is reported, leasing plans, it is reported, are because the state is falling prey to the pressure from IMF, WTO and World Bank. This programme deprives 30 million agriculture labours and 15 million landless Dalits of their right to work, water and food. Direct impact of globalization is increasing land consolidation - lifting or diluting ceiling laws leading to corporate farming. There are plans to hand over degraded lands and forest lands to corporate sector. The globalization induced privatization has given rise to contract labour. This contract-based employment, mechanization and an unregulated price mechanism have resulted in marginalizing the poor and impoverishing small and medium farmers.
 The experience of the last decade shows that the agreement with the trade regime ultimately has hastened the process of integration of Indian agriculture with the world agriculture market, which is only in the interests of rich farmers in India. They have gained proportionately more in terms of incremental output than small and marginal farmers. It has also been in the interest of European Union, Japan and North America. India's agricultural imports were of the order of US $ 1.86 billions in 2000-01 and they increased to 2.29 billions in 2002-02.
If this trend is not halted, it will destroy agriculture as a way of life, pauperize the Indian peasantry, undermine food security and ultimately destabilize politics. It will further lead to enormous displacement of peasantry with out alternative avenues of employment.
When the economic liberalization policy was announced in 1991, the government spokesmen had said that "the government sought to make small industry a vibrant and dynamic instrument of industrial change in the country." But the report of the third census of small scale industries prompts anxiety. The vibrancy and dynamism anticipated remain unrealized.
Lakhs of artisans in the villages have been rendered jobless and destitute. The plantation sector-tea, coffee and rubber -has been hard hit. Because of closure of tea gardens thousands of jobless tea plantation workers have been surviving on rats and snakes. According to a survey conducted at the behest of the Supreme Court in connection with a P.I.L. petition "thousands of jobless families have survived by eating rats and snakes in their village."
Even the poor in the USA are victims of economic globalization. There are two Americas: "One America - middle class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten; another America -narrow interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command." Lubec's locals do not fit into either.
Lubec is a small town with a well-knit community of 1652 common people in North USA which is as much victim of economic globalization as any village in India. Take Deniel Fitz Simmons - who used to employ around 50 people in a business making Christmas wreaths. When the North American Free Trade Agreement came in he went out of business, from Canada.
"It's free trade to some people, but it ain't free to us because we're losing everything we had" he says. Mr. Fitzsimmons, 41, turned to digging for clams, scallops and urchins until he found himself short of breath one day and fell on the ground. With no health insurance, he had to make himself bankrupt before he could get financial assistance for the bypass surgery he needed.
"The bills were enough to give you a heat attack if you didn't have one before." Now he is back to digging in the bay early every morning to catch whatever the season washes in. he says, "if you are making a life fishing then you eat chicken on one day and chicken feathers the next day."
 To sum up, super power-sponsored economic globalization as distinguished from globalization as a normal long-term evolutionary process in history has been by its very nature and by virtue of actual experience anti-poor, anti-common man and anti-human values everywhere. Be it India or the USA, the basic structure, of regime under WTO Charter, specially the philosophy underlying WTO agreement on agriculture, is against "agriculture as a way of life". Its ultimate objective is to make agriculture an industry or industrialise agriculture.
The government in India in the national policy on agriculture has accepted this WTO philosophy.

Equitable distribution of resources

 Dr Aravind Kumar 



Rural water sector is faced with a vast array of probloems and one of the most critical challenges pertains to securing an adequate source of water in terms of quantity and quality.

Natural resources, especially water, energy and forests, are shrinking at a rapid pace because of over-exploitation to meet the demands of growing population and keeping up the momentum of economic growth. Of these natural resources, water is very critical for the survival of human beings, animals and plants.

