For a lorip time commercialis?.tion of apiculture was viewed by economists in
rather ,
R
AN INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW OF COMMEPCIALISATION OF I N D I A N AGRICULTURE
By K.M. Raj
For a lorip time commercialis?.tion of a p i c u l t u r e was viewed by economists in r a t h e r ,
-
........
w h i l e t h e ' f a m e r ' households c o n y t i t u t e d 7 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l 52.9 m i l l i o n Hindu r u r a l households i n t h e upper c a s t e t h e y accounted f o r about one-fourth. On t h e o t h e r hand, among a p i c u 1 , m a l - l a b o u r households, which c c n t r i b u t e d a b o u t o n e - f i f t h t o t h e t o t a l r u r a l h o u s e h c l d s , o n ~
t h e patt'ern o f d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p e r a t i o n a l holdincs i s explained by s o i l and c l i m a t i c cond.itions,compellin~:~ i ? ~ e s p r e ar d e l i a n c e on l i v e s t o c k f o r p l o u ~ h i n gand on r e l a t i v e l y c a p i t a l i n t e n s i v e methods of i r r i ~ a t i o nsuch a s deep wells, Persian wheels, and l a r g e r e s e r v o i r s i, .and how much s y s t e m s ~ f revenue administrations have over a period contributed t o i t , a r e matters
per t of t h e upper c a s t e f a m i l i e s were accounted f o r . A t t h e o t h e r extreme, -/ c36e nper cent of t h e scheduled c a s t e f a m i l i e s belonged t o t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l labour cate'gcry ancl only 1.5 per cent were 'farmerv households. That t h e r e i s a broad correspondence between ' c a s t e ' and ' c l a s s ' , a t t h e two extremes, appcars t o be t h u s borne out by t h e s e f i g u r e s . But it i s a l s o c l e a r -- particular1.y i n t h e intermediate cate,uories -- t h a t c l a s s c u t s a c r o s s c a s t e d i v i s i o n s . Thus n e a r l y 7 per cent o f lower c a s t e housoholds i n t h e r u r a l a r e a s a r e 'farmer' households, and t h e number of lower c a s t e households among t h e t o t a l number of 'farmerq households works out To w e l l over 40 per cent. There i s , unfortunately, nc information' a v a i l a b l e r e ~ a r d i n pt h e average s i z e of t h e h o l d i n ~ si n t h e case of each c a s t e group. S i m i l a r l y , mere t h & 18 per cent o f t h e middle c a s t e households, it' would appear, were ' e p i c i l l t u r a l labourers' and 'share-croppers'. The number of r u r a l Hindu households belonging t o t h e s e two c a t e p r i e s was 13.3 m i l l i o n s , o f which t h e middle c a s t e acccunted f o r 2.2 millions. Approximately one out :-fw c r y s i x hnuceholds occupied a s ' + p i c u l t u r a l labourers' and. 'share-croppers' i n t h e r u r a l a r e a s belonr t o t h e middle-caste group. In view of t h e very b i g d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e l a t i v e in~pw.Ldr~ce of the in^^,,,^.^.upper ar.1 middle c a s t e s a s hetween d i f f e r e n t regions t h e f.. households h e l o n f i i r . ~t o t h e s e higher c a s t e - p o u p s working a s ' a p i c u l t u r a l ~ ~ r ~ s ' more preponderant i n North, labourers ' and ' s l ~ a r ~ c - - c r ~ . . ~a !r c~ ~pcr~liaps North West and East I n d i a than i n South, C e n t r a l and West India. But, on t h e o t h e r hand, it seems equally l i k e l y t h a t i n s t a n c e s of lower c a s t e .households being occupied a s ' f a n n e r s ' , and t h u s b e i n r i n t h e t o p rank of t h e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e , a r e r e l a t i v e l y more nrimcrous i n South, f c ~ l t - r a and l West I n d i a than i n t h e o t h e r t h r e e r e g i o n s ' . O I , ' . P ~ + . R a j "Regional and Caste Factors i n I n d i a ' s ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t n
....
