Interview With P.sainath

8/14/2019 Interview With P.sainath

1/7

Invisible India is the elephant in your bedroom"Ashwin Mahesh talks with 2007 Ramon Magsaysay award winner P. Sainath.

P. Sainath, whose intelligent and insightful views on agriculture, caste, media and other matters have beengreatly appreciated by countless readers, has been awarded the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay award forJournalism, Literature, and Creative Communication Arts. In selecting him this year's winner, the board oftrustees of the Ramon Magsaysay Awards Foundation awards committee "recognizes his passionatecommitment as a journalist to restore the rural poor to India's consciousness, moving the nation to action."

Picture: P. Sainathcredit: Sadanand Menon

In an exclusive interview to India Together, P. Sainath talks to Ashwin Mahesh about his work and his viewson trade, politics, society, and the media.

Ashwin Mahesh: This is a serious award for serious work, so let's get straight to it. Does this recognitionchange anything? Does it improve the chances of the agricultural crisis or caste deprivation or the otherthings you've been writing about being tackled more purposefully?

P. Sainath: Yes. Recognition of this sort, or by any award, changes a few things. One, it increases the

space for such issues. A lot of editors might stop and ask if they too should be giving these topics moreattention. Second, it encourages a lot of others who are interested in writing about these things, but are nowhesitant for one reason or another, to give it a try. I came from Blitz, as you know. But after I won the Timesfellowship, a lot of other people decided to apply for it the following year, thinking that if someone notnormally 'in the race' for such recognition is being noticed, they too might have a chance. If you publish 84articles on poverty, pretty soon everyone else will do some of it too. You've seen how The Hindu'scoveragehas led to some mimickry of reporting in other papers, even with the Vidarbha series, the Wayanad series,and so on.

And all this is a good thing. People like me don't have the 'scoop'problem. We don't mind if the things we are writing about are picked upby others, repeated in other publications, and so on. It's in the nature ofthe things we write, that we want them to be more written about. And anaward always gives that possibility a boost. That's espeacially good if

you're a freelancer, like I've been for such a long time - the scope forgetting published jumps when a new space becomes more inviting to a lot of publishers.

One shouldn't discount the personal satisfaction, either. Obviously, that's a big plus.

AM: Let's move to the issues themselves, and start with agriculture. One hears a lot of people arguing thatsmall and medium farms are simply unviable in the global agricultural scenario. Do you agree? Is therereally a model that can work for the small farmer in India, or are we going to see family farms go the waythey did in the US?

PS: First off, I think they're wrong to question viability in such simplistic terms. If you consciously developsomething, and nurture it, then i t becomes viable. What we have is a situation where agriculture in India isbeing made unviable by imposition. Is American agriculture really viable? You have a situation where cottoncrop worth 3.9 billion dollars receives 4.7 billion in subsidies. The Europeans are throwing billions of euros

worth of crops into the sea. Whose farming is really unviable? In reality, developed world farming is hugelywasteful, not to forget destructive of soils. And yet, the question is asked if Third World farming, especiallysmall and medium farms, can last in the long run.

Write the author

P. Sainath - homepage

Interviews Send to a friend

Printer friendly version

No one is interested in giving the

farmers any choice. In Wardha, inAkola, input dealers are saying that

unless farmers buy Hi-Feed (a newchemical) they will not supply them urea


2/7

But let's address the questions anyway. There areessentially two kinds of people who question the viability ofsmall farms. The first are those who favour corporatefarming, and argue in favour of scale, productivity, and so on.They look at agriculture from a 'production' or 'output' lens.The second group looks at livelihood issues, and askswhether agriculture can really support a lot of people's jobs

going forward. I think we should look at the two argumentsseparately.

The first kind of argument is plain crap, as I said. It privileges one kind of farming - corporatised production- and lavishes all kinds of goodies and state subsidies on this model, and then questions the viability ofothers. This is basically the American model. In the US, a 100-odd family farms are going bankrupteach week. Corporate farming, while it is huge, employs hardly anyone. There are 700,000 peopleemployed in corporate agriculture, even their prisons hold three times as many people (2.1 million). So,basically there's an effort to drive people out of agriculture. And in the Third World, this is projected as theway to go for us too. More corporatisation, and more chemicals. By buying this argument, we're turning whathas historically been a non-chemical farming culture into a chemical one.

The key thing here is choice. No one is interested in giving the farmers any choice. In Wardha, in Akola,input dealers are saying that unless farmers buy Hi-Feed (a new chemical) they will not supply them urea

this year.

