Abstract
Agriculture in India is in a state of crisis. Policy changes adopted by the Indian government in the last two decades seek to commercialize agriculture and integrate domestic agriculture into the world markets. These changes brought about by the Indian government follow a neoliberal impetus. As a result, farmers in India are facing novel situations that have given rise to problems at multiple levels. This study seeks to understand sense-making of agriculture and problems related to it, as engaged in by the farmers of rural Uttar Pradesh (India). The study situates the meaning of agriculture as articulated by farmers within the culture–structure–agency matrix.
Agriculture in contemporary India is described by many scholars to be in a state of acute crisis. With significant policy shifts since liberalization in the 1990s, practitioners of agriculture find themselves facing challenges that are unprecedented in both their enormity and nature (Dutta, 2011, 2013). Agricultural practice has undergone a radical transformation since the liberalization of India in the 1990s, consequent on a neoliberal impetus in agricultural policy (Patnaik, 2003). Neoliberal trajectory of agricultural policy has resulted in an increased integration of Indian agriculture into the world market (Patnaik, 2006), departure from traditional modes of agriculture (Vasavi, 2009), noticeable increase in cost of farming (Mohanty & Shroff, 2004; Vyas, 2004), increased reliance on high interest informal credit (Dev, 2004; Patnaik, 2004; Sarma, 2004) and a heightened susceptibility to fluctuations in international markets (Reddy & Mishra, 2009). Evidently, thus, agriculture in India faces multiple and complex challenges, with greater disenfranchisement of lower-income, smallholding farmers and landless labourers (Dutta, 2011). Agriculturists find themselves in a mesh of problems that disables them at multiple levels. The recent phenomenon of an alarming rate of farmer suicides across several states of India is a testimony to the extremity of such distress (Dutta, 2011; Sainath, 1996).
Crisis of Indian agriculture becomes more acute when seen against the backdrop of decline in rural economies (Ramachandran & Swaminathan, 2002). The various problems faced by agriculturists become even more significant when juxtaposed with a marked decline in rural employment (Patnaik, 2003), increased incidence of ‘footloose’ migration of the rural folk in search of odd jobs (Breman, 2007) and a general ‘disenchantment with the agriculture as a livelihood and as a way of life’ (Vasavi, 2009, p. 105). We are thus faced with a complex network of problems faced by rural agriculturists. It should be noted that none of these problems exists in isolation from others. The problems are a part of the day-to-day experiences of rural farmers; they govern and are in turn conceived through the sense-making processes of the farmers. Approaches to and conception of these issues lie within the cultural, sense-making matrix. These approaches and conceptions are, at the same time, undergirded by formal structures that facilitate or limit access to resources. The complex of problems and issues is thus seen to be embedded within the cultural sense-making together with structural constraints. Moreover, agentic responses to challenges faced by the farmers cannot be appreciated without placing them within the culture–structure matrix (Dutta, 2011). In order to appreciate the forms in which farmers experience the above-mentioned problems and how they make sense of and respond to these challenges, we draw upon the culture-centred approach (CCA) to listen to the farmers’ articulations of their problems and understandings of the situations they are in (Dutta, 2011, 2013).
In the present study, we strive to listen to the voices of farmers to better appreciate the complex web of problems as faced and approached by them (Dutta, 2011). We study articulations of farmers in and around Shahjahanpur district in rural Uttar Pradesh to know what problems they face, how they make sense of these issues and their notions of agency so as to ameliorate the situation they find themselves in. We try to approach the farmers’ conceptions of agriculture, land, development, disadvantage, etc., to see how these conceptions are embedded within cultural sense-making and formal structures. We contextualize these conceptions and problems faced by the farmers in the nation’s current neoliberal context. The research question that guides this study is: ‘How do farmers of a concerned region understand agricultural practice and the problems associated with it?’ A study that seeks to understand problems faced by agriculturists, experienced as a whole, is important for two reasons. A part of significance of the study stems from the fact that about 72 per cent of the population of India is rural, directly or indirectly depending on agrarian economies (Ramachandran & Swaminathan, 2002). The study is also important since it can potentially point out the disparities, if any, between fundamental notions of agriculture and development as articulated by the farmers and as espoused by policymakers.