+
For an exploratory a n a l y s i s o f t h e rlifference mad.e by s o i l and c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i m s , t e r r a i n , ' e t c . t o techniques of i r r i g a t i o n , ploughing and o t h e r a p i c u l t u r a l operations and thereby t o t h e i n t e n s i t y of labour input i n Asian a p i c u l t u r e , See A. Vaidy3,nathan and A.V. J o s e , "Absorption of Human Labour i n F ~ m i c u l t u r e : A Comcarative Studv of Some Asian Countries". i n Some Exploratory I n v c s t i ~ a t i o n s ,by Labour Absorpticn i n Indian Agriculture: -P.K. ~. ..... Bardhan. A. Vaidvanathan, 1. Alarrh. . . - G.S. Bhalla and A. A h a h r i (Asian hployment Propamme, I . L . O . , ISBN 92-2-102023-1, November 1978); a l s o %lr,-.u Ishikawa, Essays .in Technology, Employment and I n s t i t u t i o n s i n Economic D ~ e l o p m e n (t K h o k u n i y a , 1981). a.
.
which r e q u i r e c l o s e r s t u d y . Ht~wever, along with c u l t i v a t i o n i n r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e holdings based mainly on wage labour, c u l t i v a t i o n i n small peasant holdings dependin€ cn leased-in land i n varying degrees was a l s o a widesprea? f e a t u r e of Indian a p i c u l t u r e ( i n f a c t t h e f e a t u r e most often h i g h l i ~ h t e dby observers). National Sample Survey data f o r t h e e a r l y 1950s show t h a t a s much a s 70 t o 75 per cent of a l l a p i c u l t u r a l holdings belonged t o t h e smaller siz2-groups, accounting
in no p a r t of t h e country f o r much more than about one-third of t h e t o t a l operate2 a r e a .
Leased-in land was generally not l e s s than one-fifth of the
t o t a l a r e a i n t h e s e small peasant holdings, i n f x t around two-fifths i n some p a r t s o f t h e country l i k e Madras and t h e Punjab;
it was i n a l l probzbility
very much hipher i n t h e concluding decades of B r i t i s h r u l e before lanr! reforms conferring ownership r i p h t s on t e n a n t s were i n i t i a t e d . What f a c t o r s then governed t h e choice between l e a s i n g nut land for c u l t i v a t i o n i n smaller holdings and organisinp c u l t i v a t i o n d i r e c t l y with hired labour?
Prima f a c i e it seems probable t h a t s o i l and c l i m a t i c conditions.
sources of supply qf water, f e a s i b l e crop pin^ p a t t e r n s , and t h e nature and i n t e n s i t y of t h e labour i n p u t s needed were t h e main considerations (apart of course from those a s s o c i a t e d with t h e c a s t e and s o c i a l s t z t u s of t h e land owners which could have been t h e more d e c i s i v e f a c t o r s i n s e v e r a l regions). Thus i n repions where much higher y i e l d s could be secured by i n t e n s i v e application of labour, a s through double-cropping i n r i c e ~ o w i n pa r e a s o r a s u i t a b l y di'versi'f ied cropping p a t t e r n e
. combini..~p wheat with c o t t o n ) i n
adequately i r r i p a t e d t r a c t s , one might expect a strop.. preference f o r leasing out land on r e n t t o peasants with smal-ler holdings.
On t h e o t h e r hand, culti-
vation i n r e l a t i v e l y l a r s e holdings could have appeared more advantageous i n
r e g i o n s where t h e scope f o r r a i s i n r y i e l d s i n t h e s e ways was l i m i t e d , e i t h e r f o r l a c k o f i r r i g a t i o n ( a s was n o doubt t h e c a s e i n even some r i c e growing a r e a s ) , o r because l e s s i n t e n s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of l a b o u r was adequate f o r t h e c r o p s t h a t c o u l d be o r r l i n a r i l y pawn i n t h e given s o i l and c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s ( a s i n t h e c a s e of m i l l e t s , ,poundnut, c o t t o n t o b a c c o , and even sugarcane f o r which t h e l a b o u r i n p u t s r e q u i r e 2 a r e s p r e a d o u t a t i n t e r v a l s over a l o n p p e r i o d ) .