The really laughable thing is, it's all offered as part of a 'free market'. I don't see how 4.7 billion dollars insubsidy can provide a free market of any kind for cotton. The US farm bill this year can be summarised infour words - more of the same. And the babalogwho've learned their economics from Tom Friedman - notMilton Friedman, but Tom! - are telling us about free markets, and how subsidies like support prices shouldbe abolished. They turn a blind eye to real subsidies, and want to cut 'life support' in the Third World.

There's no such thing as a free market, and anyone who thinks we're going to move agriculture towards afree market should have his brain examined. There's not a single part of the planet where agriculture is notsubsidised. So we should end the hypocrisy about subsidies, and begin to talk about who is receiving them,and who should. If corporations are given money as freebies, it's called an 'incentive', and if farmers aregiven free power in India, that's a subsidy! So what we're doing, by giving money to Cargill or ADM orMonsanto is feeding Frankenstein's grandmother! At least if individual farmers get subsidies, there are some

direct social benefits. What's the point of one more private jet to a corporate CEO?

The irony is that more and more people want clean food, not the chemical-contaminated, corporate-produced stuff. In 1984, when I first visited the US, there were only a few small farmers' markets here andthere. This year, there were markets that I found hard to enter, because they're so crowded.

AM: But not everyone who questions the viability of small farms is corporatist. I've heard at least a fewvoices - which you too would recognise as well meaning - question the future for Indian-style agriculture ....

PS: This is the second kind of argument. Let's look at agriculture in terms of livelihood and aspirations. TheNational Sample Survey data showed that 40 per cent of the people in agriculture don't actually want tocontinue in it, so clearly they want to move out, they want their children to seek other kinds of work.

But they need options - and these have to be real options, that are available to them without brutalising them

first, or depriving them of meaningful choices. If we're not going to do that, but simply try to force them out ofagriculture somehow, we may as well be bombing the countryside. We're underfunding development greatly.Look at Utsa Patnaik's work - it shows that in 1989, nearly 15 per cent of GDP was spent on development,but by 2005, this had dropped to six per cent. No wonder that millions of people - neither workers norpeasants - are moving into the urban areas. They can only work in unorganised jobs, where exploitation iseasy.

What's the alternative? Let's recognise one simple fact - incomes in agriculture are on average lower thanincomes elsewhere. Farmers are really the only group of producers with little or no control over their sellingprices - there is simply too much flux globally to determine this. And historically, people have been moving

this year.

Ideology of the cancer cell What the heart does not feel

India shining, Great depression

Growing inequalities


3/7

out of agriculture. But we all need to eat. The farmer in the fields is thus making a sacrifice, in terms ofopportunity, by remaining in it. We need to first recognise agriculture as a public good, and be comfortableabout subsidising this activity.

The bigger step we can take is to recognise that farmershave a right to their aspirations too, and look for employmentgenerating activities for them in other fields. Frankly, this is

quite easy. In this country, we've never looked at the socialsector as a potential employment generator. If we embracedthat view, instead of romanticising the village, a lot of jobscould be created quickly.

Take the case of education. There is an estimated under-supply of 400,000 schools. Can you imagine the number of

jobs we would create if we decided to address this? Simplyhaving one teacher per class, instead of the current one per five classes, would create two million jobs.The construction of the schools, canteen services for them, and all the eco-systems around each schoolwould create millions of more jobs.

The same with health care. We have a bizarre situation where hardly anyone has basic health care, and wehave the fifth most privatised health care system in the world. We have more doctors than nurses

everywhere, except in Kerala, where people live longer! There are plenty of jobs waiting to be created inhealth, but we first have to decide that everyone deserves a fair shot at good health. We're still dithering onthat.

Or public transport systems. I don't have to tell you how much work could be created in public transport, ifonly we decided to invest in its social benefits and actually developed it. We also need to look atmanufacturing differently, for a new industrial workforce, for a new generation. Moving people out ofagriculture is not the problem, they themselves are dying (literally!) to do this. What we need to do is givethem fair livelihood options that allow this change.

AM: Let's stay with agriculture. I want to look at one other thing. In public at least, there are very fewdisputes that the government needs to take agriculture more seriously. But actual policies for agriculture andagro-trade don't reflect this consensus. Is there a lot of behind-the-doors advocacy going on? I mean, whoreally wants the government to purchase from foreign traders at a higher price that the domestic support

price, or restructure debts that are inherently unpayable, and so on?

PS: Absolutely. Agriculture is one of the largest industries on the planet, and giant corporations controlsignificant chunks of it, leaving farmers completely out of the loop.

Take the case of cofeee. It's almost all produced in the Third World. You can't grow coffee in Alaska. Butgrowers in the Third World have no control over the actual price of coffee. So, you end up with zoomingprices for coffee in London or New York while growers are committing suicide in Wayanad! This is becausetoo much of the marketing and pricing is deciding in back-room lobbying in the developed world, andenforced by global trade agreements like the WTO, or before that, the GATT. All this 'green room' stuff isrevolting. In nutrition-poor societies in the Third World, we're being forced to grow cash crops, and remainfood dependent on developed countries.

People mint money on the backs of farmers' lack of

information everywhere. Take the Maharashtra WaterResources Regulation Act. It says that the government mayimpose on farmers the kind of irrigation it deems fit. It cansay to you, if you are a farmer living on the banks of the river,"Ashwin Mahesh, you have no right to the river water for yourcrops, what you must do is use drip irrigation or sprinklers."Why? Because ministers in the government are close tosprinkler makers in Jalgaon. Or they want to push dripirrigation kits they have imported from Israel and want todump on farmers here. Israeli agriculture is total bogus, it

In this country, we've never looked at

the social sector as a potential

employment generator. If we embracedthat view, instead of romanticising thevillage, a lot of jobs could be created

quickly.

The health of nations

Growers in the Third World have nocontrol over the actual price of coffee.

So, you end up with zooming prices forcoffee in London or New York while

growers are committing suicide inWayanad

Coffee sails globally, sinks locally


4/7

won't last three weeks without American aid. And in any case, drip and sprinklers that work in the Negevdesert are not exactly built for Lonavala, with 2400 mm of rain!

Asymmetries of information are everywhere, and denial of information is the game. Jaideep Hardikar, who'swritten a lot for India Together, is working on some stories on cargo hubs being established in rural areas.You can see that while one farmer has sold his land for 1.5 lakhs an acre, his neighbouring plot, which isowned by a judge, has been sold for 2.5 crores.

AM: But doesn't any of this lose votes? Don't farmers in Punjab punish a government that would rather buyfrom the Australian Wheat Board than from them?

PS: Yes, but that can be tackled politically. Besides, the Australian Wheat Board buys from everywhere, soit's possible some of this high-priced wheat being bought from them is just re-imported stuff that wasoriginally available cheaper from the Punjab farmer!

AM: Let's move on to society next. A lot of the problems you report on are the result of overall society beinga particular way, and politics being of a particular kind. Given that, how do you see any of it changing? Whatwill make politics and society more alert to the socio-economic condition of the majority of people?

PS: Society changes the way it always has. The people change it, either through popular movements and

uprisings, or through politics of one kind or another. Not this non-political NGO stuff, that has no chance. Wehave a situation where the basic building blocks are broken, and we're determinedly institutionalisinginequality. It's been designed cynically, and applied ruthlessly, with great clarity and by deliberate choice. Itcan't go on. At some point, enough people will say 'enough' and then society will change.

AM: You're avoiding the 'R' word ...

PS: 'Revolution' is an over-used, even abused word. We've used this so many times, talking about sleepyvillages waking up, that one would think all villagers do is sleep. We can count revolutions in RPM now. Ithink we need to treat it more seriously, and not use it in a loose-tongued way. Change will happen whensome of the basic failures are addressed, however that comes about. India has had many achievementssince independence, but we've also had four or five basicfailures.

Land reforms is one. With only a few exceptions, we find thatland is the monopoly of a few people. And when I say 'land', Iam using it broadly, to include water and other resources.Without reforms in usage, monopolies, tenancy, etc. 600million people, who make up 75 per cent of rural households,own five per cent of the land. And we have to fix this. Withoutthis, it's like trying to fix the floor on the 50th floor of askyscraper while the foundation is falling apart. But in India,development is typically like this; we're used to building 100-storey buildings on fault zones, and calling it progress.

We have to address the social issues, there's no doubt of that. But what we have is a situation where eventhe progressive intellectuals develop feet - and hands, torso, head, everything - of clay when we talk aboutcaste, and start screaming "I've never discriminated against anyone." Or we have rubbish like the AIIMS

students agitating, while we're quietly finding out about segregated canteens and so on. We must tacklecaste, but we can't tackle caste without tackling land.

There's also gender, regional development, and a few other things. The thing to do is decide the overalllens, and fix what's broken at a high level.

AM: You're a reporter, above all else. So you must see some role in all this for the media. Serious journalismis plain dead in our dailies. I can't remember the last time I saw a full page report on anything, in any paper.

Even the progressive intellectualsdevelop feet - and hands, torso, head,everything - of clay when we talk about

caste.

The riots and wrongs of caste

A much larger house on fire The class war in Gurgaon


5/7

PS: I have said this many times. The fundamental characteristic of our media is the growing disconnectbetween mass media and mass reality. The other day, there was a lead story, maybe in the ToI, about a guywho paid 15 lakhs to get a private mobile number of his choice, and this was called an 'awakening of india'snew confidence'. A couple of days later, it turned out that someone else had paid 1.5 crores to 'collect' 30such numbers. There's simply no way to describe how stuff like this becomes news, and how it stays in thefront pages. I keep thinking it can't get worse but it does.

AM: I have a view that some of this is the result of having 'national' dailies, that aren't adequately rooted inlocal news, so there's a race to the bottom, in trying to find the lowest common factor and call it news.

PS: You can be national in your vision ... in your idea of what this country is, what its soul is, and still reportlocally. You can even have several 'local' editions - Eenaduhas one for each district of Andhra. Context iswhat counts, in judging this. Let's face i t - 'national' newspaper means something that is published in Englishin more than one city, that's all. Having said that, national media can draw the threads together from differentplaces, and provide context for local news. A 'wider' perspective, if you can call it that. If the world isglobalised, you need that context. A struggle like Plachimada is local, yes, but is it not related in some wayto Varanasi?

But there are also gigantic problems with some of the consolidation that we see in media. For instance,there's very little talk of subsidies to media, amidst all the clamour about subsidies to agriculture! You canhave big offices in Bahadur Shah Safar Marg or Nariman Point and this is not a problem, but better support

prices for farmers are pored over at length. Media are also creatures of the subsidy raj.

There have been two Press Comissions in India, in 1954 and in 77-80 (this commission's term was draggedout by the Emergency). And there has been repeated observation that what we have is freedom of the'purse', not the press. People have also suggested delinking business houses from news industry.

The monompoly and concentration of power is also a problem. Remember the Bruce Springsteen song 57channels, and nothing on? What we have is a growing number of channels, but the diversity is limited to thedirection of hip movement. On one channel the hips are swaying to the left, and on the other they areswaying right, and it's Prabhu Deva on both channels!

One reason is that the ownership of media has changed. Blitzwas family owned, and that provided somefoundation, a sense of purpose to having a media organisation. The Guardianis like that, without doubt thebest newspaper in the world. It is run by a trust, and that can

bring some good foundation.

But now that sort of thing is rare, and many trusts too are fullof corporate CEOs. A lot of media has forgotten that

journalism is for people, not shareholders. A few publicationswould like to entirely drop some sections or readers becase itspoils their purchasing power profile. There are no labourcorrespondents, no agriculture correspondents ... the term'rural editor' came into being with The Hinduappointing one.But most papers have 12 business correspondents, even ifit's a general interest paper. They've decided that 70 per centof people don't make news, and this is a gigantic reflection ofthe character of the industry.

AM: Anything positive to say about our profession?

PS: There are good things. One simple truth is that the media is regularly administered doses or realitytherapy by the people. The best evidence of this I can think of was the 2004 elections, where a whole bunchof disconnected pundits went about telling the public about India Shining, and the people told the punditswhat was really on their minds. The next six to eight months were spent by media reporting considerablymore seriously. I'd never been as much in demand on television as then ... the media wanted someone toexplain to them what the hell happened. And a lot of serious journalists found good work then. You knowwe've been talking about farmers' suicides since 2001, but it really picked up after the elections went adifferent way from what the media predicted. Spaces opened up (for reporting) suddenly.

You can have big offices in Bahadur

Shah Safar Marg or Nariman Point andthis is not a problem, but better support

prices for farmers are pored over atlength. Media are also creatures of the

subsidy raj.

Mass media versus mass reality

Warning: Monopoly media


6/7

What journalists need to remember is that the public creates the spaces for freedom, and that their readersare almost always far far ahead of the editors. Whether it's the New York Timesor ToI, I find that readerswrite in very seriously. They may take extreme views, even, left-wing, right-wing and so on, but their viewsare serious, not some flippant stuff.