Broadly speaking, more than two billion people worldwide live in regions facing water scarcity and in India this is a particularly acute crisis. Millions of people in India, especially in rural areas, currently lack access to clean drinking water, and the situation is only getting worse. India's demand for water is growing at an alarming rate. A rapidly growing economy and a large agricultural sector stretch India's supply of water even thinner.
Meanwhile, India's supply of water is rapidly dwindling due primarily to mismanagement of water resources, although over-pumping and pollution are also significant contributors. Climate change is expected to exacerbate the problem by causing erratic and unpredictable weather, which could drastically diminish the supply of water coming from rainfall and glaciers. Currently over 30% of the rural population lack access to drinking water, and of the 35 states in India, only 7 have full availability of drinking water for rural inhabitants.
Rural water sector is faced with a vast array of probloems and one of the most critical challenges pertains to securing an adequate source of water in terms of quantity and quality. With burgeoning population the per capita water availability has declined from over 5,000 m3/year in early 1950s to below 1,700 m3/year currently. Besides, ground and surface drinking water sources are increasingly becoming contaminated with natural contaminants like fluoride, arsenic and salinity.
Our experience shows that there is lack of a holistic approach to water resources management with communities taking the lead in preparing their own water balance to ensure that they manage their available surface water, groundwater and rainwater resources and competing demands for drinking water, irrigation and industry.
Undoubtedly, the Planning Commission in its Mid-Term Appraisal of the 11th Plan progress and the 13th Finance Commission Report have recommended establishment of independent water resources regulatory bodies at state level and the 13th Finance Commission has earmarked a conditional grant of Rs. 5,000 Crores for this purpose. However, this measure alone is not sufficient unless it is pursued with diligence, tranparency and sincerity.
Another chalenge facing the rural water supply is that of water quality issues due to chemical contamination. Arsenic contamination is reported in 9 States, fluoride contamination in 18 States, salinity, both in inland and coastal areas of 17 States, iron contamination in 22 States and nitrate contamination is reported in 9 States. These contaminations are either natural or associated with over-exploitation of groundwater. On the other hand many more sources report bacteriological contamination, especially during rainy season and the main reason is unsanitary behavior of local population.
The issue of water quality has assumed serious proportions due to weak legislation and enforcement of water quality standards and testing protocols, enfeebled provider accountability with respect to quality of water provided and lack of awareness amongst rural people about the importance of safe water.
Another notable challenge lies in creating infrastructure, which focuses on providing, improving and sustaining high standards of drinking water supply services. Decentralization puts planning, implementation, operation and maintenance in the hands of the people; creates ownership and commitment to action.  It has been the goal of successive rural water reform programmes in India since 1999. Undoubtedly, programmes like the Sector Reform Programme (1999-2002), Swajaldhara (2002-2008) and National Rural Drinking Water Programme (2009) have promoted a bottom up, "demand responsive" community-based approach, but concurrently our experience at India Water Foundation shows that local government and communities cannot succeed on their own and they need to be given clear-cut roles and responsibilities. It is recommended that while keeping service delivery supply-driven, equal emphasis should be stressed on infrastructure improvement and short periods with high levels of service.
It is worth mentioning her that Government of India has introduced many flagship development programmes like MNREGS, Watershed Development Programmes, BRGF, NRHM, ICDS, TSC, SSA and NRLM etc., to improve rural health and livelihoods and provide sustainable supply of drinking water. Our field experience in Meghalaya, Uttarakhand and Bundelkhand region demonstrates that involvement of multiple institutions gives rise to varying 'rules of the game', which culminate in replication of projects. Thus sectoral approach dominates the collective approach. In order to make fruits of these schemes reach all stakeholders, it is essential to envisage inter-sector coordination which could lead to convergence towards common objectives.
The rural water sector also suffers from a lack of continuous institutionalized support and a programme for strengthening professional capacity. Under the project mode of delivery mechanism, capacity building in rural water is usually directed at infrastructure planning and implementation, under the top-down-approach to identify 'shelves' of schemes and works for financing, based loosely on priorities for uncovered habitations and quality affected areas. However, when the local authorities and communities have had facilities handed over to them, they have mostly lacked the financial and technical skills to independently manage and operate their new sources and systems. In addition, they also lack the knowledge and experience to contract these skills.
On the basis of IWF's experience of rural water supply, it can be recommended that local government and communities should not be abandoned once project infrastructure has been built. They need continuous support including training, technical support, access to professional services and financing to supplement their own revenues.
It is heartening to note that the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation in its Strategic Plan for Rural Drinking Water for 2010-2020 has identified four Strategic Objectives to address the challenges in the sector and achieve its goals, namely: 1. Enable Drinking Water Security Planning and Implementation encompassing participatory integrated water resource management, water security planning and implementation at village, district and State levels, conjunctive use of surface water, groundwater and rainwater harvesting ; 2. Water Quality Management to ensure safe drinking water supply, which is based on ensuring water safety with verification by water quality testing; 3. Institutional, financial and regulatory frameworks and convergence of different development programmes to Strengthen Decentralised Governance; and 4. Training and technical support to build and incentivise Professional Capacity in the sector.
Implementation of these goals with dedication, sincerity, and transparency may contribute to improvement in rural water sector.
(Author is associated with Water Foundation of India)

Gram swaraj not for dalits

 Prof.  Lella Karunyakara


If Hindu village is a symbol of Gram Swaraj, it is a Gram Swaraj of caste Hindus, by caste Hindus and for caste Hindus. Gram Swaraj empowers Caste Hindus to rule over the Dalits. It is a kind of 
colonialism of  the caste Hindus designed to exploit the Dalits.


