Dr Mohinder Kumar
Ever thought about the nature of economy of J&K? What is its economic system or mode of production? What are the emerging property relations? Is it capitalist or tending toward capitalism, at least? If so, then why can’t we experience it as such?
There is a rule of private property around us. Glow and glamour is attached also to the private capital. Means of production, land, resources, etc. are predominantly in private ownership. But the degree of development of capitalism is not advanced; it is backward underdeveloped stage of capitalism. That is why we are unaware that we live, act and operate in capitalist economy. We understand only pure, advanced stage of capitalism. A multitude of petty private owner-operators do not constitute “capitalism”. They are monopolist owners at the most, differentiated from non-owners of wealth, land or capital.
A system of monopolists leads to cut-throat competition. Competition breeds monopolies via unfair means. Non-monopolists also join to rise on “economic ladder”. Means adopted are not important to acquire private “means of production”. What is important is the end -private land/ capital. Toward this end, encroachments will also do. In fact, coercive force and encroachments are the sole and single most predominant factor in the world economic history which has led and sustained acquisition of private assets, wealth, land and capital. That is how capitalism always lays its foundation. We may say what is new in this? This is how even barbaric and primitive societies grew and evolved. If barbaric primitive tribal societies had engaged in the primitive methods of accumulation of land and territories then why should sophisticated civilized capitalism do it? Recently print media carried a news, based on the discussions in the legislative assembly that thousands of ‘kanals’ of state land was “encroached” in each district, viz., Anantnag, Budgam, Bandipora, Kupwara, Pulwama, Kulgam, Ganderbal, Baramulla, Srinagar, Shopian, Rajouri, Ramban, Reasi, Kishtwar, Samba, Udhamur, Poonch, Jammu and Kathua.
Encroachments are a universal, world historical fact. These practices are common to other States as well. Even common village “shamlat” land is subject to encroachment by powerful private interests. Capitalism, the only system we cherish in our sub-conscious mind, was founded up on the building blocks of encroachments throughout the world. Capitalism hides in its womb the world history of “the so-called primitive accumulation”. We normally associate “primitive” with crude, violent, powerful coercive methods. Then how the term “primitive” gets associated with capitalism? Our common perception of capitalism is that it is a neat, clean, pure, sophisticated system of economics where revenue minus cost gives normal profit in the market. It’s not the whole story. Capitalism, particularly in its nascent, growing, underdeveloped stage uses such “primitive” methods that we associate exclusively with barbarism/ primitive society. Primitivism is not the method of primitive society exclusively; it’s used under capitalism as well. Therefore, the “primitive” essence of the old primitive society becomes “the so-called primitive” method in capitalist society for encroachment and accumulation of land.
The myth of capitalism as a non-violent, pure, sophisticated, civilized system devoid of conflict and muscle/political power should go. It is a polarized, class-based system wherein economic classes (private monopolies as well as non-monopolies) are constantly engaged in dialectical struggle. And, the participants involved in economic struggle for accumulation know no rule or method except “the so-called primary accumulation” method as Adam Smith called it or “the so-called primitive accumulation” method as Karl Marx put it having seen the history of “Enclosure Movement” in Great Britain since 16th century. Capitalism was in its nascent stage when English enclosure movement was perpetrated and continued for over 500 years from 1500-1914. This had led to forcible usurpation and eviction of peasants from millions of acres of family-holdings customarily held by them since ages and converted into “enclosed farms”. Crown lands were allotted to the political clouts and powerful beneficiaries free of cost or as favor or at throw away price. Even land market rules were twisted under the so-called “Gage system” to benefit the upper classes, enabling them in expropriation of peasants’ land by purchase. In France during 1550-1730 period of early capitalism, poor peasants faced heavy taxation if they purchased land while estate owners were given incentives. The practice of systematic expropriation of land was prevalent in other countries of Europe as well. In 13thC Spain, expansion of landed estates occurred in the early capitalist phase through conquests, forcible usurpation, fraudulent appropriation and sheer political/administrative power.
In India emergence of petty “private” holdings is the creation of the British colonials. Parts of Haryana were under the control of the British power well before they annexed Punjab in 1849. Brisk land market activity was first recorded in Gurgaon district in 1857 as thousands of acres exchanged hands between 1857 and 1875 though land sales had existed even before 1857. Thus village/ community ownership system had been converted into petty private proprietorships. Feuds, conflicts, grabbing and encroachment on private entitlements were natural outcomes. Soon the State (British Govt.) too joined the struggle for land control as Land Acquisition Act was passed in late 19thC. By that time establishment of civil courts and other judicial apparatus during 1860s was doing its job of settlement of disputes and family feuds over petty private plots, parcels and property. It appears Friedrich Engels’ thesis developed in “The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State” in the long history of mankind was acquiring full relevance. British Govt.’s Land Alienation (Prevention) Act of Punjab came in 1901 as what was “private” was getting alienated also. When land became “private” property and an object of trade, how could its alienation be prevented? Soon the British power would lay hands on setting up cooperative societies. How could cooperation develop among farmers when village communities and common ownerships were destroyed? The erstwhile farming community is still paying the price after 150 years as “cooperative spirit” refuses to develop. It may never develop among petty “private” proprietors. It is rooted in history. Even Friedrich Maclagan who conducted the first ever field study of farmers’ credit cooperatives in 1910, from Peshawar to Burma traversing through whole of North India, rued that “cooperative spirit” was missing among farmers. Petty private proprietorship, competition for petty monopoly and struggle for private accumulation were/ are the culprit.
Follow our WhatsApp channel