Plight of Peasantry: Re-reading Fakir Mohan Senapati’s Six Acres and a Third in the Context of New Farm Laws in India

Introduction

Fakir Mohan Senapati (1846–1918), an iconic writer of Odia literature, is primarily known for his novel Six Acres and a Third, initially serialized in 1897–1899 and later published as a book in the year 1902. The novel is considered by most of the critics and scholars as a pioneering work of social realism. However, due to the regional and linguistic marginality, Senapati remained unrecognized for a long time. Though he was known in the circle of Odia readers for his contribution to the Odia language and literature, he got national and international popularity in the wake of English translation in 1967. ¹ Senapati, writing in the nineteenth-century colonial and feudal India, has dealt with some of the contentious contemporary issues of agrarian society, landed property, and the legal and social problems associated with it. That is why his novel can be read as a historical discourse. His artistic distinction lies in delineating characters in a way that one can hardly fail to find their historical and actual parallels. Although the story largely deals with the rise and fall of its protagonist Mangaraj, the novel has been written, what Mohanty (2006) calls in his introduction to the novel, ‘from the perspective of the horse, the ordinary villager, and the foot soldier-in other words the labouring poor of the world’ (p. 2). ² That is, the narrative revolves around Mangaraj, but Senapati has not overlooked the downtrodden and the marginalized whose plight he has portrayed with irony and humour. The plight of the farmers in the text of Senapati seems to be congruent with those of the contemporary farmers who are reduced to suicidal existence through certain institutional mechanisms, of which the latest farm law is apprehended to be pernicious extension. There is an apprehension among the farmers that the new farm laws will subject them to the interest of big firms and corporate houses that has been the trend of the neoliberal economy. Thus, it could be said that the expansion of privatization of agriculture is suspected to affect badly the life of a large number of Indian population, jeopardizing even their social identity and dignity. In this way, a large number of them, who are already poor, will be reduced to destitution. It is a fact that for the past two decades of India’s liberalization, a kind of oligopoly is emerging, where, a tiny minority is getting richer, while the millions of producers are getting poorer. Many scholars have argued that the new farm laws will pave the way for the large agribusiness firms and corporates into the farm sector. This unbridled access to farming and farm produce will result in a new form of monopoly. The sense of insecurity brings into focus a series of questions regarding farmers’ life and livelihood: will these farm laws certainly change the condition of the farmers, especially small and marginalized ones, who constitute 85% of the Indian farming community (EPW Engage, 2020) ³ . The aforementioned question can be examined in retrospection, in the light of Senapati’s fictional narrative. During the course of narration, Senapati’s analytical realism makes observation on the plight in perpetuation. It is argued that despite political and ideological transition from colonial and feudal to democratic socialist India, ironically, the condition of the farming community has experienced insignificant change. It is noteworthy that a critical study of a realistic novel, particularly the one that deals with the ordinary people, can undoubtedly contribute to our understanding of the history and politics of agrarian relations and agricultural economy.

Critical Realism: A Study of Six Acres and a Third

Six Acres and a Third follows the pattern of ‘analytical realism’, as Satya P. Mohanty has clearly illustrated in detail in his introduction to the novel. Mohanty (2006) draws upon Georg Lukacs’ distinction between analytical realism from naturalistic realism. The descriptive realism is mimetic in nature, since it ‘builds on the accumulation of details’; whereas, analytical realism ‘explains and delves into the underlying causes’ (p. 2). To put it simply, analytical realism ‘seeks to analyse and explain social reality instead of merely holding up a mirror to it’ (p. 2). Senapati’s analytical realism, according to Mohanty, is attained by ‘a self-reflexive and even self-parodic narrative mode,’ both of which emphasize the way a story is told (pp. 2–3). A self-reflexive narrator probes under the surface, focusing ‘not only on the “what” but also on the “how” of societal representation’. As a result, he creates a reader, to whom Mohanty calls critical reader, one who is willingly forced to engage with the text’s ironic style, latent meanings and alternative social vision. Vargas (2011), in her comparative study of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s ‘marvellous realism’ and Senapati’s analytical realism, defines the two as the forms of critical realism. Because it is the critical realism that analyses and critiques social reality.