Gram Swaraj means self-rule of village. It is independence to village. It is a social, economic and political freedom to village. It is an empowerment of village. It is a self-rule for self-sufficient village. The ideal meaning of Gram Swaraj is that recognizing the village as an autonomous administrative unit with its own legislature, executive and judiciary. Each village forming a little state in itself is Gram Swaraj. Is this the meaning of village republic (Gram Swaraj) or more than what meets to the eye? Whose Gram Swaraj it is?  Who stays in the village? Do Dalits stay in the village?. What kind of village actually exists in India? Does it have the culture of social democracy? From the point of view of the Dalits, these are pertinent questions. To find answers, first let us examine typical village system existing in our country as analyzed by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.
The village in India is not a single social unit. It consists of castes. However, the population in the village is broadly divided into two sections- (i). caste Hindu(savarna) and (ii) Dalits(avarna). The Caste Hindus are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra(including OBC). OBC Shudras are economically and educationally backward in comparison to so called Upper caste Hindus. OBCs are the part of village system as they are not socially excluded. They don't have social stigma of untouchability. They are socially acceptable in the village culture. Where as Dalits and Adivasi are not parts of village system. Adivasi stay in hills and forests. Since they live far away from villages, they don't have any impact of Hindu village culture.  Adivasi developed their own village system and culture entirely different from Hindu village system.
In the village system, the Caste Hindus (including OBC) are touchables and the Dalits are untouchables. Caste Hindus form the major community and the Dalits a minority community. Dalits are social minorities in village system.  The Caste Hindus live inside the village and the Dalits live outside the village in separate quarters. Economically, the Caste Hindus form a strong and powerful community, while the Dalits are a poor and a dependent community. Socially, the Caste Hindus occupy the position of a ruling race, while the Dalits occupy the position of a subject race of hereditary bondsmen.
What are the terms of associated life on which the Caste Hindus and Dalits live in an Indian village? In every village the Caste Hindus have a code which the Dalits are required to follow. This code lays down the acts of omissions and commissions which the Caste Hindus treat as offences. The following is the list of such offences:
n The Dalits must live in separate quarters away from the habitation of the Hindus. It is an offence for the Dalits to break or evade the rule of segregation.
n The quarters of the Dalits must be located towards the South, since the South is the most inauspicious of the four directions. A breach of this rule shall be deemed to be an offence.
n The Dalits must observe the rule of distance or shadow of pollution. It is an offence to break the rule.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to acquire wealth, such as land or cattle.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to build a house with tiled roof.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to put on a clean dress, wear shoes, put on a watch or gold ornaments.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to give high sounding names to their children. Their names be such as to indicate contempt.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to sit on a chair in the presence of a Hindu (including OBC Hindu).
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to ride on a horse or a palanquin through the village.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community to take a procession of Dalits through the village.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community not to salute a Hindu.
n  It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community not to speak a cultured language.
n It is an offence for a member of the Dalit community, if he happens to come into the village on a sacred day which the Hindus treat as the day of fast and at or about the time of the breaking of fast, to go about speaking, on the ground that their breath is held to foul the air and the food of the Hindus.
n It is an offence for a Dalit to wear the outward marks of a Caste Hindu and pass himself as a Caste Hindu.
n A Dalit must confirm to the status of an inferior and he must wear the marks of his inferiority for the public to know and identify him such as-
a. Having a contemptible name.
b. Not wearing clean clothes.
c. Not having tiled roof.
d. Not wearing silver and gold ornaments.
