Dear Newslaundry team,

I am a long time listener, and I used to subscribe off and on in the pre paywall days. Now I am a regular subscriber. I have sometimes thought of sending you the kind of mammoth emails that you read out where multiple points are raised and addressed, various suggestions made, and a more generalized response is brought up to Newslaundry as an organisation in the media landscape. I may still send that email at some point. However, this email is in response to the discussion in Hafta 123 about the killings of farmers in Madhya Pradesh, and the larger points that were raised, and I will stick to discussing only this issue.

As a personal disclaimer I have to add, I am not an economist or sociologist. My training is in the field of cultural studies, which draws heavily on disciplines like economics, sociology and anthropology, and thus I have read a lot of the material that is foundational to these disciplines. I’m sure an economist or a sociologist would be much more familiar with the concepts that I invoke here, and therefore much better equipped to theoretically deal with the issue.

There are a few general points that I wanted to bring up before addressing some of the comments that were made. It is often said, in general about capitalism, that it was a system that replaced feudal socio-economic order in the context in which it originated in western Europe. While this process has been studied by many scholars, the paradigmatic analysis is probably that of Karl Marx. (Caveat: While I find it exceedingly sad that such a caveat is necessary, given our political reality I feel the need to add it. Citing Karl Marx in an argument is typically a good way to have your argument dismissed without further thought as “lefty” propaganda. As a scholar though, Marx’s influence on the social sciences is pervasive, and it is impossible as a serious scholar of anything to ignore his work. There are sound intellectual reasons for this, however much some people may want to see it as a communist plot to control academia somehow sustained globally across multiple disciplines for more than a century. There are equivalent figures with pervasive influence in the early history of the natural sciences and mathematics as well – people like Bernoulli or Fourier come to mind – none of whom are similarly controversial)

Marx described the transition from feudal society to capitalism in terms of a process he called “primitive accumulation.” For him, primitive accumulation was a process where, aided by the state, certain individuals and institutions began to gain control of the means and processes of production in an economy. The institution of the company or the corporation came to replace earlier feudal and semi-feudal modes of organisation, such as a guild system or patron-client relationships. As a result of these older institutions breaking down, individuals moved out of a system where their work and life was largely socially pre-determined by the predominant social structure, to become agents – free participants in the labour force who could sell their ability to work and their skills to the highest bidder. Alongside this the industrial revolution enabled these people, most of whom were in agriculture or ancillary sectors of production, to enter factories, and what we recognise as the modern capitalist system followed. Such a shift of labour entailed a structural change, where very small percentages of the total labour force remained employed in agriculture, and the share of agriculture in a nation’s total production fell significantly with the growth of industry.

The change was not merely economic though, social changes were also related to this same process. Due to the breakdown of older institutions, and with the rise of individualism as the defining characteristic of society, feudal ideologies and practices also began to become less significant. The same period is when democracy was adopted by many European nations, in an incremental process taking sovereign power away from a monarch to a republican form where a ruling class was subject to the intentions of the larger population. Rationalism slowly came to dominate all thought of governance; to rule best was no longer to appease the gods best, but rather to ensure that governance produced the best outcomes in some objective measurable way. What Marx and later scholars like Gramsci, Althusser and Foucault have put together is that this change, while significant in many ways, carried echoes of the system before it. While earlier ruling classes had come to be replaced by a modern capitalist ruling class, its basis of maintaining consent among the larger population was quite similar to that of its predecessor. The ideological definition of what constituted good governance might have varied from the feudal period to the capitalist period, but the fact that such an ideological definition existed, had to be constantly reinforced and upheld, and was the standard by which ruling classes were judged remained true.