I f t h i s was s o , p r e v a l e n c e o f t e n m c y i n s m a l l peesant
h o l d i n g s would have been p - e a t e r i n t h e former r e g i o n s t h a n i n t h e l a t t e r , and t h e p r o p o r t i o n of c u l t i v a t e d a r e a i n r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e o p e r a t i o n a l holclings c o r r e s p o n d i n g . 1 ~h i ~ h e ri n t h e l a t t e r compared. t o t h e a r e a under ownership h o l d i n ~ sw i t h i n t h e same s i z e ran.qe. The A l l - I n d i a R u r a l C r e d i t Survey, conducted i n 75 d i s t r i c t s c f t h e c o u n t r y i n 1951-52, p r o v i d e s some evidence i n s u p p o r t o f t h e s e i n f e r e n c e s . The Survey w a s t h e first a t t e m p t of i t s kind (and u n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e l a s t ) t o c a p t u r e i n some d e t a i l , fcr a p a r t i c u l a r y e a r , most of t h e e s s e n t i a l dimensions of t h e a g r a r i a n s t r u c t u r e f o r d i f f e r e n t but b r o a a l y homogeneous a v o - c l i m a t i c r e g i o n s ( h a v i n g a l s o some s i m i l a r i t y i n ?.emographic c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n each of them).
+
T h i s r n 5 . k ~it ~ possible t o r e l a t e inter-repima1 differences in the
e x t e n t of c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r e w i t h
other related characteristics
such a s c r o p ~ i n gp a t t e r n s , t h e v a l u e of m o s s produce p e r u n i t of l a n d i n c u l t i v a t e d h o l d i n g s , t h e p a t t e r n o f d i s t r i b u t i o n of such h o l d i n g s among c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l i e s (grouped a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e l a t i v e s i z e o f t h e i r h o l d i n ~ s ) ,t h e in t o t a l annual r e n t p a i d by c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l i e s / c a s h 2nd kind f o r l e a s e d - i n
+ The r e g i o n s have been formed on t h e b a s i s of c e r t a i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f c o n t i g u i t y and of s i m i l a r i t y cf p h y s i c a l , c l i m a t i c o r o t h e r n a t u r a l and rlemn,paphic c o n d i t i o n s . The d i s t r i c t s which were supposed t o r e p r e s e n t s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s i n a contiguous a r e a were prouped t o g e t h e r i n t o r e ~ i o n sand t h e rey;ion i s supposec? t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t s chosen i n t h e sample included r t t h e Committee w i t h i n t h a t r e g i o n w C f . ~$11-1ndiaR u r a l C r e d i t Survey, ~ e ~ o of of D i r e c t i o n (19515)~ Volume I , p.11.
land, whges paid i n cosh and kin3 o \ s r t h e y2ar per c u l t i v a t o r family belonginp t o t h e
U & C ~
s t r a t a , t h e amounts b o r r o i ~ don t h e averaqe durins
t h e )war by such Families, and t h e p a t t e r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n c f total. debt amonx c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l i e s ( r ~ o u p e r a' ~ a i naccording t o t h e r e l g t i v e s i z e of t h e i r holeincs nf la-n3).
T h o u ~ ht h e methor's adopted f o r s ~ z m ~ l i n yweighting, ,
e t c . s u f f e r from c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s (which have been s n e l t out i n t h e Survey rd
Renort i t s e l f ) ' ; t h e ?.ata made a v a i l a b l e by t h e Survey o f f e r some u s e f u l i n s i c h t s i n t o inter-re,qional d i f f e r e n c e s i n production systems within Indian a g r i c u l t u r e , t h e reasons f o r such d i f f e r e n c e a n d a b o v e a l l how'they are linked t o a s i g n i f i c a n t degree with i n s t i t u t i o n a l (an6 t h e r e f o r e p a r t l y histor i c a l ) f a c t o r s underlyinz t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of l a n d , labour and cre+.it (not t o mention t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i r r i g a t i o n and..of draught animals which a r e no l e s s important) i n t h e d i f f e r e n t rexions. One r a t h e r s e r i o u s Limitstion t o be n o t 4 i s t h a t t h e nunber of agroc l i m a t i c rer;ions i n t o &ich t h e sel.2te.'
75 G s t r i c t s were p - o u ~ e d i n the
Survey Rcpcrt was only 1 3 ( u n l i k e i n t h e more rcc::ent National Sample Surveys which i d e n t i f y n? l e s s t h m 67 avo-cl.imatic r e p i o n s within t h e country). This was not r e a l i y adeqcate t o t a k e c a r e of t h e wide diffarcnces i n s o i l end climatic con+.itions between a r e a s i n even c l o s e proximity t o aach ulltrl.
ill
nany
p a r t s of t h e ccuntry, and ensure t h a t each of t h e r e c i o n s i ~ k n t i f i e c was ! bmo,oeneous enough i n respect of t h e s e conditions ( d e s p i t e t h e s t r e s s placed .-
---
- .
a r e a znZ, a r e populous. 0 "DLstricts i n I n d i a a r e u s u a l l y r a t h e r l a r g e f r o m p a r t t o part In most o f them p h y s i c a l an< crop conditions/d&erent ~ s a t e r i a l l y . The number o f v i l l a g e s i n t h e sample was not l a r g e and a f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n was imposed by one-half of t h e sample being confined t o v i l l a g e s with cooperative c r e d i t s o c i e t i e s . The r e s u l t has often been t h s t a l l p a r t s o f t h e c l i s t r i c t have not n e c e s s a r i l y been adequately represented i n t h e sam?le and t h e t o t a l p i c t u r e presented by t h e weightec' village d a t a f o r t h e d i s t r i c t may not completely' accord with t h e average picture I n tllc c a s e of t h e region and t h e S t a t e , the f o r t h e whole d i s t r i c t l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r is even g r e a t e r becausc the sanple o f d i s t r i c t s was n o t s e l e c t e d with r e f w e m e t o S t a t e s o r t o the I t needs t o he addec! however that designated regions". Ibirl. pp.9-10. t h e survey covere.? 9000 c u l t i v a t o r Famil.ies i n 600 v i l l n w * (1 5 from each), and 8 v i l l a i : r z cicr.+ ~ o l ~ ~ : Cf rwo m l earh or 15 . l J . > ~ ~ . i c t s .
......
nn continguity o f t h e d i s t r i c t s grou;led t o g e t h e r ) .
One has t o be t h e r e f o r e
p w t i c u l a r l y c a r e f u l i n makinr comparisons between i n d i v i d u a l regions and. drawinp; inferences from them. However, t h e s e regions were i n t u r n c l a s s i f i e d under t h r e e broari c a t e p o r i e s applying c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a which make them conform t o d i f f e r e n t d e p e e s o f commercialisation i n t h e production and products.
market in^ of a g r i c u l t u r a l
The c a t e g o r i e s were: ( i ) s s u b s i s t e n c e r e g i o n s ' , i n which t h e pro-
portion of cash expenses t o t o t a l expenses, and o f cash s a l e s of crops t o t h e gross value o f produce, were r e l a t i v e l y very low among t h e c u l t i v a t o r families; ( i i ) 'monetized r e g i o n s s , in which t h e s e proportions were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher but t h e r e l a t i v e share of 'cash crops' a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y understood ( v i z . c o t t m , j u t e , sugarcane,itobacco, o i l s e e d s ) was q u i t e low i n t h e n e t sown area; and ( i i i ) 'commercialisad an? monetized r e g i o n s s , i n which t h e s h a r e of such cash crops i n n e t sown a r e a was a l s o high ( a d d i t i o n a l l y t o t h e higher proportions
-
of cash t r a n s a c t i m s i n gener21).
Since food c r o p s c o u l d be t h e media f c r
commercialisation of a g r i c u l t u r e a s much a s t h e conventional cash crops, w e may i s g o r e f o r our purpose here t h e d i s t i n c t i o n arawn between t h e l a s t twn c a t e g o r i e s and pay a t t e n t i o n mainly t o t h e much broader and c l e a r e r rlistinc t i o n between s u b s i s t e n c e regions (covering 27 of t h e s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t s m u p e d i n t o 4 d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s ) and what may be simply r e f e r r e d t o a s comercialise.1 regions (composed of t h e remainins 48 d i s t r i c t s .grouped i n t o 9 reeions).bIe could a l s o c a r e f u l l y i d e n t i f y and compare common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
observable f o r 2 o r 3 regions taken t o g e t h e r from within each of these catepies.
What is cnmmon t o groups of regions within each, and what i s d i f f e r e n t
between such ,maups b e l o n ~ i n gt o t h e t w 5 c a t e g o r i e s of regions, cou1,-1 then help us t o i d e n t i f y a t least some of t h e more important f e a t u r e s associatec!
with s u b s i s t e n c e ' an3 commercialised a , p i c u l t u r e e a r l y i n t h e 1950s and formul2te hypotheses f o r e x p l a i n i n s t h m . This i s t o o v a s t an e x e r c i s e t o be pone i n t o h e r e i n any p e a t d e t a i l h u t it may h? u s e f u l t o i n d i c a t e b r i e f l y a few s i ~ v i f i c a n tf i n c ' i n r s from .an a n a l y s i s o f t h e z v ~ i l a b l ed a t l a l m n t h e s e l i n e s : 1. The v d u e o f g r o s s prosuce p e r c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l y i n t h e subs i s t e n c e r e g i o n s was on t h e average r n l y about t w o - t h i r d of t h e v a l u c i n t h e commsrcialiser! ref:ions.' K e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e share o f t h e t o p rlecile o f c u l t i v a t o r families i n t h e t o t a l a r e a under s p e r a t i c n a l holciinrs was about 40 ? e r c e n t i n t h e s u b s i s t e n c e r e y i o n s ( x t u a l l y aroun.! 42 p e r c e n t i n t h e two r e q i n n s of Rihar-Ben.@ 3nd O r i s s a E Cast bd.hyaPradesh) while it was ?n t h e 'averace l e s s t h a n 35 p e r c e n t i n t h e commercialised r e g i o n s ( i n f a c t lower t h a n 28 p e r c e n t i n t h e Assam-Bengal and P u n j a b - P q s u re,?icns). On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e a v e r a r c r e n t p&+. i n c a s h aria kind t c l a n r ? l c r d s c o - s h a r e r s by c u l t i v t z t c r f a m i l i e s a s a whole, expressed a s a percentage o f t h e avcraze v a l u e of t h e i r 'woss produce,was n e a r l y t w i c e a s hiph i n the. commercialised as i n t h e s u h s i s t e n c e r e g i o n s . Even thouvh d a t a a r e u n f c r t u n a t e l y n a t a v z i l a b l e on t h e p r ~ p o r t i o nt h a t l e a s e d i n l a n d fornet!. of t h e t o t a l a r e s i n t h e o p e r a t i o n a l h o l d i n g s of c u l t i v a t o r families i n t h e subsistence Gr' ccmercialised r e ~ i o n s , it a p p e a r s from t h e ahove t h a t t h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r l e a s i n g o u t l-nd was lsss i n thr: subs'istence t h ~ n i n t h e commercialiscd re.rions a n d ~ c c ~ r e s p o n c l i n y . l yt ,h e t e ~ d e n c yt o or,?anise c u l t i v a t i o n r l i r e c t l y was s t r o n c e r i n t h e former.
2 . C m s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e h i r h e r i n t s n s i t y of l z b o u r i n ? u t r e q u i r e d an$. t h e h i e h e r v a l u e o f m o s s ~ r o d u c ep e r c u l t i v a t o r s f m i l y i n t h e commercialised re,qions, t h e prop&tion of t o t a l wa.?es and s a l a r i e s @?id p e r c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l y !by way o f c z s h wages, w q e s i n kin$ f o r h a r v e s t i n g , e t c . , 3s w e l l a s s a l a r i e s t o nermanent farm s e r v a n t s ) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y hirrher i n t h e s e r e g i c n s , t h i s h e i n ? on t h e average m l y about 5; p e r c e n t of t h e v a l u e of floss 7ro.luc.e p e r c u l t i v z t o r f a m i l y i n t h e s u b s i s t e n c e r e y i c n s compared t o 10t p e r c e n t o f it i n t h e commercialised. The p r o p o r t i o n repr e s e n t e d hy wage and s a l a r y payments f o r a , m i c u l t u r a l l a h o u r was s t i l l h i c h e r i n some r e g i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o m m e r c i ~ l i s e dcate,qory such a s Assam-Ben@ ( o v e r 12 p e r c e n t ) , South Deccan ( 1 3 t per c c n t ) , E a s t Coast ( n c a ~ l y1 4 p e r c e n t ) , and Punjab-Pepsu (where it was o v e r l e p e r c e n t g f t h e v a l u e o f g r o s s prorluce). On t h e o t h e r hand, wa,gos i n kind accounted on t h e average f o r about onct h i r d of t h e t o t z l wa?es and s a l a r i c s >air? i n t h e s u b s i s t e n c e r e z i o n s ( i n d e e d o v e r one-half i n O r i s s a m d E a s t Eladhya Pradcsh),, while i t s s h a r e was l e s s t h a n o n e - f i f t h i n t h e commercialisec'
r e r i o n s ( i n f a c t l e s s t h a n one-tenth i n t h e ',!estern Cotton b e l t , e x t e n d i n g from t h e Vidarbh?. r l i s t F i c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t Maharashtra S t a t e t o t h e e a s t e r n d i s t r i c t s and p l a i n s cf Gu-jarat) i n r ' i c ? t i n g E h i ~ h e rdeqrce of c c m m e r c i s l i s a t i o n of t h e l a h o u r markets i n t h e s e re,cions. The s h a r e of s d z r i e s pairl t o permanent s w v a n t s was i n t k e r a n g e of one-quarter t o one-half o f t h e t o t a l wages and s a l z r i e s paid i n r e g i o n s belong in^ t o b o t h c 2 t e p o r i e s l r e f l e c t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e system it r e p r e s e n t e " was widespread i n t h 2 c o u n t r y " t b e i r s h a r e was lower o n l y i n Bihar-Dengal !around o n e - t e n t h ) and E a s t e r n U t t a r Pradesh (about o n e - s i x t h ) a o n f t h e s u b s i s t e n c e r e g i o n s , anrl i n Punjab-Pepsu ( a g a i n around o n e - s i x t h ) and t h e West Coast (where it was even lower t h a n o n e - t e n t h ) among t h e c o m e r c i a l i s e d re.5ions. 3. I t i s a l s o e v i d e n t t h a t ( i ) t h e r e l a t i v e s h a r e o f t h e t o p
d e c i l e o f c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l i e s i n t o t a l o u t s t a n d i n ? d e b t was almost uniformly lower t h a n t h e i r r e l a t i v e s h a r e i n t h e t o t s 1 a r e a of land i n c u l t i v a t o r h o l d i n g s (though p e n e r a l l y much l e s s s o i n t h e c o m e r c i a l i s e d than i n t h e subsistence regions); and ( i i ) t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s of c o n c e n t r a t i o n of such debt werehowever g e n e r a l l y much h i g h e r .than t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f l a n d i n t h e c u l t i v a t o r hold in,^^. I n f a c t t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f 6,ebt were i n t h e r a n g e nf around 0.50 t o 0.65 i n a s many a s 11 of t h e 13 r e g i o n s belonging t o b a t h c a t e g o r i e s , reflect in^ t h e immense advantape t h a t t h o s e with r e l a t i v c l a r g e h o l d i n g s of l a n d had, over o t h e r s i n t h e r u r a l c r e r l i t market (and which t h e y obviously made u s e o f ) : t h e coef f i c i e n t s o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f l a n d were no h i r h e r t h a n 0.50 ( e x c e p t i n m e r e ~ i o n ,t h e Nest C o a s t ) and a s low a s 0.34 i n two r e g i o n s (Assam-Bengal and Punjab-Tepsu). [A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o e f f i c i e n t s of concentr a t i o n o f l a n d and rlebt r e s p e c t i v e l y ill 75 d i s t r i c t s is given i n t h e annexure. 