A contravention of any of these rules is an offence. Every Hindu in the village regards himself as a superior person above the Dalits. As an overlord, he feels it absolutely essential to maintain his prestige. This prestige he cannot maintain unless he has at his command a retinue to dance attendance on him. It is in the Dalit that he finds a ready retinue which is at his command and for which he does not have to pay. The Dalits by reason of their helplessness cannot refuse to perform these duties and the Hindu villager does not hesitate to exact them since they are so essential to the maintenance of his prestige. A breach of any of the offences involves sure punishment for the Dalits. Another important thing to note is that the punishment for these offences is always collective. The whole community of Dalits is liable for punishment though the offence may have been committed by an individual.
The main source of living in India is agriculture. But this source of earning a living is generally not open to the Dalits. Hence, Dalits in the villages are agricultural landless labourers. In the first place purchase of land is beyond their means. Secondly, even if a Dalit has the money to purchase land he has no opportunity to do so. In most parts the Hindus would resent a Dalit coming forward to purchase land and thereby trying to become the equal of the Caste Hindus. Such act of daring on the part of a Dalit would not only be frowned upon but might easily invite punishment. The result is that in most part the Dalits are forced to be landless labourers. As labourers they cannot demand reasonable wages. They have to work for the Hindu farmer for such wages as their masters choose to give. On this issue the Hindu farmers can combine to keep the wages to the lowest level possible for it is to their interests to do so. On the other hand the Dalits have no holding power. They must earn or starve. Nor have they any bargaing power. They must submit to the rate fixed or suffer violence. When the agricultural season is over the Dalits have no employment and no means of earning a living.  There is no trade in which they are engaged themselves as a means of earning a livelihood. They have not the capital for it and even if they had, no one would buy from them.
There is no social security, no economic security and no political security to Dalits in the villages. There is only one secure source of livelihood is to do menial jobs. Every village has its machinery of administration. The Dalits of the village are hereditary menials employed in the village administration. This is the Village Republic existing in our country. The position of Dalits in this Republic is that they are not merely the last but are also the least. Dalit is stamped as an inferior and is held down to that status by all ways and means which a majority can command.
This inferiority is the destiny not merely of an individual but of the whole class. All Dalits are inferior to all Caste Hindus irrespective of age or qualification. A Caste Hindu youth is above an aged Dalit and an educated Dalit must rank below an illiterate Caste Hindu.
The Dalits have no rights against the Caste Hindus. For them there is no equal right, no justice by which that which is due to the Dalits is allowed to them.  Nothing is due to them except what the Caste Hindus are prepared to grant. The Dalits must not insist on rights. This is the destiny of Dalits in the village. This destiny has no relation to the merits of the individuals living under it. A Dalit however superior he may be mentally or morally, is below a Caste Hindu in rank, no matter how inferior he may be mentally or morally. A Caste Hindu however poor he may be, must always take rank above a Dalit, however rich he may be.
Such is the picture of the inside life in an Indian village. In this Gram Swaraj, there is no place for democracy. There is no room for equality. There is no room for liberty and there is no room for fraternity. The Gram Swaraj in Indian village is the very negation of a Republic.
If Hindu village is a symbol of Gram Swaraj, it is a Gram Swaraj of the Caste Hindus, by the Caste Hindus and for the Caste Hindus. Gram Swaraj empowers Caste Hindus to rule over the Dalits. It is a kind of colonialism of the Caste Hindus designed to exploit the Dalits.
The Dalits have no rights. They are there only to wait, serve and submit. They are there to do or to die. They have no rights because they are outside the Gram Swaraj as they live outside the village. This is a fact which cannot be gainsaid.  
Thus, Gram Swaraj is Jati Swaraj(Rule of the Caste). It is the rule of dominant castes over hapless lower castes. Dr. Ambedkar felt that village in India is hell on the earth. To come out of the torment of this hell, he suggested two ways. One is Dalits to migrate from village to city. As Dalits are social aliens to the village, they have no right on the land, air and water of the village. By migrating to city, the Dalit has nothing to lose except Gram Swaraj of Caste Hindu. He will be getting independence from the rule of feudal village.  Another remedy Dr.Ambedkar suggested is resettlements of Dalit villages. Dalit villages are sub-villages without any rights. Dr.Ambedkar wanted to physically relocate Dalit village away from the Hindu village. Resettlement of Dalit villages with full social, economic and political rights gives them Gram Swaraj. Without resettlement of Dalit village, Dalits will never get freedom from Caste Hindu hegemony.  n
(Author is director of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Centre for Dalit and Tribal Studies, MGIH University, Wardha)