The Indian Agricultural Crisis: Neoliberal Tropes
The neoliberal trajectory of Indian agriculture policy has been characterized by efforts on the part of the government to integrate Indian agriculture with external markets. This entailed the transformation of agriculture into a growth-driven model, accompanied by increased financial inputs into farming necessitated by increasing dependence on agricultural inputs such as electricity, high-yielding variety of seeds, fertilizers, energy and transportation. The expanding financial investments into agriculture resulted in greater dependence among farmers on credit, with reliance on the informal sector at higher rates amid the absence of formal credits. These inputs were invariably procured as private resources with progressive deductions in subsidies (Sainath, 1996). Along with these, neoliberal development of agriculture was characterized by declining public investment in agriculture (Vaidyanathan, 2006) and the weakening of public support for rural development (Patnaik, 2005). Neoliberal impetus to agriculture thus progressively made the practice of agriculture a high-cost affair, where the major cost was borne by the individual farmer for which he had to take loans from informal sources at high interest rates. The integration of agriculture into the global market meant that the risks that an individual farmer was required to take under these conditions were compounded by the greater price volatility of agricultural produce (Chowdhury, 2001).
Patnaik (2003) posits these changes in Indian agricultural policy alongside global dominance of finance capital, and thus shows the case of India to be one of the many instances where a country makes structural adjustments to its policy in response to the neoliberal agendas of international lending institutions (the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and World Bank). She insightfully points out that the reconfiguration of Indian agriculture was in line with the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank, which they were able to impose on the nation consequent on the latter’s indebtedness to the institutions. She identifies the core agenda of global financial institutions to be ‘deflationary economic policies combined with removal of all national barriers to the free movement of finance capital’ (Patnaik, 2003, p. 34). The structural changes in India’s economy were pushed through the instrument of external debt. ‘From 1991, after taking a US$4.8 billion IMF loan, India has also been implementing mass income deflationary policies’ (ibid., p. 38). Patnaik (2003) thus successfully establishes a link between borrowings from the IMF and adjustments in policy according to the latter’s needs. After seeing the link between agendas of international lending institutions and structural adjustments in Indian agriculture, it can be proved beyond doubt that the changes in Indian agricultural policy were not instances of changes crafted from within the think tanks of the government aimed at farmer welfare; the changes were according to the guidelines of the IMF and World Bank, furthering the latter’s neoliberal pursuits. The policy changes were thus not only to integrate Indian agriculture with the external world but also to do so while toeing the line of neoliberal development as chalked out by the international lending bodies.
Further, Dev (2004), Ghosh (2005), Patnaik (2003) and Rao and Gopalappa (2004) point out that the years following the policy changes have been particularly bad for rural poverty. Consequent on a number of factors, including a cut in subsidies and a lack of public investment in rural development, rural employment has gone down significantly and farmer indebtedness has increased. Informal credit lending compounds the problem. Ramachandran and Swaminathan (2002) point out that the exploitation of the poor in the informal credit market has intensified as a result of financial liberalization. The increase in poverty levels is also accompanied by rise in rural unemployment, both in the agriculture and non-agriculture forms (Sen, 2002).
The cost-intensive nature of contemporary agriculture practices, along with the milieu of investment cuts in agriculture, has led to a shift in cropping patterns. From growing crops that enhanced food availability, farmers have switched to export crops (Patnaik, 2009). This makes the farmers vulnerable in two significant ways. First, it makes them more susceptible to global price fluctuations (Chowdhury, 2001) and second, the trade-off decreases basic food security, which is manifest in declining nutrition levels for the mass population (Patnaik, 2002). The practice of agriculture along contemporary neoliberal lines thus markedly increases the vulnerability of farmers.
The crisis of Indian agriculture is also to be understood taking into account cultural problems that ensued from the policy shifts. A significant problem that emerges from contemporary practice of agriculture can be described as agricultural knowledge dissonance (Vasavi, 2009). The new practices of agriculture that place the farmer in a network of problems ranging from credit availability to proper use of fertilizers create uncertainties among farmers regarding the appropriate forms of knowledge to be drawn on in agricultural practice. Agriculture has been traditionally practised in India by successive generations, and the knowledge of good practices that accompany agriculture is a part of the culture one grows up in and acquires. Since contemporary policy has led to a situation quite unprecedented in Indian history, well-defined knowledge structures that guide decision making in the current milieu are not to be found. Farmers, thus, experience a dissonance between the knowledge possessed and living conditions. Importantly, this dissonance operates at almost every level; all decisions, from credit management to proper pesticide use, have to be taken under knowledge that is ill equipped to deal with novel situations. Agricultural dissonance many a time leads to erroneous practices that exacerbate the problems for farmers. The rural space is marked by an absence of structures that impart relevant knowledge to guide agricultural practice.