1 A t t h e same t i m e it must he n o t e d t h a t , when t h e c u r r e n t b o r r c w i n , ? ~o f 211 c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l i e s a r e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , and t h e amount borrowed ,lu?iny t h e y c m o f survey i s expressed a s a p e r c e n t a g e of t h e v a l u e o f grass produce n e r c u l t i v a t o r f a m i l y , t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be no ~ l a r i n rc o n t r a s t hetween t h e s u b s i s t e n c s and commercialised r e ~ i o n s( b e i n g about 43 per c e n t i n t h e former and 55 p e r c e n t i n t h e l a t t e r ) ; i n a few re;:ions it was h i g h e r , a s i n t h e E a s t Coast (60 p e r c e n t ) and South Deccan ( a b o u t 72 p e r c e n t ) , n o t t o mention t h e s p e c i a l c a s e of Rajasthan (where it was o v e r 150 p e r c e n t , r e f l e c t i n p e v i d e n t l y t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e borrowings i n t h i s r e e i o n f o r t r a d e i n l i v e s t o c k ) . The r e a s o n perhaps i s t h a t t h e c u r r e n t borrowings were e s s e n t i a l l y f o r meeting working c a p i t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s ( i n c l u d i n g what a r e o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o , r a t h e r m i s l e a d i n g l y , a s 'consumption l o a n s P ) , a n d hence b r o a d l y r e l a t e d by t h e l e n d e r s w i t h what c o u l d be recovered. If t h i s i n t e r from t h e annual g r o s s produce o f t h e borrowers. p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a i s c o r r e c t , t h e obvious i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t a major s o u r c e o f a d v a n t a f e f o r t h o s e w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e h o l d i n g s o f l a n d was simnly t h a t a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r produce could
be marketed (whether o f food o r 'cash' c m p s ) ; t h e s e c u r i t y offered t o lenders on t h i s account, t o g e t h e r with t h o c o l l a t e r a l s e c u r i t y provided by t h e i r holdings of land, would have made it p o s s i b l e f o r them t o meet t h e i r c r e d i t requirements st n o t onlf a t lower r a t e s o f i n t e r e s t but i n p e a t e r abundmce without bein,? s u b j e c t t o c r e d i t r a t i o n i n g t o t h e same extent as others*
.
When t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f land, labour and c r e d i t i s analysed systemat i c a l l y i n t h i s mmner f o r l i f f e r e n t a v o - c l i m a t i c r e s i o n s , t a k i n g i n t o account t h e h i s t o r i c a l l y conlitione?, i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s a s well a s t h e technical and other compulsions governing t h e choice of t h k product-mix i n each r e ~ i o n(and s u b - r e ~ i o n ) , it would become p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e v a r i o u s reasons why ymd u c t i v i t y i n a g r i c u l t u r e was (and remains) much lower i n some regions than i n particular o t h e r s and the&ircumstances i n which commercialisation and technological change could have l e d t o p e a t e r e x p l o i t a t i o n of farmers and labourers without making much d i f f e r e n c e t o productivity.
This would a l s o h e l p us t o understand better
t h e conditions i n which commercialisation and t e c h n o l o g i c a l chan~e,promoted t h r o u ~ hbroadenin? t h e choices open i n resarrl t o t h e pro6uct-mix of a p i c u l t u r e introduction of highcr-yielding v a r i e t i e s , and/or ado>tion of new methods of production c ~ u l dl e a d (.and may have possibly p o s i t i v e and. s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . + +
l e d even i n t h e p a s t ) t o more
In t h e l i t e r a t u r e on Inr?ian agriculture
so f a r , some of t h e important diulensions of t h e a g r a r i a n sLructur.c and economy have been o f t e n e i t h e r ignored o r considered i n i s o l a t i o n and r e f e r r e d t o selec t i v e l y , r e s u l t i n g i n h i ~ h l ys i m p l i s t i c (even i f s u p e r f i c i a l l y appealing) prop o s i t i o n s about s t a g n a t i o n , growth and e q u i t y i n t h i s very v i t a l sphere.
