by Vedant Bisht 2 August 2021
Introduction
Welfare schemes are government-sponsored assistance programs usually financed by taxes. Such schemes may be related to healthcare, unemployment, agriculture or housing etc. Providing welfare schemes forms the mandate of any mature democracy. Direct cash transfers are one such form of support scheme that has been turning into the centre point of discussions on poverty lately. India is a country with the highest net cropped area (India Water Review 2019). India has been proactive in providing welfare agricultural schemes because the agricultural sector employs more than 50% of the country’s workforce and forms around 17-18% of its GDP. The government initiates several agricultural schemes such as distributing subsidised resources, providing credit cards and direct cash transfers. Direct cash transfers are those schemes in which the benefits are directly distributed in cash rather than in any other form. One such direct cash transfer scheme is the Rythu Bandhu scheme (“RBS”) which was introduced in Telangana in 2018. This paper attempts to analyse the nuances of the Rythu Bandhu scheme. Firstly, the paper analyses this scheme under the lens of two Marxist theories- his views on private property and the idea of concessions given by the bourgeois to appease the proletariats. Secondly, the paper analyses the efficacy of this scheme in particular while analysing the potency of Direct Cash Transfer schemes in general.
The Rythu Bandhu Scheme
The Rythu Bandhu scheme or the Farmer’s Investment Support Scheme is a farmer support scheme that was announced by the Government of Telangana in 2018 to support farm investment. It is the first direct farmer investment scheme in the country as it facilitates direct cash payment.[i] Under this scheme, the farmers are provided with ₹5000 per acre per season, increased from ₹4000 in 2019, biannually, for rabi and kharif seasons to support farm investments.[ii] The scheme derives significant from the fact that in the state of Telangana, about 55% of the workforce is dependent on agriculture (Gov. of Telangana 2017).
RBS’s implementation can be considered fairly straightforward because of two reasons. Firstly, it is unconditional as it has not predefined any qualification criteria for the beneficiaries. Secondly, it brings down the expenses on registration and verification as it relies on existing land records to generate beneficiaries’ data. This scheme has proved to be beneficial to the beneficiaries. This saves the beneficiaries from potential exploitation as it negates the need for them to approach private lenders for loans. Moreover, the farmers are at liberty to choose their crop for the season without any fear of getting excluded from the benefits. It received a positive response as it gave mental solace to the farmers against the existing agrarian crisis. Thus, this scheme has been successful on many fronts.[iii]
As mentioned earlier, the idea of implementing RBS came against an agrarian crisis in the country. The prices of farm products were falling every day, farmers were protesting[iv] and Telangana, in particular, was facing the 3rd highest number of farmer suicides in the country in 2018.[v] In an attempt to remedy the existing agrarian crisis in the country, the central government introduced the PM-KISAN scheme, at the national level, based on the model of RBS.[vi]
This section of the paper attempts to analyse the scheme from a sociological lens as adopted by Marx. The social scheme is analysed on the basis of two of the Marxian ideologies; first—on private properties and second—concessions given by proletariats. Analysing the scheme under the first ideology will determine whether the theory on welfare state and private property still hold relevance in recent times. according to the concept of welfare state, the state is to a certain extent responsible for providing the means of subsistence. The idea has previously been discussed by major thinkers like Thomas Paine and J.S. Mill, who have proposed that every individual, rich or poor, should be provided with a minimum unconditional basic income.[vii] The Marxist notion of welfare is conceived as built on the idea of distribution based on the need. This essentially means recognition of the human need and on the basis of that, distributing the social product. Marx was opposed to private property and production for profits, which he saw as opposed to the values of social solidarity and cooperation.[viii] Marx’s qualms with private property, though a part of his much larger ideology, did prove to be justified here. The distribution in RBS relied on land records; it excluded from its ambit all landless farmers and tenants, who, though most in need, could benefit nothing from the scheme. On the other hand, a few farmers with larger landholdings, received disproportionately larger amounts of the pie, as the scheme based its distribution dynamics on the size of land that the farmer owned (per acre). This indirectly furthered the already existing income inequalities, something which drastically varies from the Marxist idea of society. The government introduced. The “Give it up!” option as a mechanism to tackle this issue. Under this mechanism, the rich farmers were encouraged to opt out of the scheme. However, the idea failed as only a meagre number of the rich farmers actually gave up the excess benefits. Hence, it can be observed that the Marxist view on private property still holds relevance in the modern era.
The second theory of Marxian ideology discusses the bourgeoisie providing concessions to appease the proletariats in order to prevent revolution.[ix] Looking at the scheme with this knowledge, the timing of the scheme now becomes significant. The scheme was introduced amidst the growing agrarian crisis. There was a collective dissatisfaction and a demand for governmental support. Thus, it can reasonably be inferred from the timing of the announcement that it was an attempt by the government to appease the farmers by offering them concessions. It can be implied that the introduction of this scheme was an attempt to curtail the outcry which could have turned into a revolution. He opined that such revolutions will mark every capitalist society. He viewed such revolutions as the only way to create a world for and by the working class. His statement “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” adds force to his opinion on giving concessions to the proletariat.[x] It can be noted that the appeasement, in the form of introduction of the scheme, prevented the outcry from being escalated into a revolution. However, Marx would have certainly approved of the revolution had one occurred after the farmers’ outcry.
In this section, the paper analyses the feasibility of the scheme. Direct cash transfers can be seen as the class of instruments where instead of a good, the beneficiaries are provided with the purchasing power to acquire those goods. Under the direct cash transfer schemes exists a sub-category called unconditional cash transfer, which entails freedom of the beneficiaries regarding spending of the cash and a no-string attached kind of system, For example; Universal Basic Income. Though a few economists such as Amartya Sen disagree upon the idea of adopting a UBI in India per se, India, in the past few years, has seen a rising pull towards adopting cash transfers as a policy solution. The PM-KISAN, a national level direct cash transfer scheme.[xi] The opposers of cash transfer schemes argue that providing cash transfers instead of subsidies and agricultural investments is an implicit admission by the state that it is not capacitated enough to ensure developmental strategies to counter agricultural distress.[xii]
But economically speaking, such schemes are development strategies in themselves. Moreover, the transactional cost of cash is the minimum and it is quicker to transfer. The freedom that such cash transfers empower the “proletariats” with is of immense value. The people themselves best know what is good for them to spend on. Cash transfers hold good in this aspect. A proper identification and authorisation system in place also rules out the scope of wastages and leakages in the process of implementation. Thus, direct cash transfer could be said to be a feasible developmental scheme.
Conclusion
The RBS has impressed farmers and the rest of the country alike. It is straightforward and its beneficiaries have responded well to it. The Marxist analysis revealed that the scheme justified a lot of tenets of Marxism like- Marx’s predilection for the abolition of private property and ideas about the concessions of the ruling class. The essay, in the end, dug into the feasibility of direct cash transfer schemes and found it well-suited for implementation.[xiii]
[i] What is Rythu Bandhu < https://www.telanganastateinfo.com/rythu-bandhu-scheme/>
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Pandey, Kriti, ‘what is the Rythu Bandhu, what are its benefits: Telangana’s agriculture investment support scheme explained’(2020) <https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/what-is-the-rythu-bandhu-what-are-its-benefits-telanganas-agriculture-investment-support-scheme-explained/692041> (posted on December 8 2020)
[iv] Ramesh, Padmin, ‘Cash Transfers as a Policy Instrument in Agriculture: Study of the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and the Land Record Updation Programme in Telangana’ Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2020) 15-26.
[v]Mallick, Aditi, ‘Telangana third in country in farmer suicides’ (2020) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telangana-third-in-country-in-farmer-suicides/articleshow/73181625.cms#:~:text=HYDERABAD%3A%20At%20908%20deaths%2C%20Telangana,debt%2C%20after%20Maharashtra%20and%20Karnataka> (posted on 10 January 2020).
[vi] PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi < https://pmkisan.gov.in/>
[vii] Ramesh, Padmin, ‘Cash Transfers as a Policy Instrument in Agriculture: Study of the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and the Land Record Updation Programme in Telangana’ Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2020) page 17
[viii] Mishra, Ramesh, ‘Marx and Welfare’, (1975) 23-30
[ix] Das, Raju, ‘Politics of Marx as Non-sectarian revolutionary class politics: An interpretation in the context of 20th and 21st centuries’, (2019) Volume 7 Issue 1.
[x] Marx, Karl. 1848. The communist Manifesto, Chapter 4.
[xi] PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi < https://pmkisan.gov.in/>
[xii] Ramesh, Padmin, ‘Cash Transfers as a Policy Instrument in Agriculture: Study of the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and the Land Record Updation Programme in Telangana’ Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2020) page 33