Boehm (2003) rightly observes that agriculture in non-Western countries was conducted on shared knowledge systems that blended old and new agricultural knowledge, circulating knowledge through informal networks of kinship and fellow agricultural practitioners. Further, Vasavi (2009) observes that contemporary changes in agricultural practice have disintegrated the systems of reliance on community practice, while the state has been unable to provide any external structures to carry out the required. Young farmers, thus, have to take crucial economic decisions by and large on their own, as individual players in the market economy. This combination of atomization of agriculturists, the loss of common knowledge that guides their practice along with the absence/inadequacy of state institutions leads to a state where an individual bears a greater risk as compared to a socially embedded context of agricultural practice embedded in a community (ibid). A significant crisis of contemporary agricultural practice thus arises from the individualization of farmers and loss of reliable common knowledge.
Contemporary agricultural practice ensures the vulnerability of farmers as economic, social and political subjects whose position and rights as citizens are recognized only during elections. Another aspect of agricultural crisis in India is that key issues of importance to farmers, like the redistribution of resources, rights to basic education and health care, remunerative prices and state support in times of crisis, are no longer central to planning and budgetary agendas (ibid). This furthers the vulnerability of farmers in times of crisis. Gupta (2005) suggests that the widespread disenchantment with agriculture as a means of livelihood and as a way of life is the result of state apathy towards farmers. The problems faced by agriculturists are thus multiple and complex. The challenges a farmer has to deal with cannot be considered without embedding them in a culture–structure matrix, rooted in the voices of farmers. It is in this backdrop then that we ask the following research question: What are the meanings of agriculture as understood by farmers in rural Uttar Pradesh, India?
Method
Data
Interviews for this study on meanings of agriculture were conducted between May and July 2010. The interview participants lived in villages that were located in Uttar Pradesh. One of the villagers (key informant) was known to one of the authors and, by taking help of the person, initial contacts were made with the other villagers. Once this link was established, participants were contacted and recruited through the snowballing technique. The interviews began with discussions of meanings of agriculture to the participants. Interviews were conducted at the homes of participants and at the meeting places where the participants gathered during the day.
Fifteen men participated in this study, and were aged between 24 and 75. The average age of the participants was 43 years. All participants were conversant in Hindi. In the interviews, almost all our participants reported narratives of economic scarcity and lack of material and structural resources.
The individual interviews ranged from approximately 45 minutes to an hour, and were conducted in Hindi, the language of the participants, by one of the authors. They were then translated by the other author, who is conversant with both Hindi and English, and were checked by the former author for accuracy (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Informed consent was obtained before the interviews were initiated; the interview tapes were destroyed after transcription was completed; and in keeping with Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines, we used pseudonyms for our participants when we analyzed the data such that responses could not be traced back to individual participants.
Considering the CCA of the research, the grounded theory method of analysis was in particular well suited for analyzing the data (Charmaz, 1995, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The constant comparison technique was used, comparing and contrasting the themes and concepts that emerged from the interviews to: (a) analyze the data; and (b) to make theoretical implications (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We used open coding, axial coding and selective coding systematically to develop our understanding of the emergent discourses. We initiated the data analysis with open coding to identify distinct concepts that could be easily sorted and labelled; actual discourses from the transcripts were pulled together to identify and build themes. We examined the field data sentence by sentence, which helped in the development of concepts. Subsequently, the discrete concepts were grouped that were related to the similar phenomenon under conceptual categories. Open coding was followed by axial coding, where the formulation of relationships within and among the categories was derived; finally, theoretical integration was done by selective coding method (Charmaz, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Results
The discursive co-constructions of the farmers negotiate the spaces of neoliberal modernization in India by discussing the intersections of local cultural traditions amidst the structural constraints and enablers faced by the farmers. In the context of the locally situated structures of farming and food grain purchasing by the government, the participants discuss their localized meanings of agriculture in terms of: (a) agriculture as culture; (b) structure and agriculture; and (c) returning the gaze. On the one hand, the themes articulate the complex interplays of culture, structure and agency, as elucidated in the CCA, and on the other hand, they throw additional insights into the communicative processes through which these complex interplays are negotiated.
Agriculture as Culture
According to Ravi Kumar, agriculture is culture and tradition. He notes that he has seen his family growing up doing agriculture and therefore, he understands agriculture as something that has been passed down through the generations. This is what he has to say:
Agriculture is…like there is culture that is linked to the roots. This is like tradition to us, farming is our purpose, like you know for a farmer there is nothing except agriculture, he earns his bread by agriculture. If I leave agriculture and think about getting settled in cities then I won’t be able to do that since my background is agriculture only. We are very linked with agriculture so agriculture is an occupation for us.
Agriculture is an occupation that is tied to the identity of the individual, his/her family, as well as the broader community. Therefore, in the mindscape of the participants, agriculture is the only thing that appeals to the sense when thinking about an occupation. This point is further noted by Rajesh, who points out: ‘Yes more like land is our mother, our background is touching it and hearts are linked to it.’ He compares land to mother and notes that just as mother is sacred and one would never think of transacting his mother in lieu of other benefits or forms of payments from outside sources, so is the case with land. This point is also noted by Amar: ‘See our birth is from here only, so since childhood we went to the fields with parents and learnt about agriculture. There we have seen this since childhood, not through books.’
Agriculture is seen as a resource for knowledge, as the process through which knowledge got passed down from generation to generation. Agriculture becomes the conduit through which the stories of the culture get shared. For Amar, he learns these stories of the culture through the trips to the fields. He learns about agriculture by working in the fields with his parents since childhood, and not from books.
Here is an excerpt from Surdeep, who notes:
…Like our fathers have worked really hard and we are here today and they don’t want us to do farming but it is our culture and we won’t leave it. Parents ask us to study till the level we can, my cousin is in the US and elder brother is in Italy. Parents say whatever you want to do it and they are ready to fund it. They don’t want us to struggle as they did but we don’t think farming is a great thing but we have to be in touch with our roots. It is very important but parents say that this is not as good as a job that can be done while sitting in an office.
Although agriculture does offer the narrative for passing down the traditions, rules, roles and stories of the culture, participants such as Surdeep also note the tensions experienced by parents as they articulate the hardships of living the life of a farmer dependent on agriculture. Evident in this narrative is the articulation that although parents have passed down the tradition of agriculture, they also share with their children the hardships associated with agriculture and advice their children to get out of agriculture. It is in this backdrop then that Surdeep notes that although agriculture is filled with hardships and is not as good a job as an office job, it does offer a connection to the roots. Therefore, Surdeep, after receiving an MA degree, decides to return to agriculture. Similarly, Jaggu observes:
Well I won’t sell the land, it has been there since my grandfather and great grandfather. So, how can I sell it? I won’t get a job, so why would I sell the land. Even if I get a good job, I would lease my land to someone else, not sell it. The land is my grandfather’s and rates are increasing. I won’t be able to buy a different piece of land, so I won’t sell…Well I am connected to the land but there is no convenience in farming, it is a back-breaking job.
Even as Jaggu shares the hard work on the farm and the back-breaking job he has to do as a farmer, he also notes that he is not going to sell his land to anyone because the land is a part of the family tradition, having been passed down from his great-grandfather to his grandfather. In thinking about the family tradition of farming and the future for his son, Krishna suggests:
Well if he would not study he would have to do farming and labour, etc., whatever he could. First preference would definitely be for him to study, he is studying in a close-by school. First and foremost he should try to study; look this farming is such that I had got up at 7 this morning and haven’t had food yet, it is 4 o’clock. If we are on the farm then there is whole day that you have to be there, you can’t pick and choose. No matter how harsh the conditions are you have to be there, so farming becomes very harsh and demanding for us.
It is against this backdrop that Ramkumar and other farmers note the hard life of farmers and the increasingly difficult contexts within which farming is becoming more and more difficult a choice for farmers and their families. He states that he would not like his son to go into farming. Rather, he notes, he would prefer if his son went into government service or private job instead of farming. As his rationale, Ramkumar notes:
Well there is a hell lot of hard work in farming, like only yesterday I was at this place and went back home at about 12 o’clock. Today there is not much rush or today also I would have been standing back there somewhere. There are a lot of problems in being a farmer.