What
is c l e a r l y required is n o t only an adequate a n a l y t i c a l framework but supp~rting empirical i n v e s t i z a t i o n i n d e t a i l , concerning t h e p a s t and t h e present, for as many of t h o numerous a p o - c l i m a t i c r e g i o n s (and sub-regions) a s one can identify .i..n t h e country.
--
--
--
+
See K .N. R a j , 'Xeynesian Economics ang. Agrarian Economies", i n ' Reflections on Economic Development and sooi3hChange (Essays i n Honour of Professor V.K.R.V. RaoY, e d i t e d by C.E. Hanumantha Rao and P.C. J o h s i (1979), pp.101-130. In tf An a n a l y s i s of Indian experience t o l a t e alone. t h e l i n e s i n d i c a t e dl t h e above paragraphs is now under preparation by t h e author and i s expected t o be publ i s h e d under t h e t i t l e Agrarian . -2-' r-u c t u r e m d Change i n ~India c.1750 to* -~ -. - not l a t e r than 1987.
~.
~~~
~
~
With t h i s o b j e c t i v e i n view t h e Centre f o r Development Studies i n Trivandrum had i n i t i a t e d , Prom t h e time it began functioning i n 1971, a v a r i e t y of s t u d i e s r e l a t i n e dj.-ectly o r i n c ' i r e c t l y t o a,warian s t r u c t u r e i n d i f f e r e n t regions and sub-regions within t h e country (both and micro l e v e l s ) .
a t t h e macro
They have been s o f a r a v a i l a b l e mainly i n t h o form of
Norking Papers o f t h e Centre and through
M.Phil and d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a -
t i o n s prepared by younger scfiolars within t h e Centre.
The Centre i s now
t a k i n ~t h e i n i t i a t i v e o f publishing t h i s m a t e r i a l i n s t a g e s f o r making it a v a i l a b l e t o a wider public. Heanwhile, on t h e occasion o f t h e comnletion of t e n yea.rs o f its existence, t h e Centre organised a seminar bringing t o p e t h e r a small number of s c h o l a r s with broadly s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s , from among both economists and historians.
The i n t e n t i o n was t o promote c l o s e r c o l l a b o r a t i v e work among
them on t h e s u b j e c t of commercialisation of Indian a g r i c u l t u r e .
I n conrur-
mity with t h e long-term o b j e c t i v e , t h e o r g a n i s a t i n n of t h e seminar was l e f t wholly t o t h e younger generation of s c h o l a r s workinp i n t h i s f i e l d within t h e Centre, and t h i s w a s reflected. a l s o t o a considerable e x t e n t i n t h e l i s t 13
of persons i n v i t e d ~t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n it.
The seminar was funded by t h e Indian
Council o f S o c i a l Science Research and held i n Trivandrum i n November 1981. The p r e s e n t volume i s a c o h e c t i o n o f some o f t h e papers presented a t t h e Seminar.
It has been e d i t e d by a small committee of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s
c o n s i s t i n g o f L l r . N e e h d r i Bhattacharya (of t h e Jawaharlal Nehru University),
D r . Sumit Guha (of St.Stephents College, D e l h i ) , and M r . S a k t i Padhj (of t h e Centre f o r Development S t u d i e s ) .
Some o f t h e papers discussed a t t h e
Seminar have been a l r e a d y published elsewhere by t h e authors;
a few t h a t
could n b t be i n c l u d e ? i n t h i s volume f w r e a s o n s beyond. t h e c o n t r o l of t h e e d i t o r i a l c m m i t t e e a r e a l s o l i k e l y t o be p u b l i s h e s indepenSently
.in
the near future. The purpose o f t h e Saminar, it must be stressec'., was n o t s a much t o cove* t h e s u b j e c t c o m p e h e n s i v e l y , o r t o a r r i v e a t any s e t t l e d conclusions, a s t o s t i m u l a t e i n t e r e s t i n it and promote collaborati:
