Agrarian Crisis - Life at Stake in Rural India

About the cover
In December, 1946, the Communist Party of India sent Somnath Hore to

Rangpur. Rangpur was a small rural town situated in the northern part of
Bengal, now in Bangladesh. The town was of special importance because it
coordinated the Tebhaga Peasant Movement. Somnath was a young, 23 year old
artist and the party wanted him to see this peasant movement from close
quarters. In Rangpur, Somnath wrote his famous Tebhaga Diary in which
there were innumerable sketches of peasants and other comrades who were part
of the movements. Later, in 1951, based on these sketches, he made 5 or 6
memorable woodcuts.
The image of one of these woodcuts is printed on the cover page. The picture is
depicting a scene of paddy harvesting. There is one old man and a child holding
sticks in their hand which was the protest symbol of Tebhaga movement. There
is also a woman holding on to the party flag with great determination.
We are thankful to renowned artist Ashok Bhowmick for providing us this
image and the historical background from which this woodcut evolved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study has been truly a collective endeavour. The compilation and analytical work
was carried out largely in Indore, and subsequently in Ajoy Bhawan, by what can only be
described as a research commune.
The patronage and leadership of Comrade Bardhan who volunteered to associate with the
project right from day one were crucial to its successful completion. Comrade Amarjit
Kaur acted as an energetic and unfailing facilitator and trouble shooter, particularly in
regard to the field operations. Mr. Babu Mathew (then of Action Aid) placed total trust in
the idea when it was first shared with him and unquestioningly extended the
financial support. Mr. Sandeep Chachra followed suit enthusiastically and unhesitatingly.
Comrade Anil Chaudhary of Peace has always been generous exchanging ideas of and
about the study and giving necessary reassurances during tense moments of work. The
staff of Peace took care of the nitty-gritty of handling accounts and other chores.
Finally, Mr. Afsar Jafri of Focus on Global South volunteered to play multiple roles from
time to time, ranging from a state coordinator for Maharashtra to the co-organiser for the
events for the release of the study.
We acknowledge the debt we owe to them all.

PREFACE

Almost two years ago, we launched the exercise of collecting empirical data and facts to
refine our understanding of the agrarian crisis, to test our intuitive insights and to explore
if we could come out with some programmatic suggestions. Our resources were and
continue to be limited. The task is stupendous. Agrarian scene is vast, complex and
differentiated. Voluminous reports have been generated by official agencies well
equipped with resources and expertise. At times, we wondered whether they appeared
more like dictionaries, rich in meticulous and comprehensive compilation, but lacking in
a script.
After two years' travail, the team led by Jaya Mehta has been able to produce a succinct
document, which is not only rich on facts and analysis but also suggests praxis.
Twenty-seven years ago, Arvind Das in the preface to his excellent thesis on "Agrarian
Unrest and Socio-Economic Change in Bihar 1900-1980 wrote this while
acknowledging the debt he owed to all those who in one way or the other contributed to
his study:
At the very end, I remember the poor Mushar peasant, Bhookan Rishi-dev of
Banmankhi, Purnea, who said: Sab ta baat saith jaitai, kitab nikal jaitai, hamara ki
hoyat? (All the talk will finish; a book will come out; what will happen to us?) He made
me feel uncomfortable. So I cannot thank him. Just remember him.
It is a warning as well as a message. Shall we transcend the embarrassment of a research
study for its own sake and be able to say that here is the potential of a small step
together in exploring collective action to resist and defeat the final solution that the
ruling elite is harbouring for our peasantry? It is for you to judge and decide.

S.P.SHUKLA
27
th
January, 2011, Pune.