In this articulation, attention is drawn to the amount of hard work that is attached to working on the farm. For Ramkumar, working on the field is hard work without much of a break. Similarly, Gunaram points out, ‘All that is there [referring to traditions], but there is a lot of hard work in this farming. We have to work 24 hours like a horse of a carriage.’ Here, once again, the reality of working hard on the farm is shared through Gunaram’s depiction of farming. In the next section, we further build on this discussion of the difficulties of farming to engage with the references to structures that emerge in local stories of agriculture.
Structure and Agriculture
The local narratives among farmers of working on the land are constituted on the backdrop of the stories of local structures within which the farmers struggle with their limited access to resources. Across almost all the interviews, participants referred to their limited access to structural resources and the structural constraints they experienced in participating in agriculture. Stories of farming are therefore situated amidst the struggle with minimum access to resources, and the struggles farmers face in securing access to the basic resources for agriculture. Harbhinder talks about the difficulty in continuing his agricultural work because of the fall in the rates received by farmers:
Like we don’t get good rates from the government for crops and we have to sell crops privately, like for sugarcane the government rate is about 220 but we have to sell it for 180 rupees only, plus like when we are working on farms we find it difficult to get labours (sharecroppers); since human labour has become expensive these days labour is a problem.
Here, Harbhinder talks about his difficulties in securing good rates for his crops and points out the structural problem of access in terms of not having opportunities for selling sugarcane to the government. So, instead of selling the sugarcane crop at ₹220, he has to sell it at ₹180 to private buyers. He also discusses the increasing costs of human labour and the difficulties of finding sharecroppers to work on the field. Given the difficulty of meeting the needs of farming, the farmers discuss having to take loan from private lenders. For example, Arju talks about how banks are of minimal use:
They are not of much use, their interest rates are very high and we take money from the local lenders since they take money when the crop is harvested. Bank’s interest rates are so high that we cannot afford payments. I have a friend who took a loan from the bank 8 years ago, he has not been able to repay his loan till now. He has paid a lot of money to the bank but his loan still remains. Now tell why should I take loan from this kind of a bank. There is a lot of corruption and red-tapism as well. So we are pretty much on our own. If we have some profit we will have food and wear proper clothes, if not, we are just like this only [he was wearing a single kurta when it was pretty cold in the month of January].
Arju points out the problem of borrowing money from banks, which charge high interest rates and take advantage of the vulnerability of the farmers. In referring to his problems as a farmer, Shivkumar had this to say:
There are many problems, like we do not get fertilizers on time. Since this government has come to power, we are destroyed because of fertilizers and seeds and bloody middlemen. We are sowing wheat and then these assholes are getting the seeds then and then they say they don’t have price labels so these idiots can’t sell them to us. We couldn’t get them then as well. Then we had to sow the seeds that we had, those weren’t good seeds but we had to do with them only, and these bloody centres that are established we couldn’t sell our paddy on time and then we had to sell the paddy to the adhatiya for 700 rupees while the government rate is about 1,000–1,100 rupees. Rate is just to show. Today only you can see we are selling the cane for 180 rupees. Why do we do that? Since we need money for the net crop and we need money for this.
Here, farmers like Shivkumar point out that farming is situated amidst limited access to fertilizers, the absence of government programmes, the absence of seed supplies and the absence of buyer centres that would purchase the seeds at the adequate price. He refers to the role of the middlemen in exploiting farmers and suggests that much of the trouble of the farmers is because of the adhatiya. When asked to explain the function of the adhatiya in this context, Shivkumar notes:
Adhat people buy crop from us, we have to sell it cheap since we need money to invest in the next crop. Where will I get the money from? Government mill also is not giving payment so we are compelled to sell our produce here. Just like this paddy and wheat as well we have to sell to these people. Like earlier I had a lack of money so I took money from someone, now when I reaped the paddy he says he wants the money quick so I have to sell crop quick and in lesser rates—this is a great problem that all we farmers have, we are disappointed.