Cooperatives, a tool for self-reliance

Dr. US Awasthi


Gram Swaraj becomes relevant than ever before in the modern context. Cooperatives like Self-employed Women's Association have made a distinct mark on the uplift of rural women.

Ironically, when the concept of 'Gram Swaraj' was propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, it was scorned by a section of the intelligentsia who branded this as regressive. With Gram Swaraj, Gandhiji envisioned, to put power at the hands of the people and made villages the basic unit of politics, economy and society. His idea was not only to decentralise the economy in which each basic unit would be self-sufficient in meeting its main material needs - food, clothing and housing but also to empower the whole population and unite them into a composite whole.
This legacy was carried forward and manifested in Jawaharlal Nehru's socialist ideals and gave birth to the modern industries in India on one hand and cooperatives on the other and 'Swaraj' was re-born. In the modern context, it meant self-sufficiency in production of food grains, milk, steel, cement etc. but achieving all this with minimum exploitation of people as efficiency and economy were not enough if they did not allow the common man to have a stake in the life and destiny of this nation. As a result a mixed economy setup was thought fit for India and the framers of the economic history put a special emphasis on the role of cooperatives in the functioning of the economy, considering the size and the composition of its population. In short, cooperatives not only became a manifestation of ideals of the father of the nation but the vision of the cooperative movement went beyond its narrow interpretation as an economic organization of society and encompassed a wider perspective. The concept of cooperation was not alien to India and even before the formal cooperative structure came into existence people in the village always use to pool resources for the good of the entire village communities collectively creating permanent assets like community tanks or village forests, pooling of resources by groups, like food grains after harvest to lend to needy members of the group before the next harvest, or collecting small contributions in cash at regular intervals to lend to members of the group via chit funds. The phads of Kolhapur where farmers impounded water by putting up bunds and agreed to ensure equitable distribution of water, as well as harvesting and transporting of produce of members to the market, and the lanas which were yearly partnerships of peasants to cultivate jointly, and distribute the harvested produce in proportion to the labor and bullock power contributed by their partners, were similar instances of cooperation.
A firm thrust propelled the growth of the cooperative movement in the India and led to the establishment of some of the most successful cooperatives like Amul, the brand formed by the milk producers' cooperatives in Gujarat that went on to give birth to India's world-renowned White Revolution and proved to be a tool for empowerment for the rural masses especially women with production, processing and marketing done through the farmers-owned cooperatives. The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) was set up to replicate the Amul pattern of cooperatives in milk throughout the country. Another story is the success of IFFCO, with almost 5.5 Crore farmer members, the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) has played a major role in producing and providing adequate quanti ties of plant nutrients for achieving self-sufficiency in food grains production and helped in the rapid growth of agriculture and ushered in the green revolution that made India a food surplus country and it is a role model for cooperatives around the world and has promoted the growth of agricultural cooperatives in a big way. Cooperatives in various sectors like credit, agriculture, fisheries, marketing etc. have seen successes and made their contribution to members' economic security and to the overall economy. Cooperatives, in all spheres, today cover approximately 99% of Indian villages and 71% of total rural households in the country and today contribute 50% in sugar production, 33% in wheat production, 64% in storage facilities (village level PACS) , 36% in fertiliser distribution,25% in the production of fertilisers and almost 18% in agriculture credit.
This demonstrates the strength of the cooperatives and in this day and age when we there is glaring economic disparity, inequitable wealth distribution, concentration of wealth in few hands and the country is gripping with a challenge of getting more and more people in the fold of modern economic development, Cooperatives might just be an answer to all the problems. The failure of the public sector in several cases is a worrisome trend. Privatization has also failed to make an impact in the rural areas. Therefore there is great hope on the co-operative sector. But unfortunately as the cooperatives grew over the years there are certain problems gripping this sector also and these challenges if they are not addressed at the earliest will have severe consequences some of the problems include 'bureaucratization' of cooperatives, lack of information about the objectives of the movement, rules and regulations of co-operative institutions and no special efforts have been made in this direction, local politics, caste-ridden elections to the offices of co-operative societies, bureaucratic attitudes of officials, inadequacy of trained personnel , slow growth of the cooperative movement and lack of education are some of the problems gripping this sector.
I would also like to mention the stupendous work done by the Vaidyanathan committee whose recommendations should be implemented at the earliest.
The Cooperative business model has been successful not only in India but has proved its mettle by surviving in the most difficult global economic situations. The United Nations estimated in 1994 that the livelihood of nearly 3 billion people, or half of the world's population, was made secure by co-operative enterprise and these enterprises continue to play significant economic and social roles in their communities. In Kenya, 63% of the population derives its livelihood from co-operatives, in the United States, 30,000 co-operatives provide more than 2 million jobs, in Denmark, consumer co-operatives in 2007 held 36.4% of consumer retail market, In Japan, the agricultural co-operatives report outputs of USD 90 billion with 91% of all Japanese farmers in membership, in New Zealand, 22% of the gross domestic product (GDP) is generated by co-operative enterprise. Co- operatives are responsible for 95% of the dairy market and 95% of the export dairy market, In Canada four of every ten Canadians are members of at least one co-operative and In Indonesia, co-operatives provide jobs to 288,589 individuals.
 These are one of the many examples that demonstrate the strength and scale of cooperatives globally and we can see the manifestation of 'Swaraj' and 'Gram Swaraj' in particular around the world and it's not incidental that United Nations to declare 2012 as the 'International year of Cooperatives'.
Therefore, 'Gram Swaraj' becomes relevant than ever before in the modern context. Cooperatives like Self-employed Women's Association have made a distinct mark on the uplift of rural women.
Cooperatives can make 'gram swaraj' a reality in the modern social, economic and political context. n
(Author is Managing Director of IFFCO)

Is Gram Swaraj workable?

"The centre of power is in New Delhi, or in Calcutta and Bombay, in the big cities. I would have it distributed among the seven hundred thousand villages of India... There will then be voluntary cooperation— not cooperation induced by Nazi methods. Voluntary cooperation will produce real freedom and a new order vastly superior to the new order in Soviet Russia... Some say there is ruthlessness in Russia, but that is exercised for the lowest and the poorest and is good for that reason. For me, it has very little good in it." 

- Mahatma Gandhi

K A Badarinath

Gandhi envisaged a 'bottom up' setup while India went for 'top down' organisation. In top down system, the villagers form the bottom of the pyramid and supporting the elite at the top. 

Ever imagined what would have happened if our country had, instead of mixed economy, adopted Gandhi’s concept of Gram Swaraj? Was the concept so outlandish that it would end up in the dustbin of history? 

We would not get a clear answer for the first question because it is still in the realm of hypothesis. But, one thing is clear: our experiment with the Nehruvian model of socialist economy failed miserably. Of course, it was bound to be a disaster — Milton Friedman, noted economist, had predicted it in 1955.

 “This policy (mixture of village handicraft units and heavy industries) threatens an inefficient use of capital by combining it with too little labour labour at one extreme and an inefficient use of labour too little capital at the other extreme.” 

Before analysing whether it is a workable concept we should understand first what Gram Swaraj is. Gandhi wanted to place the village at the centre of the country’s social, economic and political organisation. Simply put, the basic concept of Gram swaraj is that every village should be its own republic. Each village should be basically self-reliant, making provision for all necessities of life -- food, clothing, education, sanitation and so on.  

But the political leadership at that time did not see any merit in this argument. Jawaharlal Nehru believed centralised, large-scale, heavy industry were essential if India was to develop, increase its wealth and become a modern state. 

For him, the power should rest with the centre. He was averse to sharing power with villages. Gandhi envisaged a ‘bottom up’ setup while India went for ‘top down’ organisation. In top down system, the villagers form the bottom of the pyramid and supporting the elite at the top. 

This skewed policy has been hurting the social and political system of the country. Even in the distribution of national and natural resources, this disparity is visible. The government do not show any urgency to help the farmers in distress while it goes out of way to support the industry.  

Gandhi favoured production by masses instead of mass production. He disapproved of a system that was exploitative and accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals. When asked to respond about American auto maker Ford’s plan to decentralise his industry by setting up innumerable smaller units in villages where villagers would run them, he said, “…. because while it is true that you will be producing things in innumerable areas, the power will come from one selected centre. That, in the end, I think it would be disastrous. It would place such a limitless power in one human agency that I dread to think of it. The consequence, for instance, of such a control of power would be that I would be dependent on that power for light, water, even air, and so on. That, I think, would be terrible.” 

Gram Swaraj cannot remain a mere slogan or concept that is alien to modern Indian society and economy at large. It could play a more effective role vis-à-vis the present system of doling out mercies in the form of MGNREGA or Old Age Pension to toiling villagers through central schemes.

It has new meaning and application to Indian economy and society at large given sweeping changes in the ethos, culture, political dispensations at all levels, social moorings and economic liberalisation. It suits more in the liberal economy, which the nation has today. The system of artificially collective public money at the national level and then redistributing them at the grassroots is just the antithesis of what liberalisation means, as it breeds corruption and wastage of scarce resources.

Many of us tend to limit this concept of ‘grassroots empowerment’ to a slogan adopted by few Gandhians or ‘bhoodan’ and ‘godaan’ movements of Vinobha bhave. Had this been in operation and had the founding fathers of new modern and Independent India given thought over it, the concept could have given dramatic results.

Yes, the concept of empowering rural people first envisaged during pre-Independence days when Mahatma led the charge against imperialistic British rule. For him freedom was not limited to shift of power at the central or state level from foreigners to Indians, but his moorings were entirely into converting India into a nation which was free from hunger, exploitation, illiteracy etc.

After 65 years, post-independence, the concept is more relevant given the fact that centralized economic planning and Nehruvian economic model has failed this country, people and its vast population in the rural landscape that total to over 1.22 billion. To prove this point one can cul out figures from the government statistics itself, as on any of the social indicators, it’s the rural India, which is more impoverished than the urban areas.

As we move to beginning of twelfth plan during 2012-17 and fourth finance commission is being constituted, a serious look at our economic model is clearly a must.

Percolation or trickle down of economic resources controlled at centre to over 6.25 lakh villages has failed miserably thereby denying basic life supporting infrastructure to over 660 million people that live in them.

Interestingly enough, vast chunk of these resources totaling over Rs 14,00,000 crore are collected from these very areas and later shared by states and centre.

De-control of resources to district centres, blocks and villages has turned the biggest challenge as the centralized planning and states turning into implementation bodies has failed and has not yielded results. Also, except spending resources on maintaining the corrupt bureaucracy, nothing substantial has happened beyond the district centres. In some far flung states, even district centres are no different from the villages at lowest level and farther most that may not have seen any official visit.

Centralised planning & dictating economic and development schemes has also taken away the basic right of people in villages to have a say in ‘governance’ and prioritizing as well as designing the development projects for their communities. Control on the resources has also gone or been denied to people who create wealth, food and fodder for the vast populace. Given the straight jacket centralized planning, the communities at village level do not have the leeway in innovation in a project that would suit them while saving costs and ensuring their participation.

Either ‘babus’ sitting in Yojana Bhavan design a development project without having clue as to what is the ground realities or state secretariats do their bit without consultation at lowest level. Even if they claim to have seen the villages, they still fail to feel needs of villagers.

Consequences of this failure in centralized economic planning and Nehruvian model of ‘trickle down’ in resources has a huge cost that the nation has to pay.

First, even today, majority or over 70 percent of Indian population has not been able to earn its bread. And, it does not earn even $ 1.25 per day considered cut off limit by World Bank to cross the poverty line. Most people do not have access to Rs 26 per day that our own ‘Tuglak’ planners think enough to determine as to who continue to be below poverty line or otherwise.

Second, large-scale migration of rural population especially able-bodied workforce in droves is yet another phenomenon that may not reverse in a hurry notwithstanding the rural employment guarantee schemes and the likes. 

Large parts of Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, rural Maharashtra and Gujarat apart from Madhya Pradesh and Uttrar Pradesh continue to move to concrete jungles that we call metropolis.

Third, centralized planning with aid and abetment of states has ensured that rural folks do not have any control on its own land, water and forest resources leading to revolt by the farmers across the country led by eminent Gandhian PV Rajagopal.

Given the situation prevailing in the country and the way mixed economy is pursued by Indian society, it seems that the market has played truant on the people from both sides – socialism and capitalism. 

In both the cases resources are being controlled by a few either in the form of state representatives or capitalist. In both the cases controllers of the resources first ensure their own greed and then allow the wealth to trickle down to the common mass.

Fourth, village panchayats and even block offices have just become outposts of district collectorates without fiscal and administrative powers to ‘do or not do a project’. 

And then “sahib” culture creeps in, where freedom of choice is skewed in favour of those sitting in authority and the beneficiaries have to content with what is given to them – good or bad.

Fifth, vulnerable sections of rural people especially the tribal communities have been marginalized to starvation while the farm sector continues to reel under siege of apathetic centralized planning run by insensitive bureaucracy. 

Sixth, control of vast resources and productive assets has got concentrated in few hands that look upon our villages without heart and soul but as ‘lucrative markets’ to sell their ware.

It is in this context that eminent social activist Anna Hazare’s recent remarks that ‘Gram Sabhas’ become socially and economically empowered bodies assume large significance. Parliament and State legislature bodies be just representative of these village bodies may be laughed off by many of policymakers as ‘trash’.