The implication of Mohanty’s analytical or critical realism is explicated from the first chapter of the novel that apparently revolves around its central character—Mangaraj—whereas, it is the writer’s particular narrative mode that interrogatively represents society. Mangaraj’s delineation is paradoxical—‘a landlord, moneylender’ and above all a ‘pious man’ whose personality is dawn upon contradictory virtues. A financial shark with pretended piety whose rise and fall in the novel constitute the central concern of Senapati’s art. The implied meaning of these virtues illustrates the hypocrisy of his character that is well reflected in his social behaviour conducted under the veneer of benevolence. The narrator elaborates on his piety, which, as a social custom, is weighted by one’s observation of religious rituals. Senapati’s narrator satirizes Mangaraj’s observance to reveal his actual character, commenting that ‘there are twenty-four ekadasis in a year; even if there had been forty such holy days, he would have observed every single one… Every ekadasi he fasted, taking nothing but water and a few leaves of the sacred basil plant for the entire day’ (Senapati, 2006, p. 35). In the following sentence, the hypocrisy of piety is exposed. We are told how Mangaraj is served by his servant Jaga in disguising the fasts as the narrator says:

Just the other afternoon, though, Mangaraj’s barber, Jaga, let it slip that on the evenings of ekadasis a large pot of milk, some bananas, and a small quantity of khai and nabata are placed in the master’s bedroom. Very early the next morning, Jaga removes the empty pot and washes it. (Senapati, 2006, p. 35)

Various evidences and authorities are called forth to reveal the truth. As the narrator continues:

we would like to plead his case as follows: Let the eyewitness who has seen Mangaraj emptying the pot come forward, for like judges in a court of law we are absolutely unwilling to accept hearsay and conjecture as evidence. All the more so since science textbooks state unequivocally: “Liquids evaporate.” Is milk not a liquid? Why should milk in a zamindar’s household defy the laws of science? Besides, there were moles, rats, and bugs in his bedroom. And in whose house can mosquitoes and flies not be found? Like all base creatures of appetite, these are always on the lookout for food; such creatures are not spiritually minded like Mangaraj, who had the benefit of listening to the holy scriptures. It would be a great sin, then, to doubt Mangaraj’s piety or unwavering devotion. (Senapati, 2006, p. 36)

The paragraph reads like a caricature of justice, where Mangaraj’s piety is taken for granted in popular perception, which is determined by his social status rather than his actual conduct. This underlines Senapati’s perception of man and social reality, which critics consider his analytical realism, providing the reader with insight into the circumstances, which favour the powerful and destroy the powerless. It underlines the fact that man and society suffer less through natural vagaries and more because of the manipulation of law, a phenomenon which perhaps has been part of human society.

Senapati was writing in colonial India, when the laws were framed by the colonial masters, since colonialism designs institutions in the interest of the colonizers and their collaborators. The ordinary natives were systematically left on the margins and, at times, reduce into a condition, whom Fanon (2007) has given an iconic representation in his The Wretched of the Earth. ⁴ But one should keep in mind that the reality of colonial behaviour, which Fanon faced on the African continent, is very different from what Senapati was undergoing. It is not simply the difference in terms of history and geography; rather, the behaviour of colonial power in the nineteenth century when Senapati was writing was not the same which Frantz Fanon and his contemporaries have experienced and observed. One can further draw a distinction between colonial conditions of the nineteenth century or even of the twentieth century and that of decolonized India. This is what reading of Fanon also suggests, which is very important to understand the behaviour of political dispensation in independent India and the plight of the farming people. This consistency is so disconcerting. For example, during colonialism, the victim and oppressor could identify each other, the victim knew that he is fighting an enemy whom he can recognize and had this illusion that removal of those will not simply bring independence but also prosperity, equality and social dignity. In retrospection, Senapati was anticipating the future where the traditional distinction has disappeared, and hence the confusion. Nowadays, the exploiter and the exploited belong to independent India, a situation whose analysis can shatter the dreams of those who sacrificed their life for emancipation from all types of oppression. Thus, the paradox should not be taken in terms of historical binary of colonial and independent India. This aspect of appearance and reality has already been taken up while delineating with the character of Mangaraj since Senapati was writing in the nineteenth-century feudal India when people deeply followed religion, particularly the conservative section. He takes an ironic view of the abuse of religion and religious rituals to exploit people, of which Mangaraj is projected as a symbolic character. Senapati’s tale of manipulation and exploitation can hardly fail to bring in contemporary parallel. In the present scenario, it seems the freedom of farmers and modernity in agriculture is promised to make this policy initiative of three farm laws acceptable to the farming community. A parallel can be drawn between Mangaraj’s professed benignity and real exploitation in colonial times with the hidden political agenda and assumed freedom of farmers in the present times.

Agricultural Reforms in India: An Overview

Reforms in any sector of the economy are designed to improve the condition of people in a democracy. All democratic institutions are oriented in this realization as Max Weber has propounded (Weber, 1994). In the initial decades of independence, India was confronted with one of the most serious challenges of food insecurity, which was perused to have crippling repercussions on the progress of Indian democracy and social stability with which are associated so many issues. Several laws and reforms were enacted to improve the economic condition of the state. The 1960s Green Revolution, which aimed to maximize food production, served as an engine in achieving the national goal of food self-sufficiency. The institutional mechanism in the form of government-regulated mandis under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act played an important role in achieving food self-sufficiency. The minimum support price (MSP) and procurement policy established with Green Revolution were designed to encourage farmers to produce cereals in order to assist India in achieving its objective of food self-sufficiency. ⁵

The economic reforms of the 1990s, in particular, saw a major shift in agricultural marketing and enhancement of crop production. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that they were unable to provide a significant increase in farmer’s income and welfare. Chand (2016) has argued that the economic reforms of the 1990s further widened the income gap between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Moreover, it is observed that with the reforms of the 1990s, the agricultural sector has been losing its importance as an income-generating sector at a fast pace (De Roy, 2017). Dhar and Kishore (2021) argue that although there has been an improvement in Indian agriculture after independence, it is also a fact that the improvement has long plateaued. Looking at the country as a whole, a majority of them are falling into debt, and the agrarian distress has eventually resulted in increasing cases of suicides (Singh et al., 2014). ⁶ Therefore, no doubt it maximized food yield, but at the same time, it failed in its principal objective of providing a holistic solution to the plight of the farming community.

The agricultural share in the India’s gross domestic product (GDP) was 45% in 1950–1951, while the proportion of the workforce engaged in the sector was close to 70%. But agriculture now accounts only around 15% of GDP, yet it still employs and offers livelihood to more than 42% of the country’s workforce (Dhar & Kishore, 2021). The seventy-seventh National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) report on agriculture and rural households also underlines the growing immiseration of farmers. It reports that between 2012–2013 and 2018–2019, the number of agricultural households has increased marginally from 90 million to 93 million. This ironically explicates the ethos of agricultural reformation. Hence, the argument that the agricultural reforms, including new Farm Laws (Government of India, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), will enhance the agricultural growth rate and the livelihood security of the agrarian population seems so elusive.

Critical Analysis of the Farm Laws

In 2020, at a time of great crises created by the ravaging pandemic, the Government of India brought in through ordinances three contentious farm laws purported to change the way agricultural produce is processed, marketed, sold and stored across the country. The bills were hassled through both the houses amid great uproar and eventually got the presidential assent. ⁷ These three laws are as follows: Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; Farmer’s (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Service Act, 2020; and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020. The economic rationale behind these legislations is that they will provide greater choice and freedom to farmers to sell their produce outside local markets, but the farmers are not ready to buy this argument; rather, they perceive it as a conspiracy to privatize farming and farm marketing. Conversely, the laws promising to liberalize agribusiness beyond federal boundaries, have become a subject of intensive discussion and controversy, causing massive protests nationwide. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine these laws.

Demographically speaking, India being a big country is largely dependent on farming. Though with industrialization and urbanization, a relatively developed service sector, the general pattern of the economy has changed. Nevertheless, agriculture still retains its traditional lead as is believed by developmental economists (Jen De Tracey, Amrita Sen). It is said that about 70% of the Indian population is still associated with agriculture and allied activities. Census (2011) contains some disconcerting data as it says that there are 494.9 million landless individuals in villages, who are directly or indirectly dependent on cultivation for their livelihoods. In addition, according to the Census, around 12 million or nearly 14% of the farming community are tenant farmers or sharecroppers, who work as wage labourers .Therefore, a change in the mode of production, marketing and food distribution will directly impact their existence and livelihood.

The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (FPTC Act), formally allows greater choice and freedom to farmers to sell their produce either within or outside the notified APMC mandis (markets), thereby widening the market and eliminating middlemen from agricultural marketing. Several studies have also found that commission agents and members of the Marketing Committee frequently formed cartels and collaborated to control prices (Chengappa et al., 2012; Harriss-White, 1996). Therefore, the inefficiency of regulated markets results in a lack of transparency in auctioning. Bhalla (2020) has argued that these laws attack the corrosive power held by APMC markets, and the new laws allow the farmers to sell outside the APMC markets. Panagariya (2020) argued that the emergence of two types of markets (private markets along with government-regulated APMC markets) will benefit the farmers in terms of better and assured prices. It is also claimed that this law will remove the taxes and other fees that state governments collect from traders in the state-regulated APMC mandis. Finally, Iyer (2020) contends that this law will not dilute the MSP, and that the public procurement policy system (PPS) via APMC markets will remain intact.

The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act (FAPA Act) 2020 facilitates contract farming, under which agribusiness firms and retail supermarket chains enter into prior agreements with farmers for production, pricing and purchase of agricultural products. It is assumed that both the corporates and farmers meet as equals and mutually agree on a price to trade farm produce. The neoclassical economics had already assured on the same line that in a free market system, the price will clear the market so that there are no unsatisfied buyers and sellers. ⁸ This law also aims to shift the price risk from farmers to the private sector. Some empirical studies have also found that contract farming improves farmer’s income (Barrett et al., 2012; Jodhka, 2021).

Contrary to these claims, farmers believe that these laws will have pernicious repercussions on the socio-economic well-being of rural India in general, and farmers in particular (Business Standard, 2020). They believe that the current government uses these laws to minimize its participation in agricultural marketing, in line with the neoclassical economics, thereby reducing the role of the public sector in the functioning of the economy. Hence, it is apprehended that the government support in the form of public procurement policy and APMC mandis will be disabled (Mandal, 2020). Jaffrelot and Thakker (2020) emphasize that the farmers’ concern is that the MSP will cease to exist because it is not mentioned in any of the three Acts. Gill (2020) contends that, on the one hand, these laws make a serious attack on the country’s federal structure and encroaches upon the state autonomy, while, on the other hand, they pose a severe threat to farmers’ livelihoods. Kumar (2021), in his micro-study of repeal of APMC Act, 2006, in Bihar, identifies that the intention of providing more choices to the farmers by repealing the APMC Act failed to bring any solution to the crises of agricultural markets. Basu and Singh (2020) hold the view that these Acts indicate a planned deregulation of agricultural markets, which will gradually lead to the elimination of the MSP and government purchases to be replaced by corporate buyers. This will further amplify the existing asymmetries of power between small and marginal farmers and big companies.

Regarding contract farming, farmers fear that powerful investors would bind them to unfavourable contracts drafted by big corporate firms, with liability clauses the jargon of which in most of the cases would be beyond their comprehension. In the process of corporatization of agricultural markets, big corporates will dictate both the market prices and terms of the contract. Eminent agricultural scientist M. S. Swaminathan has shown a deep concern regarding contract farming and argues that the agribusiness firm interested in maximizing profits and short-term gains would suggest practices that are not sustainable for the land of the farmer (Government of India, 2006). Akram-Lodhi (2007) also outlines that contract farming might lead to the emergence of export-oriented, more capital-intensive and less labour absorbing farming, aiming to exploit the economies of scale and scope in export markets. Several empirical studies have observed adverse effects of contract farming in the form of production risk and soil degradation (Opondo, 2000), and unequal power relations between the firm and the farmers (Vicol, 2017). Kaur and Singla (2018), while examining the impact of contract farming on the farmers of Punjab, argue that contract farming excludes the small and marginal farmers. A similar observation has been found by Singla et al. in their study on contract farming in West Bengal.

The Essential Commodities Amendment Act allows large stockholdings by big agribusiness firms, which they can use to influence the market prices of agricultural commodities. This implies that these Acts free the agribusiness companies from the existing constraints of the state-level regulations and allow them to store unlimited farm produce for processing, marketing and export.

The aforementioned discussion provides diverse views of the laws, which are primarily formulated for the welfare of the farming community. So, the question of the debate is—even if these laws are enacted and the APMC collapses, will its alternative change the condition of the farmers? In fact, on deeper deliberation, it seems that it does undermine the famers’ interest in different ways. The current APMC has its own flaws, and similarly, the new system based on quickly framed ordinances in a very unusual time bounds to have its own lacunae. Harriss-White (1996) paradoxically points out this relation by stating that ‘deregulated imperfect markets may become more, not less, imperfect than regulated imperfect markets’. Therefore, the current laws are apprehended to push the farmer into more complicated conditions. This new system may open the chances for big corporate houses, which may benefit the big farmers, but how much it will change the condition of smaller and marginal farmers one can hardly become optimistic in retrospection.

Correlation Between the Text and Law

Senapati had foreseen this situation, which the current law is intended to materialize, long ago in colonial India. This persistency of deceptive behaviour of marketing is truly enlightening. Senapati’s description of the monopoly of the market in feudal India is very similar to what the current law is apprehended to bring in. Mangaraj’s monopoly of marketing in feudal India and his power to set the terms and conditions offer some glimpses of the ensuing conditions of the ordinary farmers against corporate houses. Senapati provides a microcosmic view of a reality, which is debated today on different ideological lines. Having a monopoly over the market and its functioning, one can symbolically read this account as a parody of so-called bargaining power of the poor farmer and market accessibility in the current law. The various instances from the text can be read parallel to the promulgation of farm laws.

Centralization of the Market

Six Acres and a Third offers an insight into the monopoly of the zamindar on the market under feudalism in colonial India. It symbolically gives one certain understanding into the function of the market and market monopoly of the corporate houses in independent India. Senapati’s narrative makes one conscious of deep apprehension, which has provided the ground for protests. As it has already been observed that the new laws are set to aim at providing greater latitude to farmers in the matter of production and marketing are ironically based on inverse propositions. Therefore, there is a misgiving that there is something sinister about them. Thus, the monopoly of Mangaraj is symbolic of those corporate powers with a vast network across the market. In this respect, the novel somehow gives the idea that the procurement policy is skewed because it does not take into consideration the interest of marginal farmers who neither have the means (facilities of storage) nor mode (processing and marketing infrastructure) to sell their produce. In this regard, the big farmers will always be at the forefront, whereas the poor will always be on the receiving end.

Contract Farming

Contract farming, as has been discussed, gives scope to the financers to control the life of producers in more than one way, primarily from the selection and pattern of crops to the technology and methods used in crop production. The entire mechanism of control is detrimental to the fundamental interest of the farmer’s autonomy and social dignity. Thus, it gives the sense of growing alienation. Senapati’s narratives deal with various incidents, events and characters, the parallel of which is not very difficult to find today. Being a realistic writer, Senapati’s characters are rooted in contemporary history, that is, in this respect, his realism should not be confused with the European notion based on the idea of verisimilitude.

In the novel, the theme of alienation is clearly exhibited through the character Shyam, a cultivator who suffers at the hands of landlords. His naivety has more to do with his precarious existence. One day, Mangaraj is informed by his farmhands that an acre of land remained unplanted because of a shortage of seedlings. Mangaraj along with his farmhands leaves for the inspection and sees Shyam Gochitta working in his lush green fields. Mangaraj displays paternal care towards him and like a master cultivator admonishes Shyam for going against the basic ways of farming, but his advice should not be taken in without a pinch of salt. ‘Are you a fool Shyam? What have you done? What kind of farmer are you? Why have you planted the seedlings so close together? There is no room for them to breathe. You must thin out at least half of them (Senapati, 2006, p. 49).’

The relation between Mangaraj and Shyam can be studied at different levels. The poor Shyam is neither an ignorant person nor so naïve. In fact, it is his fragile existence, which deprives him of everything human. Shyam with all his strength and the trembling voice answers, this is how he has been practising all these years. This irritates his patron-like master and orders his farmhand Govinda to show Shyam how it is done, and he uprooted his entire seedlings from the field. Shyam prostrated before Mangaraj with all humility and requested him to spare his seedlings, but his request had little effect upon the hard-hearted soul of Mangaraj. Instead, he rebuked him by telling him ‘whether he knew how to farm, Shyam must remember he had a loan to repay’ (Senapati, 2006, p. 51).

Senapati vividly portrays the skewed power relation and its trap, that is, how it fleeces them off their possessions. The situation is relevant at various levels. The initial approach of parental care in Shyam’s case is parallel to the proposed strategy of providing favourable sum in the beginning to hold the small and big farmers in the net of debt. The results could be graver and grimmer as the new system is more obscure. Its far-reaching consequences could deprive the farmers even of their subsistence. Senapati explicitly states how farmhands working in Mangaraj’s fields from sunrise to sunset were deprived of basic resources of nourishment. The only food given to them was the inedible food to fill their stomach, as the writer ironically comments:

There were seventeen drumstick trees in the master’s orchard, and their leaves possessed certain medicinal properties…Naturally enough, not a single leaf found its way to the market; they were reserved exclusively for the nourishment and well-being of the farmhands. And the flowers of these trees, in Mangaraj’s view, constituted the most wholesome food in the world; … everything the drumstick tree produces is good, except, of course, the drumsticks themselves. Which is why Mangaraj never served those to the farmhands; they went straight to the market. (Senapati, 2006, p. 47)

The current law is apprehended to lay its trap at different levels. For instance, it is widely considered that once farmers enter into contract farming with agri-firms and corporate houses, they might not be able to take some output for their subsistence use because of the burden of bondage, which may eventually lead to destitution. Therefore, they would have to depend solely on the sale of their labour.

Law and Property

The equation between law and property constitutes an important theme in Senapati’s Six Acres and a Third. In this way, Senapati explores the nexus between man’s interest in law, legal knowledge and accumulation of property, an important concept in the Marxist discourse. For example, even in the nineteenth-century feudal India, legal knowledge and practice attracted the landed individuals of the society. Senapati’s narrative makes one sceptical of the functions consciously attributed to law, knowledge and justice. He, in fact, makes the reader conscious of the obscurity and ambiguity and unscrupulous abuse, which the individual in land possession exploited to the deprivation of the illiterate and poor fellows. At a symbolic level, Senapati reveals the very process of the acquisition of property. When Mangaraj is asked that how he acquired his property, he says that he got this ‘through the share force of will and god given intelligence’ (Senapati, 2006, pp. 46–47). His intelligence is that he uses the legal knowledge to manipulate the records and documents of innocent villagers to cheat them off their land:

Today, the law courts have opened wide their doors, and people have become educated and civilized…English law warns, ‘Watch out my friend. If we obtain legally conclusive proof that you have committed a crime, you shall be punished’. A clever man answers, ‘Sir, I know how to make sure you don’t get any proof’. ‘No worry, no worry’, adds the lawyer, patting him on the back. ‘Just bring me cash. I can make black, white and white, black’. Under this system, the clever and the rich get off, even though, in truth, they are guilty of hundreds of crimes; while the simple and the poor get into trouble and are harassed for their innocence in the law courts. (Senapati, 2006, p. 85)

Senapati underscores the corruption in the judiciary. The new law court runs on the whims of the rich and powerful, who have the power to manipulate, fabricate and distort facts, thus leaving the marginalized at their mercy. In the same manner, throwing small farmers into the clutches of bureaucrats can further increase their plight. In this process, the farmers are losing their ground through the complex network of laws written in the jargon of which they have little knowledge.

Agrarian Distress and Farmers’ Suicide

Palagummi Sainath, a journalist and the Founder Editor of the people’s Archive of Rural India has consistently documented over decades the agrarian plight and its impact on the fragile life of farmers. He investigates how poor policies and bad implementation are increasing their plight. The economic distress is one of the primary causes of the rising farmer suicide. Six Acre’s and a Third is the story of all those people who fail to pay off their loan. When Bhagia and Saria, the owners of six acres and a third, fail to repay their loan, they are instantly confiscated, for which Bhagia lost his sense and Saria lost her life. Her death is neither a murder nor a natural one, but there is something unnatural about it. It happens due to starvation. The unaccounted death still continues where farmers are forced to take their lives because of the increasing burden of debt without government institutions being legally held accountable. This latent vindication of the government has been consistently exposed by the contemporary writers and economists who write with conscience. P. Sainath is one among them.

Conclusion

The analytical realism of Six Acres and a Third makes the reader sceptical of the laws, which determine political as well as economic institutions. They are allegedly formulated for the welfare of the people. This is what one comes across while critically examining some of the legal initiative taken in the form of reforms of agriculture in the past few decades in India. Where most of the measures happen to be counterproductive; nevertheless, it is a fact that there is a considerable development in the field of agriculture since independence, and more conspicuously after the 1990s landmark reforms. However, it is also the fact that almost 85% of India’s farming community is still in limbo. It makes one conscious that the development agenda and the welfare of the people do not go parallel. So, this disparity of the farmers and labourers is confounding and distressing at the same time. Six Acres and a Third goes beyond investigating the circumstances, which entrap the poor farmers, and hardly fails to illuminate their reality behind what is happening around even today. Towards the end of the story, Mangaraj is arrested and prosecuted for his heinous acts. His whole property is taken by the lawyer, who arrives to take possession of Mangaraj’s land in exchange for a mortgage. The analytical realism is exposed through a village rumour and the comment of village intellectuals on the arrival of a new master, when they say:

Oh! horse, what difference does it make to you if you are stolen by a thief? You do not get much to eat here; you will not get much to eat there no matter who becomes the next master; we will remain his slaves. We must look after our own interests. (Senapati, 2006, pp. 205–206)

The pessimistic outlook in the novel becomes conspicuous at the end, highlighting the perpetual plight of the agrarian class. It ironically implies that the motive of the government and the problems of the people are hardly on the same page, that is, the repeal of laws is not going to address the fundamental issues of the farming community.