Because of difficulties in accessing government procurement infrastructures and because of the lack of immediate payment from government centres, farmers often sell the crop produce directly to the adhat people because they offer immediate access to cash that is often required by farmers to immediately pay back moneylenders who lend the money to procure the supplies of resources. Tiku points out:
Problems are these only, there are centres but we have to sell crop at adhats on almost half rates. There is no money in the factory so I have to sell it to adhat. Factory people say I would get my money in 8 days but 15 days have gone by and I have still not got the money. I need money for further cropping so am selling it at lower rates like at 180 rupees instead of 200.
Further along these lines, pointing to the structural contexts of neoliberal India where development means very little for farmers living in rural areas, Kashiram shares with us what he understands by development and how opportunities for development are fundamentally absent in his village:
There should be good transport, the things that we lack. Like I don’t have fertilizer and need it; I went to the private shopkeeper and get it instantly and I see that people are lathicharged and queue for hours at the public shops and then may be, they get it…Distribution of fertilizers, seeds mills should be open; there should be centres that purchase wheat crop at good rates. I am not able to sell my wheat crop at the centre and have to sell it at adhat middlemen who take crops and get a profit of 100–200 rupees. We are very troubled at this place.
Therefore, in making specific references to resources, Kashiram shares with us an understanding that is situated amidst specific resources for agriculture. Having transportation, for instance, would help him secure access to fertilizer. Similarly, he talks about state support in creating support for fertilizer supplies. He also notes that seed mills should be open and centres should be set up for purchasing the wheat crop at good rates. In the absence of the centre for buying the wheat crops, farmers have to sell the crops to the middlemen (as pointed out earlier) who generate profits from the farmers by purchasing their crops at cheaper prices, and therefore making profits.
Returning the Gaze
Redefining the structures that constrain their livelihoods, the farmers raise questions about the meanings of these structures. In raising these questions, they create interpretive frames that disrupt the dominant narratives of development that are articulated by the mainstream structures of the state and the international financial institutions (IFIs). Consider the following narrative of Shantiram:
No development has happened, all are busy filling their own pockets…There is no degree college here, when we go to marry our daughter they ask what is the education of the girl, when there is no college for girls here how can girls be educated. Schools only till 12th; there is no one to listen to us they just need votes.
Shantiram points out that no development has happened in the area because the politicians and public servants are busy filling their pockets. In questioning the narrative of development articulated by the nation state, he creates a narrative of corruption and deceit, noting that in the contemporary structures of India, development does not trickle down to the rural areas. He points to the corruption in the area and notes that although there are monies that are earmarked for the processes of development in the region; these monies don’t really make their way to the rural communities. He also notes that politicians only come to the communities during the time of votes, and don’t really offer services to the community. For example, in discussing the desire to send daughters to colleges, he points out that there are no colleges in the area.
Furthermore, Kesar suggests:
There should be good centres that take our crops for good rates, there is no centre that works properly. I have to sell my crop at cheap rates. How will there be development? There should be mills where I can sell my crop at good rates, nothing of this sort is happening. There is only one mill, I have to sell at whatever rates they give.
As noted earlier, having centres to sell their crops is one of the key problems faced by the farmers, forcing them to sell the crops to the middlemen. Notice further how Jevanram locates this discussion amidst the limited role played by the government and the involvement of the government in the limited provision of services: ‘This all is foot dragging by the government. If the government is strict, these adhat people won’t be able to do anything. There are centres but they don’t run so we have to sell all the paddy at adhat.’
It is against this backdrop that the participants discuss the ways in which they participate in everyday resistance by talking back to the structures. In a context where the structures carry out their exploitative practices on the bedrock of the limited access to resources among farmers, farmers create entry points for change by drawing attention to the injustices and the inaccuracies that underlie them. Bhagatram articulates:
Firstly if you take your crop there, they don’t take any third party weighing to be valid. They have their own weighing methods which are in favour of them only. They reduce the weight of the crop. Are you talking about the government centres? Yes there this type of problems is greater. My crop was weighed less by 4 quintals and only after an hour of argument did the officer accept the correct weight of my crop.
Here, Bhagatram was vigilant about the weighing that was being done by the officer at the centre and how it did not match up with his own weighing. So, his resistance was articulated in him questioning the government weighing system and continuing to insist on his weighing system. It is amidst their limited resources that the farmers talk about relying on each other in order to get by.
