In November, 1978, the Government of Bihar had organised a ‘rural camp of agricultural labourers living in Barh (meaning “flood”) and Mokamah police-thana areas, Bihar. Some observations made at this camp were recently published in the National La-bour Institute Bulletin (Jan-Feb, 1979). The study points to one inevitable conclusion: the life of the Indian agricultural labourer continues to be an unend-ing nightmare of poverty, exploitation and repression after so many years of ruling class ‘socialism.
The report has described in great detail the system of bonded labour in Bihar. For instance, in Rampur-Dumra village, there are about 40 families living as bonded labourers, or ‘bandhua mazdoor. Speaking of their condition, the report says: “The bandhua mazdoor gets 1.25 kg. of grain for a whole. day’s work. However, the grain never includes wheat or rice. No meal is given during the day…and (he) does not get even a small piece of land for self-cultivation. The bonded labourer must be at the me-rcy of not only the landlord, but also his other family members. He is not free to absent himself from work for any other reason, or occasion”. Similar conditions exist in most villages in the area.
In the villages of Mor and Indranagar, the bonded labourer is even fined if he does not work on the land due to illness, etc. Moreover, he is not permitted to own any cattle because “bonded lab-ourers who live like animals do not possess any animal. Most of them have been living in these conditions for generations.
There are also some ‘chutta’ or ‘ghair-bandhua workers, who are non-bonded labourers. Their condi-tion is also bad. The report points out that “a casual labourer is assured employment only for about 130 days in a year.” Also, they do not get any land or food from the landlords. They are forced to do the harvesting and transportation of foodgrains and fodder, for which they are paid 1/12th. of the total produce (i. e., one bundle out of every twelve.)
Besides the lack of land, another factor that keeps the agricultural workers tied to their landlords is their indebtedness. In Rampur-Dumra, the bonded labourers have not taken any cash or loans from the landlords for the last two generations, yet the money that has to be repaid amounts to thousands of rupees. Although the rate of interest varies from place to place, it is normally 3 per cent per month. But, as the report clearly states, “once a loan is taken, there is no possibility of freeing oneself.”
For example, 40 years ago Gino Mehto had taken a loan for Rs. 500 from a Bhumihar landlord.. Since then he has been working for him. Now, his master demands Rs. 22,000. This indebtedness has the effect effect of binding the labourer to the landlord and thus turns him into a bonded labourer.
Women represent one of the most exploited sections in this area. During planting, weeding and sowing, women are paid Rs. 2 and men Rs. 3.25 per day. But the landlord makes the women work as hard as the men, and thus “the landowner gives work only to women and leaves the men unemployed”. The fate of women immediately after childbirth or during pregnancy is even worse, because they are forced to work as normal in the fields.
As a woman from Gwar Dharampur said: “We have to work carrying a babe of nine months in our womb. When we approach the master for wages, he screams: Do you expect me to pay you every day ?.. We remain hungry. There are children. They cry. Sometimes, some root and leaves alone go to satisfy our hunger”.
In the face of this savage, inhuman exploitation, the agricultural labourers of Barh have tried to stru-ggle for a life worthy of human beings. In Sultanpur village, near Mokmah, the wages were raised to 2.5 kg. for grains, after a struggle against the landlords. On most occasions, the slightest protest results in repression. The Belchi massacre one of the most terrible crimes committed by the ruling classes-took place here. There are also many other cases, as horri-fying as Belchi.
To quote just one instance: Jamna Ram, of Rampur-Durma, was the ‘halwaha’ (ploughman) of a Bhumihar landlord. In 1976, he did not work from July to October due to illness. While his family was facing near starvation, “the master one day came with some members of his family. dragged Jamna out of his bed and started beating him madly. He was taken out like an animal, his hands and feet tied to a bamboo. He was unconscious. He was stripped naked and dragged on the road for half a Kilometre. The landlord thought of throwing him on the rail-crack and then registering a case of suicide. But finally he was just thrown on the roadside. Some people picked him up and he survived. but was paralysed for the rest of his iife”.
What do the government officials do, when faced with such situations ? The report observes: “In a number of places, the inspectors themselves are not able to speak out due to the economic and political muscle of the landlord”. Obviously, not being “able to speak out can have only one meaning in this context-i. e. supporting the landlords in their exploitation of the labourers.
In spite of this, the report insists that the labour inspectors are capable of helping the agricultural lab-ourers. The truth is, as long capitalists and landlords rule the country, the labour inspectors will be their agents. This means that the liberation of the agricultu-ral labourers can be achieved only through attacks against capitalist-landlord rule. As the song of the kisan mazdoor of Barh says:
“We the peasants and labourers Split among ourselves All these days our houses were destroyed But split as we were, we could be robbed. Now tell the rich and the moneylenders To open up their full treasury Otherwise all the labourers within a day or two Will launch an attack.”