One need to take clue: villages become the centre of all socio-economic activity i.e. resources generation, their management and channeling into rural & economic ‘high-yielding’ projects with productive work for indigenous population is what has been prescribed.

Former President Abdul Kalam’s vision 2020 document clearly puts village at the centre of our development model thereby up-turning the Nehruvian system of ‘trickle down’. Problem however continues to remain there, as the question is who will plan and execute the lofty idea of Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas (PURA).

Question is, will the Centre and states allow village Panchayats to collect taxes or will they allow finance commission to include villages also to share the resources of the nation. 

Are not we failed to develop villages into manufacturing hubs so that villages can turn toward self-sufficiency? Had this had happened villages would have turned into revenue centres and thus prosperity could have been created and enjoyed locally.

जोड़ने होंगे गाँव शहर के सम्बन्ध

अनुपम मिश्रा

आज शहरों में रहने वाले लोगों को ग्राम स्वराज की क्या जरूरत आन पड़ी लेकिन इस बारे में कुछ बात और कुछ संवाद गांव और शहर के बीच होना ही है तो ढंग से होना चाहिए।

आज शहर में रहने वाले ज्यादातर लोग थोड़ा सा पिछे हटकर अपना इतिहास देखें तो पता चलेगा कि हममें से ज्यादातर शहरी लोग पचास-सौ साल पहले किसी गांव से ही निकल कर यहां आए होंगे। वैसे तो शहरों के रेलवे स्टेशनों में आने वाली दिन भर की रेलगाडि़यों से लोग लगातार गांव से शहर में आ रहे हैं। लेकिन जिनको ऐसी कोई गलतफहमी है कि वे शहर में ही रहते आए हैं, उन्हें भी अपना इतिहास पलट लेना चाहिए।

कुछ समय पहले तक हमारे गांव और शहर एक दूसरे के पूरक हुआ करते थे, इन दोनों में छीना-झपटी वाला कोई संबंध नहीं था। शहर भी ऐसे बड़े और भीमकाय नहीं हुआ करते थे। उनकी अपनी जरूरतें थीं, लगभग उसी ढंग से पूरी होती थीं जैसे कोई गांव अपनी जरूरत पूरी कर लेता है। 

बताया जाता है, अंग्रेजों के आने से पहले दिल्ली मंे कोई 800 तालाब होते थे, इसका मतलब है, कम से कम पानी के मामले मंे दिल्ली को गांव का पानी नहीं चुराना पड़ता था। यह चोरी वाला मामला ही हमें ग्राम स्वराज और नगर स्वराज पर सोचने पर मजबूर करेगा। 

देश के कोई पांच लाख गांव यदि देश के कुछ 10-12 महानगरों और एक-डेढ़ हजार नगरों की सेवा में लग जाएंगे तो इससे ना गांव बचेगा और ना ये शहर जिनके लिए यह सब किया जा रहा है। 

स्वराज का मतलब गांव और शहर दोनों के लिए एक से महत्व का होना चाहिए। दोनों एक दूसरे की इज्जत करें, ध्यान रखें, तभी दोनांे का अस्तित्व बना रह सकेगा।

बहुत से सामाजिक चिन्तकों ने ग्राम स्वराज पर बहुत कुछ सोचा-विचारा है और उसको सफल बनाने के लिए कई तरह के प्रयास और आन्दोलन भी चलाएं हैं लेकिन हम पाते हैं कि इन सबके बावजूद ना आज गांव बच पा रहे हैं। ना शहर। दोनों अपनी आजादी का कुछ हिस्सा रोज खोते जा रहे हैं। 

एक तरह से कहें तो आज का दौड़ भगदड़ में पड़ी सभ्यता का दौड़ है। गांव की कीमती जमीन, सरकार, उद्योग और शहर तीनों मिलकर कौडि़यों के दाम पर खरीदना चाहते हैं। लेकिन उस पर जो वे विकास करते हैं, उसके पास पानी और बिजली की कमी आ जाती है। हमारे सबसे चमकीले दिखने वाले शहर, अपनी आजादी की बात नहीं कर सकते, सब किसी ना किसी परेशानी से गुजर रहे हैं। 

ठसलिए ग्राम स्वराज की अच्छी योजना, बातचीत हमें एक ऐसी जगह तक ले जाएगी, जहां से हम अपना गांव भी सुधार सकेंगे और उसी अनुपात में अपने शहरों को भी थोड़ा बेहतर बना सकेंगे।