The challenge for journalists is to create and expand public spaces within increasingly private fora. Butwe've got history on our side - 180 years of it in this country. Twenty years of trivialsation is a minor period in

that larger history. And even within the fluff we see, there is much diversity. In the 80s and 90s, a particularquality of person went into journalism which was good. We're blessed with good young journalists, andthere's also a new phenomenon - of people from non-journalistic backgrounds coming into media andbringing a completely different lens, especially online. India Togetheritself is a great example of this.

Plus, diversity has a way of evening things up a little. I think kindly of the Indian press whenever i am in theUS. These two countries - India and America - are the most diverse societies in the world. There areapparently 115 languages spoken in Queens, in New York, a fifth of them might be Indian, even! But look atyour American newspaper, and it's essentially a white Anglo-Saxon thing. Diversity is tokenist. In India,thanks to language and culture, there's a much broader sweep of the culture being taken in by the media.

But 'people diversity' is still a problem in India, the Americans have a lot more of this kind of representation.There's not one dalit editor in a major newspaper, and media remains the most exclusionist institution in thecountry. Our political spectrum is much wider than what you'd think, from looking at the media.

AM: Let me bring this down to the people who actually read you. Do you feel sometimes that the audiencefor your work has been precisely the same class of people who're so indifferent to larger political realities? Ialways get the sense talking to you that your 'political' voice is speaking to a different listerner than your'reporting' voice.

PS: By definition, we're writing for the middle and upper classes. That's going to be true, as long as literacylevels are what they are. Only 20 per cent of families are even getting a newspaper, so you can't get awayfrom that. But I think there are different ways to reach different audiences, and I try to do that. What I write inEnglish is translated into many languages for publication. I also try to communicate with other fora. I rarelyspeak in Mumbai or Delhi, but in rural Andhra, I'm speaking everywhere, on all kinds of different platforms,most of them small spaces.

The other thing is to remember that I can't be speaking in the

voice of the masses, the people have their own voice. What Ican do is talk to peasants and workers and let you knowwhat those conversations are like, and ask if you want tolisten. I'm looking at the human condition in this society andtelling it the way I see it. I don't want o characterise readersby class or other homogeneity. I think we can all try to touchthe differences.

As for your question, I'd say I wantto reach the middleclasses too. I've talked to and taught people from privilegedbackgrounds a lot, as you can imagine, and I think there's alot to be gained from this. You know how people in the middle classes talk and read about the'Invisible India'? That's such a lot of rubbish. Invisible India is the elephant in your bedroom, what weshould be talking about is the Blind India that can't see this elephant. And that means talking to the middle

and upper classes, speaking plainly about biases, privileges, etc. I want to do that.

AM: Before I let you go, tell us what you're working on now. You're always working on 'series', and theremust be something new ...

PS: What I work on is what the situation demands, so in one sense there's no plan. The larger issues ofagriculture became important, and I began writing about them. The PM came to Vidarbha, though thingsaren't any better as a result one year later. But it helps.

What we should be talking about is theBlind India that can't see the elephant in

its midst. And that means talking to themiddle and upper classes, speaking

plainly about biases, privileges, etc.

Great Indian laughter challenge

The fear of democracy

Can't vote, can vet


7/7

I'm also working on a couple of series that are both dear to my heart. One is to create an archive of ruralIndia. I want to use this award to further that. A hundered years from now, many professions will simply beunknown - the streetside knife sharpener, the toddy tapper, the manual irrigator, these will all not exist, andwe should record these for posterity. Another thing I'm working on is a series on the last remaining freedomfighters of India. They're dying, and their voices are an important memory of the Independence movement,and that's something I'm looking forward to seeing published and archived. I'm also working on a 'GuerillaJournalism' project, but I'll hold off elaborating on that now ...

AM: Sainath, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. I'm sure a lot of people are thrilled for you. All thebest, and we look forward to more of you on these pages, and elsewhere too.

PS: Thank you.

India Together01 Aug 2007

P. Sainath is the 2007 winner of the Ramon Magsaysay award for Journalism, Literature, and CreativeCommunication Arts. He is one of the two recipients of the A.H. Boerma Award, 2001, granted for his

contributions in changing the nature of the development debate on food, hunger and rural development inthe Indian media. Ashwin Mahesh is a co-founder and editor of India Together.

Documents

Interview With P.sainath