Now if we look at India’s socioeconomic history there are important deviations from this story. When India is colonised a process of capitalist primitive accumulation begins, as India begins to be tied into industrialising Imperial Britain’s political economy. However, it does not have the same effect on the Indian population, as it is structurally quite a distinct phenomenon from Britain’s own industrialisation process. For Britain, India constituted a market for British goods and a source for inputs, and their governance of India was directed to making this an efficient possibility. To do that it was not necessary to restructure India’s society in an analogous way to Britain’s society. It was sufficient for the coloniser to adapt to India’s existing feudal order, and capture power and leverage over its ruling class, in order to be able extract the value of its production. This feudal order of course is the vast and complex caste system, which dominated all life across religion and region among most communities. (Caste of course is not just a religious ideology or belief system, but as Ambedkar and pretty much every other scholar has pointed out, is primarily a form of socioeconomic and political organisation) The form that British capitalism and governance therefore took was one where modern institutions, systems of rules and bureaucracy were constructed to adapt to India’s feudal system. In Marx’s terms, primitive accumulation remained an incomplete process, with very small parts of India’s population being able to turn into free agents, most remaining beholden to the feudal order.

India’s industrialisation and production begins to soar after independence, and agriculture within a few decades becomes a much smaller proportion of India’s production. Without the corresponding changes in the labour force though, we remain in a situation where a disproportionate amount of our population is employed in agriculture or ancillary sectors, organised largely in a feudal structure with a veneer of modern institutions enabling its integration with the rest of the political economy. As a result, overwhelmingly, a modernised version of feudal ideology *is* mainstream Indian ideology – it determines the codes of conduct and governance, and sets the standard by which India’s ruling classes are judged.

How is all this relevant to the discussion on the Madhya Pradesh killings? Here I come to the specific points raised in the Hafta discussion. Anand Ranganathan pointed out that BJP figures had come out and pointed to various incidents over the years where Congress governments had killed farmers. He went on the speak of it as an issue of whataboutery, saying that it was a problem in this case because the BJP government had been elected to not repeat the Congress’ mistakes. At one level this is right, however, what I wish to point to is the reason that an argument like “Congress also did it” is generally acceptable in India’s politics. As I said earlier, the standards that governments are judged by are determined by what is acceptable as ruling ideology, and in India’s case feudal ideology is mostly that standard. Therefore, to appeal to the fact that “Congress also did it” is essentially to argue that “we are also ruling class, they are also ruling class, we work to the same standards as they do.”

With regards to the violence itself, while this point might be slightly more controversial, it is my understanding that both under feudal and under modern ideology, generally the state is expected to be violent. In feudal caste ideology, death or torture are legitimate exercises of power. In the modern nation-state model, the state supposedly holds a monopoly over violence and its exercise. India’s democracy as we know is imperfect, and overwhelmingly the violence by the Indian state is “unlawful” by our own laws. How is it that it keeps happening in our society, and it’s considered viable for current violent rulers to point to previous violent rulers? Clearly, our ruling ideology doesn’t rule out violence, both lawful – like executions and so on, as well as unlawful – like police killings. So whether India’s primary ideology is feudal or liberal-democratic or an adaptation of one to the other, violence is seen as a legitimate instrument of rule. Therefore, I’ll hang a question mark over whether the vote for the BJP actually means that there is an expectation of significantly different governance than the Congress. My reading of UPA-II’s corruption pile-up and the NDA campaign of “good governance and development” is more along the lines that the BJP is expected to be less corrupt and more efficient, but not necessarily fundamentally change the track that India is on, or the assumptions on governance that operate. Quite simply, if an unconvinced voter is told that “BJP killed people,” they will say “So does everyone else. If BJP can govern better I’ll still vote for them.” The BJP’s spokespeople know this, which is why that argument comes out every time.

Anand Vardhan describes the structure of agriculture in India as similar to any other business, and a risky business at that, where the government is forced to bail out farmers from risks that they take because of the glorification of the farmer as a “deity.” Anand Ranganathan builds on this point, pointing out how there are competitive grants of loan waivers by different governments. He points out how only 5% of farmers fail to pay back their loans. The argument seems to be that loan waivers are an instrument alien to the world of proper capitalist business, and that they should be done away with. Crop insurance is seen as the consensus view of how a safety net against risk can be provided to agriculture in a proper market fashion.

My disagreement is on the suggestion that agriculture is like any other business, the evidence offered for it, and the suggestions that follow. While in a general abstract sense, yes, it does involve production of goods and their sale for profit, the structural organisation of Indian agriculture is one where the process of primitive accumulation is still ongoing, and feudal organisation dominates. In fact, recent scholarship on primitive accumulation in the context of India by scholars like Kanu Sanyal and Partha Chatterjee suggests that Indian capitalist growth is similar to British colonial expansion, where market systems are adapted to feudal social structures, instead of effecting the transformation that Marx and others saw in Europe. There are examples to support this view in the points that were raised in the Hafta discussion itself. The APMC and procurement systems were brought up, and while the focus in the discussion was on specific technical policy points, vast amounts of ethnographic work has shown how these market systems are co-opted into standard caste patterns of land and capital ownership, and thereby into caste patterns of power and governance. The incomplete financialisation of agriculture is brought up – you speak of insurance, and many have spoken of credit in similar terms. It isn’t as though feudal structures do not have systems of credit and systems of risk mitigation, the problem is that these operate largely outside and in incompatible ways to the formal banking and insurance system. This causes problems with our data as well. I don’t know the studies that Anand is referring to; it is possible that they attempt to include the non-formal financial system into their analysis. Even if they do, however, it seems to me that they were trying to answer the question of how many farmers default on their debts, and may therefore need loan waivers. I believe a better question to study would be what effect a loan waiver has on a rural economy, and how much of the population it affects. I suspect that the results would show that much more than 5% benefits from a loan waiver as a result of the political economy of agriculture. That would explain why the demands for loan waivers are so strong. That also would explain why it isn’t simply enough to impose systems of credit and insurance from the top. We already have evidence to suggest it – we have been trying for 70 years and not much has improved. Replacing loan waivers would take away all the indirect benefits that they have on the rural economy. Rationalised market systems of banking and insurance are designed to operate in a structural environment where primitive accumulation is complete, and much of the labour force has been proletarianized, i.e. moved from feudal social relations to free agents. In this view, it is no surprise that they fail to function correctly in the case of agriculture. Seen from this light, loan waivers are an adaptive instrument for a hybrid political economy. That loan waivers will continue to be a factor in Indian politics is not therefore a result of shortsighted Indian politicians, but rather a result of the structural situation itself.

And finally, while the Hafta didn’t go into this, the ultimate question is whether we want complete market rationalisation of Indian agriculture. Countries like the United States demonstrate the results of that possibility, where obesity, allergies, immunodeficiencies, and a host of other problems are rampant because of a systemic downgrading of people’s average health through the consumption of heavily processed foods, removed by several industrial degrees from the farms. With the threat of automation looming it is looking increasingly likely that the industrial production system will become incapable of providing sufficient employment, and the service sector really can’t fill that gap. What happens to our population then? Is market rationalisation of agriculture desirable then, when it means many more people enter the labour market than can be employed? This is already an ongoing problem, not a hypothetical future scenario. While a systemic institutional answer to the question is a larger issue, we can at least try to not destroy agriculture as it stands, and try and reduce the extent of feudal/caste power determining how it functions. Instead, what we have is industrial depletion of our water and natural resources and quasi-state gau raksha squads extorting farmers. We’ve been doing this for years, and farmer distress is an obvious result. Loan waivers are not a perfect instrument, certainly, but pushing for financialisation as the govt is doing, with credit and insurance, is sure to be much more destructive. This is why, until we can come up with something better, loan waivers will continue to remain the instrument of choice, and demands for waivers will continue.

Regards,
Abir Dasgupta

Hello Newslaundry team,

A huge fan of NL Hafta and of course a subscriber. Kudos to the work which you guys are doing. I just thought of contributing some points in improving the show further.

Podcast Duration:
In the latest Hafta episode, you read an email from another listener which requested the duration of the Podcast to be reduced to around 20 minutes. I am strongly against this and please find my reasons below.
My obsessions with Podcast started with “Serial” and from that moment on I have been a regular listener of Podcasts. Duration of each podcast is based on the content which is being discussed about. Duration of Freakonomics Podcast is usually 40-45 minutes whereas Criminal is only a 20-minute Podcast.
Currently, Hafta duration is around 1:30 to 2:00 hours and I feel this is very apt. Please do not reduce this further. The panel is trying to have a detailed debate or discussion on the leading news topics and this time duration is needed so that every panel member is given enough time to express their thoughts.
Presence of Core Members in every episode of Hafta:
NL Hafta has a very good core team with Abhinandan, Madhu, Anand V, Anand R and Manisha at this moment. Also, the guests whom you invite are very knowledgeable on the topics which they talk about. But in the last 3 episodes, one or more than one core member goes missing and that spoils the fun of the Hafta for me. I understand that NL has its own reasons for this as you people may be travelling a lot either for official or personal reasons. In our modern world, can’t this be overcome with Technology? It will be great if all the core members participate in every single episode either in person or through phone or Skype.
Requesting Participation of all members on the topics that are being discussed:
I don’t know how you guys work behind the mic. But please make sure all the panel members are informed well in advance about the topics that are going to be discussed. This will help them in doing enough research about the topics so that they can contribute a lot during the discussions. I feel disappointed when Manisha says her usual No Comments or nothing to add. Come on Manisha. Your article on the NDTV raids were awesome and I feel you can contribute a lot on other current affairs topics as well. Just a request from a fan.
Message to Anand Ranganathan aka Ranga Uncle:
Anand, we share a common background. A Tamil Atheist. Most of the times I usually agree with your opinions. But in the latest episode, I had two disagreements with your statement and I would like to bring them to your notice.
1. Your comments on NDTV – I know you have your reasons behind your statement but I feel when you convey such a strong statement against someone, we must provide our reasons as well so that the listeners can get a better idea as well on the same issue.
2. Erdogan’s quote “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” – You said you disagree with this statement as well. May I know the reasons for this as well? I was brought up by an Orthodox Muslim family and I tend to agree with the statement. Islam is simple. You follow the Quran and what the Prophet said. (I don’t) I still can’t wonder how we divide Islam into Moderate or Radical or whatever.
Technical Suggestions:
1. Whenever I open the Newslaundry website, a popup window comes asking Are you a subscriber and asking us to login. This can be done for the first time. However, your website is asking me this every single time whenever I log in and it is annoying. You should add a feature which automatically logs in the user based on the previous preferences. If there is a way to avoid this, please let me know.
2. In the mobile app, if we download any podcast and listen to it, the app does not remember where I have stopped the podcast previous time. So it always plays from the beginning whenever I reopen the app. Please consider this issue as well.
That’s all for now folks.
Please keep doing whatever you guys are doing and I will support you guys as long as you do this.

Regards,
Abdul,
From the land of Periyar

Dear Team Newslaundry,

I don’t know which stone age I was living, because even being a so called tech and social media savvy I was not exactly aware that something like this ever existed. I was aware that something called Newslaundry as a news start-up is there, but was certainly not aware that you guys are true “nationalist”- cant help 🙂 Arnab has taught this language!

On a serious note, I would just like to thank you guys and applaud for the effort. This is truly unbelievable that in today’s world of unethical and sad journalism someone is there who is making some sense. Please keep it up. I wish all the very best to the whole team of Newslaundry.

The reason behind writing this mail however is not applauding you guys only, you guys anyway knows that you are doing a great job. The point I want to make here is that its been couple of days I have been watching all your old shows starting from “can you take it” to the FB live:The Modi-media relationship, and I am completely engrossed to your YouTube channel. I am happy that I am finally watching something which has some level of sanity, but at the same time i feel sad and helpless when i see the total number of views on your every shows. I don’t know if I am making any sense at all, but that’s what I genuinely feel. According to me this should reach to the mass audience. I understand the limitations, but for a greater cause it should at least reach to the people who are digitally active. I don’t know how but it should!

I work in advertising so the obvious thing which I can think of is to do an advertising campaign. I know this doesn’t make any sense, but right now this is what I can think and suggest.
Hope you guys will take this as a constructive feedback, and in coming days I will see a satisfying “number of views” on all your shows.

I once again want to thank you guys for the excellent effort to keep the true journalism alive. Please keep doing that.

Regards,
Ravi