Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Follow-up to previous post: labor, farmers, and stigma

Molly, both in a comment on my previous post and on her blog, added a third suggestion as to why the quarry workers don't want to return to agriculture:

"in nepal, anyway, there seems to be a stigma associated with traditional agricultural and husbandry livelihoods among the younger generations. even when other factors might make agriculture a more viable option, it is viewed as undesirable and "backward" to continue the backbreaking labor of your parents' and grand-parents' generations."

I'm honestly not sure if this theory could be applied to this particular situation or not. In many regions of India, there is a stigma associated with labor--exactly the kind of work in which these quarry workers are engaging. That's why many states, including Himachal Pradesh, must import laborers from other states, usually Bihar (but sometimes Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal).* In fact, this quarry employs Biharis in addition to local people, because although many local people do work in the quarry, there are still not enough laborers. I was a bit surprised, actually, that any Himachali (ok, these people are culturally Punjabi) would partake in such labor. Even MNREGA, India's national scheme to provide paid employment through village construction projects (for instance, the government will pay villagers to work as laborers to build their own roads), has not been successful in these villages due to their aversion to labor. So it is quite an anomaly, at least to me, that they are willing to work in the quarry. My only explanation is they've somehow determined that this "stone-crushing" labor is different in nature from the MNREGA labor, or that perhaps they view this as a stable job opportunity, whereas most construction labor, government-sanctioned or otherwise, is contractual.

Ok instead of addressing Molly's query, I went off on a labor tangent. So is there also a stigma associated with the traditional agricultural vocations? I'm not sure. In some circles in India, there seems to be a concept of the "noble small farmer," largely thanks to Gandhi (as in Mahatma, but perhaps some of the other Gandhis as well), who famously declared that "India lives in its villages." True to this statement, these circles of Indians view the villages as the strongholds, and thus the villagers as the guardians, of traditional values, the threads that hold the sari of Indian society together.** These circles, it should be noted, probably do not include the small farmer. (Farmers may very well believe that traditional values are better upheld in their village than in a city. What I mean is that farmers may not be among the circles of Indians who subscribe to the "noble small farmer" notion.)

Life is no piece of cake for small farmers. Sure, some lead successful farming businesses and can support their family, but for many life is extremely difficult, as evidenced by the very high and ever-rising suicide rate among small farmers in India. Droughts can wipe out their crops (and thus their income) for an entire season, middlemen between the farmer and the buyer cheat them out of a huge proportion of their money, incredible debt accumulates, etc. My bet is that many, if not most, small farmers would prefer wealth (at least enough to support their families) to "noble" poverty.

I think that, in the words of my friend Jhanvi,*** young people's "dream is to go urban and go big" mostly because they've seen the suffering of their parents and want out. We all want better lives, right? So agriculture is "undesirable," yes, because it means a life of struggle. But do young people stigmatize agriculture as "backward"? I think that depends on the region. In Himachal Pradesh, for example, the apple crop has made farmers relatively wealthy. Apples are a newish crop, first introduced by an American in 1916, so in a way they represent agriculture moving forward. Plus the wealth apples bring results in less dissatisfaction with the agricultural profession. Meanwhile, my coworker Shatabdi, who is from West Bengal, says that in her state, agriculture is "out of fashion" among the youth because of the struggle associated with it. She thinks there is a stigma against these traditional professions in regions where crops have been failing, but that no such stigma exists in areas with successful farming businesses, such as in Punjab. Really, it's a stigma against poverty more than against agriculture.

But what about the concerned villages in Nalagarh? These villages, which straddle the Himachal Pradesh-Punjab cultural and geographical divide, have not seen as much agricultural success as their neighbors on either side of the divide, due to lack of water for irrigation (remember from my previous post, the quarry has pretty much dried up the river). Thus it is likely the youth do indeed have a stigma against pursuing agrarian professions--maybe animal husbandry could become a more viable option than working in the quarry, but these young people have never witnessed that.

Speaking of small farmers, check out Digital Green. My friend Indrani has won a number of big awards for her fantastic work in both this organization and with her research at Microsoft Research and for her PhD at IIT Bombay. Her work focuses on empowering farmers, many of whom are illiterate or low-literate, through text-free cell phone applications, some of which could cut out the cheating middlemen mentioned above. If she sees this blog post, I'm sure she'll criticize it for having a very Western perspective (which, obviously, it does. I am Western, after all!). Perhaps I should ask for her opinion on all of this, because she has significantly more experience in development than I do, has a much better grasp on Indian attitudes than me (she is Indian, after all!), and would be sure to have better insight.

*Migrant labor within India is a whole other can of worms I'm too lazy to open right now, but it certainly warrants further discussion.

**Personally, I believe that values are maintained by individuals and families, so place, urban or rural, has little to do with how people stay true to their traditional values or not. Sure there are outside influences, but those exist in both urban and rural areas, and it's up to the individual how to incorporate these influences (or not) into their value system. However, it's probably true that outside influences are less strong in rural areas, so perhaps that is why many Indians believe villages are the support beams of Indian society.

***While I'm pimping out Indrani, I might as well pimp out Jhanvi some more too. Check out her films (a different link than above). Jhanvi is an aspiring filmmaker who can beautifully depict any story, from fashion to education, from Stanford to South Asia (she also taught some of her tricks to young filmmakers in Bhutan). She's even on IMDB!! You should also know that Jhanvi specifically asked me not to link to her stuff. That's how humble she is. Jhanvi, I know I just deeply embarrassed you, but I do so because I love you and think everyone should see your great films. So stop blushing.

No comments:

Post a Comment