Swarajya, February 18, 1961
A vested interest has grown for the ruling party in the ballot box and in the servility of people which can be exploited through the tentacles of the 'welfare State'. The conditions of government now brought into existence, viz., all-embracing controls and regulations of all kinds over the business community, and the issue of subsidies of all kinds to influential groups in the rural area, make the ballot box, together with general ignorance and cupidity, into a vicious and gigantic vested interest for the Congress Party.
Once put in power, the economic controls, licences and monopolies, which it has in its power to give and take away, furnish it with the means of perpetuation for all time. The party collects funds from the big companies that are under its power, and make any opposition practically impossible.
It is the same evil genius that leads them to say that they will not allow a caretaker government to rule during election. 'There is no precedent for this in Western democracies," they say. And there are people who still think the Congress is the only party that can rule, though this belief is growing less and less every day.
The Congress Party is using the word 'co-operation' as if it were an abracadabra or mantram. It is easy enough to exploit any phrase or name carrying good or great, past or present, associations. Co-operation is not a charm or incantation to alter the laws of nature. It consists in an ordering of things that will eliminate conflict between opposing interests in any creative effort and thereby help production without loss of efficiency. The conflict between consumer and producer is eliminated by a cooperative organization into which Consumer and producer jointly enter. The conflict of interests between those who invest capital and organize labour in order to produce any commodities, and of those who are to buy and consume the articles so produced, is eliminated or greatly reduced if the two interests are combined in a co-operative organisation. This can happen in a variety of activities where the two parties, the producer and the consumer, can be brought together; that is to say, where the consumers can be induced to become also the producers and not act as mere critics or auditors.
Where this is not possible or not done, but 'co-operation' is brought about among consumers only or among producers only, so as to pool the energies of production, or to eliminate harmful competition among consumers, it is not co-operation in the real sense but only joint action. In this latter variety of so-called 'co-operation', we eliminate competition and to that extent it acts as a disincentive rather than as an incentive for good standards. We do not eliminate the conflict of opposing interests. It is a protective measure taken by one party against the other party, that is to say, if it is a combine of producers, it is a move against consumers, and vice versa. It may be a way of augmenting investment by the pooling together of resources or of energy and in that way be beneficial. But where this pooling does not materially add to the potential of production, it only acts as a disincentive. Where, for instance, all the importers of timber combine and import and sell timber, it is not a co-operative organisation in the real sense. It is just a union of timber merchants. On the other hand, where builders of houses combine and buy a timber estate and import wood and saw it, and distribute it among themselves, it is a co-operative Organisation which eliminates the conflict between the buying and selling interests. In the one case the combine eliminates the conflict and competition among timber merchants, and increases the chances of their making profit without any special effort at economy or improvement of quality. It reduces the capacity of the consumers of timber to demand better quality or lower prices. Grouping together of the same interests is mere collectivization, not co-operation. Apart from the advantage obtained against the consuming interests by the elimination of internal competition (e.g., the petroleum companies', combine), the grouping eliminates emulation in producing better quality, in economizing, and in paying attention to the details involved in all productive work.
What then is the intelligent principle behind so-called co-operative farming? Mechanization of labour and reduction of farming expense may be aimed at, where there is a possibility for such things. Obviously there is no room for it in the food- grains private sector except in certain show units. The ceiling laws proposed now will further reduce the scope for mechanization. As against it, there is the great problem of reduction in personal interest which is so important in farming operations running through the annual cycle of seasons. Farming is one of those activities which depend, to such a great extent, on personal interest and attention, that too many persons entitled. to be engaged on the same unit does not mean addition of strength, but means conflict and consequent reduction of the net result. A joint stock company of peasants even though it may be called by the name of 'co-operative society' is not an improvement on the traditional pattern of agriculture in our country. Indeed even Hindu joint families of peasants voluntarily break up,so as to discourage idleness and parasitism and in order that land under cultivation may be better attended to.
The talk of the Congress Party, and their supporters, of co operation is mere abracadabra. It seeks to exploit the simplicity of our rural electorate whose one all-pervading need is money, loans on easy terms which may be expected to be written off. The people are deluded into becoming debtors to the State or quasi-State organizations which in turn are made to convert their assets into bad debts to be written off when things are forgotten and the slate cleaned up. The net result is loss to the public exchequer and encouragement of waste and fraud. The agricultural community in India, in its enlightened organizations, is therefore totally opposed to the 'co-operative' farming which is the Congress Party's election slogan.
If the farmers are enabled to get their wants supplied on better terms, under any system of real co-operation which does not reduce or tamper with the individual peasant's interest, attention and incentive, it would be a very good thing. On the contrary, the present activities which are likely to continue, do not help the farmers. Illegal monopolies are created in the fertilizer trade leading to pernicious black-marketing. Policies which are good in themselves become bad on account of the partisan character of the execution of those policies under the pressure of the party system, and the eagerness of the cliques formed under it to improve their own fortunes and increase their own power.
There is a great upsurge of patriotic interest in production all round, in agriculture as well as in industrial effort, but this is being choked and killed. I,,, only the ruling party gave up its ill-conceived plans to confiscate the larger landholdings and undermine the traditional confidence in land and agriculture, be it is large or in small farms, and if it also released the economy from Statism, agriculture and industry would both thrive. India would show what her people could achieve when the permit and licence economy is done away with and full freedom restored to individual ambition and human effort, without the bane of unfair monopolies created by Statism. Freedom will bring about united effort. Statism is a killing frost.