Pointing to the role of the government in the context of the needs of farmers, Siya suggests:
Well the government must first ensure that we have good modes of irrigation at all places, there are still some places where people don’t have tube wells and such things, it is very difficult to do it otherwise. There are no roads or factories. More importantly there are no schools or degree colleges here. If children will not go to school, how will there be development?
Worth noting here is the articulation of agency in Siya’s narrative. Siya constructs a narrative of development based on his understanding of development processes. In putting the ownership on the government, Siya places the structural role in the hands of the state, articulating the necessity of developing state-supported infrastructural capacities in the development of irrigation systems. Similarly, he notes that for the village to develop, there have to be adequate educational opportunities. He notes that development is intrinsically tied to children attending school. Similarly, Sancharam notes: ‘I would prefer my children to study, when I was a kid I could never go to school, all I remember is to take food for my father on the farm and work with him there. So they should make use of the opportunity and study.’ In discussing how development can be brought about, Kanchi articulates the following: ‘We get together and manage. Like we take loan from shopkeepers and return it later if not now.’ Therefore, as the critique the narratives of development, the participants also discuss the different ways in which development can be brought about by engaging with the other farmers as a collective, in raising voices and in continually talking about change.
Discussion
In constructing their narratives of agriculture amidst the neoliberal development projects of India, the farmers in the Uttar Pradesh region of India articulate the continual tensions that emerge amidst the movements from tradition to modernity. The cultural logic of farming is situated amidst a locally experienced structural logic where the farmers struggle on a day-to-day basis to make resources available for carrying out their work in the fields. Agriculture is seen as tradition, as the relic of culture that connects the farming families to their roots. Land in this sense then is culturally loaded in its meanings with relationship to family histories as farmers, being passed down from great-grandfathers to grandfathers to children. However, it is amidst this articulation of agriculture as tradition that participants talk about the hard work they have to do in the fields and their desire for their children to be educated and seek out jobs elsewhere. Even as the farmers discuss the choices they made in order to carry out the traditions, they also note that agricultural work is back-breaking and that they would like to envision easier lives for their children. Whereas, on one hand, the cultural constructions of agriculture emerge on the discursive space, on the other hand, these cultural constructions are situated amidst broader structures that limit access to resources.
Therefore, almost all the participants discuss their limited access to resources in carrying out the agricultural work. They discuss the absence of fertilizers and seeds and the need for labour. They also continually draw our attention to the absence of government centres for purchasing the food grains that are produced by them. In the absence of government centres, the farmers end up selling the grains to middlemen at much cheaper prices, thus not generating sufficient revenues from the crops. Participant narratives consistently point towards the government corruption in the centres, the lack of timely payment and the lack of adequate monitoring facilities. Therefore, the middlemen become a continual presence in their lives, usurping part of the exchange value of the crops as their profits.
Similarly, participants discuss the absence of subsidized banking loans that should be available to farmers to support them. They call for more governmental roles in the building of irrigation facilities for farmers, and for greater distribution of resources. They also note the corruption and lack of accountability in the provision of services. This is noted amidst the articulation that politicians often come to the villages during times of election, to not return after having won the elections. This cycle has happened so many times for the participants that they don’t really believe the promises made by politicians.
In their desire to create educational opportunities for their children, the farmers from Uttar Pradesh discuss their limited access to educational opportunities for their children. Here, once again, they note the gaps between the politics of development, as articulated in the rhetoric of development programming and messages of universal access to education, and the reality of limited access to educational opportunities in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh. The participants continually point towards the need for developing educational infrastructures in rural areas and note that they would like to create educational opportunities for their children so that they might have better opportunities of earning and making a living in the future.
Amidst the structural barriers that constrain the livelihoods of farmers in rural Uttar Pradesh, they discuss their agency in consciously raising questions about these structures. The farmers who participated in our project continually questioned the structures and their taken-for-granted assumptions, critically pointing out the gaps between what gets said in development plans, programmes and policies and the reality of these interventions. Based on their lived experiences, the participants return the gaze in questioning the grand narrative of development and drawing attention to the corruption and the exploitation of the poor that is written within some of the articulations of development programmes. The CCA adopted in this study offers entry points for listening to the voices of farmers, anchoring these voices as entry points for interpreting agricultural practices and policies, as well as for mapping out pathways of negotiation and transformation (Dutta, 2011, 2013).