In worker conferences, Deendayal Upadhyay repeatedly reiterated that the soul of India resides in the villages.
Deendayal Upadhyay considered farmers as the backbone of the country. He considered the farmer not just a food producer but the basis of the cultural, social and economic continuity of the nation. He said that only the country whose agriculture is healthy, self-reliant and respected will be able to become prosperous and strong in the real sense. He was among those few politicians who tried to understand the country’s development, economy and society from the perspective of Indian life.
It was said that the country and society which does not provide respect and rights to the food producer spoils its future. On the occasion of the death anniversary of Deendayal Upadhyay, the pioneer of Integral Humanism, read his thoughts regarding agriculture and farmers.
Soul of India Village and Soul of Village Farmer
In the ideological camps and worker conferences of Bharatiya Jana Sangh in 1965-66, Deendayal Upadhyay repeatedly reiterated that the soul of India resides in the villages and the soul of these villages are the farmers. In reality, he considered agriculture not just a means of livelihood but an essential part of India’s way of life. His thinking was that Indian agriculture unites the society and gives the message of balance with nature.
He considered the farmer as the pivot of the social fabric. For the farmer, family, society and nature complement each other. This is the reason when agriculture deteriorates. When a farmer is distressed and in need, agricultural production does not just fall. Rather, as the economy weakens, social balance deteriorates. The risk of disintegration in society and family increases. Ultimately the country has to pay the price for this.
Deendayal Upadhyay agreed Farmer They are the soul of villages.
Freedom is incomplete if the farmer is hungry
During the discussion on Integral Humanism in an important meeting of Bharatiya Jana Sangh held in Kozhikode (Calicut) in 1966, he had said that a nation whose farmers are not self-reliant and satisfied can never become powerful. Farmers provide food to the country. But if he is hungry and weak then the independence of the country will remain incomplete. He reminded that majority of the country’s population is dependent on agriculture. The festivals and traditions here are related to agriculture. Decrease in agricultural income adversely affects the economy of the entire country. In a country like India, most of the population is dependent on agriculture. The decline in farmer’s income affects the entire economy.
Why the plight of agricultural farmers even after independence?
Even after independence, Deendayal Upadhyay was worried about the plight of agriculture and the lack of reduction in the problems of farmers. He believed that even after political independence, the country’s leadership has not been free from mental slavery and is following the colonial policies which have always been the cause of the plight of the farmers. These policies made agriculture not a source of profit but a medium of exploitation. The land and revenue system of the slavery era trapped the farmer in the web of debt and poverty. Unfortunately, even after independence, it is continuing on the same path. In 1964, in an article titled “Direction of Indian Economy”, he cautioned thatEven after independence, if agriculture related policies remain based on foreign thinking and structure, then the exploitation of farmers will never end.
Why cooperative farming is not accepted?
Deendayal Upadhyay had rejected the concept of cooperative farming of the first Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. He said that till now the objective of land reforms has been to give rights over land to agricultural farmers. Cooperative farming deprives the agricultural farmer of land ownership. He said that then the farmer would remain only an agricultural labourer. This will destroy his personal freedom and inspiration and strengthen his authoritarian tendencies.
He had told that Jan Sangh is in favor of land system based on ‘Swami Krishi’. The party considered mechanization of agriculture inappropriate in the then economy but laid emphasis on determining the limit of maximum land holding. Upadhyay had described farming on the basis of farmer ownership as suitable for the Indian psyche and environment.
His emphasis was on the empowerment of Gram Panchayats with democratic consciousness instead of the bureaucratic trend of cooperative ownership. On Congress’s allegation that Upadhyay and Jan Sangh’s thinking regarding cooperative farming was pro-capitalist and antiquated, Upadhyay had countered that the success of cooperative farming depends on the mental environment and not on the organization of management. This environment can be improved by understanding the viewpoints of others. Sticking to wrong ideas will only cause harm.
Village is the cornerstone of Indian society.
Upadhyay considered villages as the cornerstone of Indian society. He envisioned a self-reliant village, rich in agricultural production and culturally strong. In his article “State and Society” he wrote, only self-reliant villages create a strong nation. He was a supporter of agriculture and rural economy based on local resources. He was against indiscriminate exploitation of nature. He considered agriculture to be a process of cooperation with nature, not conflict. He reminded that exploitation of nature ultimately leads to the destruction of humans. His concern for the farmer was not limited only to better crops.
It was said that the problem of the farmer is not only of production but of fair price. If the farmer does not get fair price for his labor, the agricultural crisis will deepen. His emphasis was that the farmer should be given a fair price for his hard work and not kindness.
Development at the expense of villages and farmers means destruction.
Upadhyay wanted a system that would give respect to the farmer as well as adequate income and social security. He was not against industries but was critical of indiscriminate industrialization at the expense of villages and agriculture. He felt the need for a balance between industries and agriculture. He said that if development means destroying villages and settling cities, then this is not development but the path of destruction. If industries and cities grow at the expense of villages and farmers, inequality will increase. The ideological foundation of his famous concept of Integral Humanism is India’s villages, farmers and agriculture. In this, human being is not seen merely as a consumer or producer, but as a coordination of body, mind, intellect and soul. Agriculture is the best example of this coordination. He said that the objective of the economic system should not be only to increase production, but the overall progress of human beings.
Also read: What is the process of publishing a book on defense issues, when is the approval of the Defense Ministry necessary? Answers to 9 big questions