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1
PREFACE 3
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVE, METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGE 5
ORGANIZATION OF FINDINGS 8
1. THE QUESTION OF LAND 13
Arable Land is Shrinking 13
The Skewed Distribution of Land 15
Land Leasing 21
Conclusion 23
2. IRRIGATION AND CROP CHOICES 25
How much water? 27
Cost of Irrigation 27
Crop Choice 28
3. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING PATTERNS 33
Farm Operations 33
Surplus Labour in Marginal Farm Households 35
Application of Improved Seeds, Fertilizers and Pesticides 36
Indiscriminate use of pesticides 39
Productivity and Total Production 40
Regions with no infrastructural facilities 41
On the Margins of the Market 42
4. FARM INCOME, OTHER INCOME AND DEBT 45
Farm and Income and Other Income 45
Indebtedness 48
5. THE CASE FOR A COLLECTIVE PRODUCTION BASE 51
The strength of a Cooperative 51
Women farmers show the way 53
Reference 55

ANNEXURES
Annexure 1: State, District, Village and Major crops
Annexure 2: Village Schedule
Annexure 3: Listing Schedule
Annexure 4: Detailed Questionnaire
THE STUDY TEAM

Agrarian Crisis | Life at stake in rural India
1

INTRODUCTION

On 24
th
March 2008, Shrikant Kalam, a 50 year old farmer of 5 acres in Murtijapur, Akola hanged himself to
death. The world of literature perhaps does not know of him but while toiling for his meager livelihood, he
also wrote some beautiful poetry. Two days before he ended his life, he penned his last poem.

My life is different;
My life will be like untimely rain
The cotton in black soil is like a poem to me
Its roots are sweet as sugarcane..
1

According to the latest data of National Crime Records Bureau, 17368 farmers killed
themselves in 2009. This is an increase of 1172 over the 2008 count. The total farm
suicides since 1997 are 216500. While Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh accounted for a major share, suicides are also being reported
from Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Kerala, Asam, Jharkhand, and West Bengal
2
.
The spread and magnitude of farmers suicides is alarming.

As against a 7% growth of the Indian economy in 2009-10, agriculture and allied sector
registered a growth of only 1.6%. In fact, the agricultural growth in the country has now
stagnated for more than 15 years. The agricultural growth rate was 3.3% during 1980 to
1995. It came down to 2% during 1995 to 2005. The crop sector which grew at 3.22%
during 1990-91 to 1996-97 collapsed in the next period i.e. 1996-97 to 2003-04. The
growth rate came down to 0.61%. The steering Committee on Agriculture and Allied
Sector constituted for the formulation of 11
th
five year plan (2007-2012) observed that
after independence such a long term deceleration in the growth of agricultural output is
being witnessed for the first time.

1
Jaideep Hardikar, India Together, 4
th
January 2009
2
P. Sainath, 17368 Farm Suicides in 2009, The Hindu, 27 December 2010
2

With the crop sector growth going down, per capita availability of food grains declined to
the levels attained in 1950s. In the decade of 90s it fluctuated around 174 kg per annum.
It was 186.2 kg in 1991. Since 2000, it has come down to 160Kg and below. It was 151.9
Kg in the year 2001. Just for comparison, one should note that the per capita annual
availability of food grain in USA is around 1000 Kg. Corresponding to the decline in
food grain availability per capita per diem calorie intake has gone down from 2153
(1993-94) to 2047 (2004-5) in Rural India and from 2071(1993-4) to 2026 (2004-5) in
Urban India (NSSO report no. 513). The threatening magnitude of food insecurity
manifests itself in starvation deaths, stunting and wasting of our population.

he Indian economy is engulfed in a deep and intractable crisis. The Government's
response to the situation has been to introduce populist measures like debt
waivers, a proposed food security bill etc, and continue with the neo-liberal thrust
of opening up our agriculture to world market forces and to the corporate sector. This has
exacerbated the crisis and created an impression that the agrarian crisis is the result of the
policies of globalization, and a reversal of these policies will correct the situation. Of
course, it is necessary to resist the neo-liberal policy frame and also to reverse it.
However, the crisis has a much longer history. Its roots are deep. