Session 114 summary
Jean discusses economic democracy and its lessons from tribal societies in his talk. This presentation serves as a continuation of his previous year’s discussion titled ‘The Adivasi Way of Life: relic of the past or wave of the future?’ With a greater focus on economic democracy, Jean employs the term ‘Adivasi’ as it resonates with tribals in Jharkhand, although he acknowledges variations in terminology across India. While Jean is not an expert in Adivasi studies, he has spent significant time in Jharkhand and various tribal areas, including Khunti, Latehar, Surguja (Chhattisgarh), Bastar, and Ranchi. Residing in the Oraon village of Sindwartoli on the outskirts of Ranchi, Jean draws insights from his experiences and casual readings rather than systematic studies. His article, ‘The Adivasi Way of Life,’ contends that the Adivasi way of life merits preservation and extension to broader society. Recognizing the diversity within Adivasi communities, Jean seeks commonalities in the eastern Indian region. He suggests that, in this area, Adivasi societies exhibit relatively democratic characteristics. Referencing Jaipal Singh Munda’s statement in the constituent assembly (“You cannot teach democracy to the tribal people; you have to learn democratic ways from them. They are the most democratic people on earth”), Jean notes the democratic institutions within Adivasi communities, such as gram sabhas and conflict resolution mechanisms. Witnessing gram sabhas in Khunti, Jharkhand, Jean was struck by the democratic culture and consensus-building processes, albeit with limited female participation.
Expanding on Jaipal Singh Munda’s assertion, Jean emphasizes democracy as not just a form of governance but a way of life, echoing Dr. Ambedkar’s description as “a mode of associated living based on values of liberty, equality, and fraternity.” He suggests that Adivasi societies naturally cultivate these values, contributing to their democratic ethos. Expounding on liberty and freedom, Jean observes that Adivasis exhibit a profound affinity for freedom, resisting arbitrary authority from colonial governments, zamindars, forest departments, sahukars, or employers. He contends that Adivasis, by nature, uphold their freedom, often through resistance when necessary. Those who fail to resist find themselves quietly dispossessed, subjugated, and integrated into the caste system at its lowest rung. For instance, Jean points to the fate of the Bhuiyas in Jharkhand. Once considered Adivasis, they are now classified as Dalits. Merely a century ago, the Bhuiyas held considerable power and land. However, the process of dispossession and subjugation has relegated them to land-starved casual laborers at the bottom of the caste hierarchy. Similar histories unfold for other communities now categorized as Dalits but historically identified as Adivasis, such as the Musahars of Bihar and the Kors in Uttar Pradesh. Presently, this phenomenon is repeating with the Dublas of Gujarat and the Saharias in Madhya Pradesh, reflecting a widespread historical pattern. In contrast, the Mundas, the Santhals, and the Hos have fiercely defended their land. Jean highlights that a series of uprisings against the Dikus – the exploitative outsiders, and their colonial sponsors led to the enactment of laws such as the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act and the Santal Pargana Tenancy Act. In Jharkhand, these laws, at least, played a crucial role in halting the dispossession process and preserving the identity of the tribals. Through their resistance to subjugation and defence of their freedom, today’s Adivasis have maintained their status as Adivasis. Similar observations can be made regarding equality and fraternity within tribal societies. While they are not completely egalitarian, the degree of equality, particularly in terms of class, caste, and gender, is relatively higher. This can be attributed, in part, to the economic tradition of Adivasi communities, especially in eastern India, which revolves around common-access resources. These resources include abundant forests, rivers, pastures, and others, which are freely accessible to all members of the community. Unlike cultivable land, which is acquired through forest clearing, forest land remains a common-access resource. This inherent communal access acts as a safeguard against inequalities arising from land ownership, a phenomenon that has been profoundly disruptive in other regions of India, such as the Gangetic plain. Similarly, the absence of a caste system in these regions is not surprising, or at least, traditionally, it wasn’t prevalent. While the caste system has made some inroads into many Adivasi communities now, historically it was not a dominant feature. One reason for this is that subjecting any community to the level of exploitation and subjugation experienced by Dalits in other parts of India would have been met with resistance. People would have sought to relocate elsewhere because there was ample land available for resettlement. In terms of fraternity, it might be a bit of an overstatement. Jean is uncertain if it’s accurate to claim that tribal communities exhibit more fraternity compared to others. However, he suggests that there is a robust tradition of solidarity and mutual aid, which is closely linked to the prevalence of greater egalitarianism. When individuals are free and equal, cooperation becomes more feasible. Unlike situations where one party holds all the resources, such as a zamindar and a landless labourer, cooperation is more likely when there’s parity in resources, like two farmers with similar land and livestock. This balance allows for reciprocal arrangements, like tending each other’s livestock on alternate days, benefiting both parties.
In Eastern India, Adivasis demonstrate various forms of mutual support and cooperation. For instance, instead of hiring workers for construction or roof repairs, neighbours and friends come together for the task. This collective effort isn’t waged labour but rather an exchange of support. Hunting and fishing were historically communal activities, although hunting has become less common due to declining animal populations. Fishing, however, remains a communal endeavour, with villagers pooling their efforts in the village pond and sharing the catch equally. Other instances of mutual aid include rice transplanting, where teams collaborate to work in each other’s fields during the monsoon season. Despite the challenging conditions, the camaraderie and shared effort make the work more manageable. Mutual aid extends to various aspects of community life, including clearing forests, celebrating festivals, arranging marriages, resolving disputes, and local self-government. All these examples shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. In Jharkhand, there exists an institution known as Madayi, also present in Chhattisgarh, which essentially translates to mutual aid. Madayi serves as a versatile approach to various tasks, encompassing activities like house construction, field guarding, crop harvesting, cattle grazing, event organization, and anything else where cooperation proves more effective than individual effort. Participation in Madayi is considered an essential aspect of community conduct, expected from every member. While not entirely voluntary, as non-participation may lead to some form of exclusion from the community rather than outright ostracization, these institutions are gradually declining as they are closely linked with traditional village economies and societies. Incidentally, examples of cooperation extend beyond the village level to larger scales within Adivasi societies in Eastern India. Jean has been particularly struck by events like the Sarhul celebrations in a city like Ranchi, where thousands of people come together and collaborate to ensure the success of the event without apparent top-down policing. Similarly, the annual gathering of Jan Sangharsh Morcha in Netarhat, which witnessed a remarkable movement against the establishment of a firing range, showcases thousands of men, women, and children gathering for three days to conduct programs rooted in mutual aid, free from hierarchical structures or individuals exerting authority over others.
So, transitioning now to the topic of economic democracy, Jean notes that the institutions mentioned earlier largely pertain to economic structures. Reflecting on the article ‘Adivasi way of life’, it strikes him that the relatively democratic nature of Adivasi society and culture extends to the economy as well. He observes that the traditional Adivasi economy tends to be comparatively devoid of exploitative employer-employee relationships. However, he acknowledges that this changes when outsiders (Dikus), often exploitative, enter the picture. Nonetheless, within Adivasi society and its economy, exploitative dynamics between employers and employees are less prevalent, rendering it a more democratic economic system. For instance, revisiting the region in Khunti, where traditions remain vibrant, a recent observation stood out to Jean. He noticed a minimal presence of wage labour in the local economy. Primarily, the majority of individuals are small-scale farmers, cultivating their own plots of land. They either tend to their farms independently or engage in communal activities within the forest, as previously described, such as clearing land, transplanting rice, constructing homes, or arranging communal feasts. Wage labour is uncommon in this context. However, it’s worth noting that many young Adivasis, due to economic constraints, are compelled to migrate during off-seasons to distant regions like Gujarat and Tamil Nadu for livelihood opportunities. Consequently, they become part of the wage labour system. Nonetheless, within Khunti itself, wage labour remains limited, owing to the democratic nature of the local economy and the prioritization of individual freedom. It’s evident that most individuals are disinclined to work for others, particularly in roles like rickshaw pulling or domestic labour, emphasizing their preference for independence and autonomy.
This situation prompts the question: is it feasible to depart from the Adivasi economic model and democratize the broader economy? Can similar approaches be adopted in other sectors to eliminate exploitative employer-employee dynamics and empower individuals to become self-reliant? The answer, to a considerable extent, is affirmative. Theoretical frameworks and practical demonstrations support this assertion. Globally, numerous instances exist of democratic economic enterprises, such as cooperatives, which, despite receiving limited attention, play a significant role and engage large numbers of people and workers. With the provision of a supportive legal, fiscal, and political framework, the proliferation of such democratic economic institutions could be considerably enhanced.
To illustrate, several prominent examples exist, including the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, founded in 1956. This extensive federation of worker cooperatives employs nearly one lakh workers across various sectors such as bicycle manufacturing, machine tools, translation services, and computing. Another noteworthy instance is La Liga, a cooperative association in Italy established in 1891. With over 6 million members, exceeding 10 percent of the Italian population, La Liga has flourished for over a century, encompassing a diverse array of consumer and producer cooperatives. Additionally, numerous cooperative banks, including the Raiffeisen Bank in Europe, have demonstrated remarkable resilience, outperforming capitalist banks during the 2008 financial crisis while prioritizing the public good over profit maximization. In India, several noteworthy examples exist, though they often receive less attention. One prominent case is the Amul cooperative, encompassing millions of farmers and demonstrating considerable success. Another is the India Coffeehouse, which has maintained relative success over an extended period. Additionally, lesser-known examples include ULCCS in Kerala, short for Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society, serving as an Indian counterpart to the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. Established a century ago, ULCCS currently employs 13,000 workers on a democratic basis. These instances underscore the potential for further development of such economic institutions given adequate supportive frameworks.
Jean says that there’s a common misconception regarding the necessity of a boss within an enterprise, often conflating the roles of a boss and a manager. While managerial oversight becomes essential in larger operations, this doesn’t necessitate a boss who exploits workers and monopolizes profits. Instead, Jean suggests that managers can be appointed by and accountable to the workers themselves, embodying the essence of a democratic enterprise. Furthermore, Jean contends that there exists a constitutional imperative to foster such institutions. Article 39 (b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian constitution mandates that the state must strive to distribute ownership and control of community resources in a manner that serves the common good, rather than private profit. This, Jean asserts, clearly indicates the state’s obligation to promote economic democracy.
Jean shifts the focus to Jharkhand and its relevance to the discourse. Jharkhand, currently perceived as an internal colony, witnesses the extensive extraction and exploitation of local resources by large corporations in collaboration with the government. This exploitation primarily serves private profits and external interests rather than the welfare of the local populace. Jean poses critical questions: Is there an alternative approach? Can the state be developed in a more equitable manner? While acknowledging the desire of individuals, including Adivasis, for improved living standards, Jean emphasizes the potential for a different developmental paradigm. This alternative model would revolve around sustainable and equitable utilization of local resources for the local populace’s benefit. Jharkhand boasts a wealth of indigenous resources ripe for such a purpose. Jean highlights the human resources in Jharkhand, which have been significantly neglected, particularly evident in the state’s education system. Shockingly, Jean discovered that 30 percent of primary schools in Jharkhand operate as single-teacher schools, a violation of the Right to Education Act, which mandates a minimum of two teachers per school. Despite this alarming fact, official statistics from the Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) confirm this, yet there is minimal attention or protest against this issue. Jean emphasizes that the affected pupils are predominantly Adivasi and Dalit children, whose concerns hold little political significance in the current system. Jean emphasizes the need to develop both human and natural resources in Jharkhand to foster sustainable and equitable growth. He underscores the abundance of natural resources available, including fish, poultry, various crops, handicrafts, and forest products like Mahua, tendu, bamboo, lac, honey, mangoes, mushrooms, and medicinal herbs. However, he stresses that to harness these resources for the benefit of local communities rather than large corporations, new institutions need to be established. Contrary to the belief in market mechanisms driving development, Jean argues that relying solely on the market is insufficient and that proactive institutional development is necessary to ensure the sustainable and people-friendly utilization of these resources.
Jean conducted a recent study on mango plantations in Jharkhand, specifically those initiated under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). This program supports farmers in allocating approximately an acre of land for mango cultivation. Assistance is provided for activities such as well construction, land levelling, sapling planting, compost pit creation, and fence building. Labour costs for these activities are covered under the Employment Guarantee Act, with participants compensated accordingly. From the fifth year onward, farmers begin to reap the benefits of mango production, either through consumption or sale. Jean’s study focused on a straightforward cost-benefit analysis, solely examining the financial returns on investment, excluding social or environmental benefits. The analysis aimed to determine the total investment cost versus the revenue generated from mango sales, subsequently calculating the rate of return. The concept of rate of return is analogous to earning interest on a bank account deposit. For instance, if a bank offers a 10% interest rate adjusted for inflation, it means that for every 100 rupees deposited, the account holder receives 10 rupees annually in real terms. This equates to a rate of return of 10%. However, in contemporary banking practices, such high returns are seldom offered. Similarly, industrial projects typically yield real rates of return not exceeding 10%. In the case of mango plantations studied by Jean, the baseline estimates revealed a remarkable rate of return of 31%. This figure surpasses the returns achievable through most industrial ventures. Previous research by the National Horticulture Board also reported similar rates of return. While the calculations are subject to certain assumptions, including yield and cost variables, even under conservative scenarios, the returns remain notably high. The intriguing aspect is the profitability of mango tree plantations, considering mangoes are just one of many potential products.
One might wonder why more people are not engaging in similar ventures independently. The answer is not difficult to discern—it requires a substantial initial investment, typically amounting to lakhs of rupees per acre. Moreover, there’s a waiting period of at least five years before any returns can be realized, and the endeavour carries inherent risks, particularly without adequate support, knowledge, or necessary inputs. Small-scale farmers in Jharkhand prioritize food security through subsistence crop cultivation, leading them to hesitate in converting cropland into mango plantations independently. However, initiatives like the Employment Guarantee Act provide crucial assistance by easing initial financial burdens and covering labour costs during the waiting period. Consequently, enabling farmers to overcome these obstacles transforms mango cultivation into a highly valuable economic opportunity.
Jean further emphasizes the importance of institutions of social security, such as the Employment Guarantee Act, in fostering economic democracy. He argues that insecurity often pushes workers into exploitative relationships, making it crucial to protect individuals from such vulnerabilities. He expresses his active involvement in promoting programs like the Employment Guarantee Act and the National Food Security Act, which aim to provide economic security to people, thus supporting his resistance against exploitative practices.
Jean concludes by summarizing two key points. Firstly, he suggests that there exists an alternative to capitalist development in Jharkhand, centred on the sustainable and equitable utilization of local resources. However, achieving this would require a significant shift in public policy, as the current focus of the Jharkhand government does not align with this approach, despite successful initiatives like the mango plantation project. Secondly, he emphasizes the importance of democratizing the economy alongside political democracy. He highlights the prevalence of authoritarian structures in the economy, such as capitalist firms, where workers lack representation and often endure exploitative relationships due to economic insecurity. Jean argues that many of these enterprises could operate democratically, drawing inspiration from the Adivasi way of life and economy.
About the Speaker
Jean Drèze
Jean Drèze studied Mathematical Economics at the University of Essex and earned his Ph.D. from the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi. He has taught at both the London School of Economics and the Delhi School of Economics, and currently holds positions as Visiting Professor at Ranchi University and Honorary Professor at the Delhi School of Economics. Drèze has made significant contributions to development economics and public policy, particularly focusing on India. His research interests encompass rural development, social inequality, elementary education, child nutrition, healthcare, and food security. He is the co-author, alongside Amartya Sen, of ‘Hunger and Public Action’ (Oxford University Press, 1989) and ‘An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions’ (Penguin, 2013). Additionally, he is one of the co-authors of the Public Report on Basic Education in India, also known as the ‘PROBE Report’.
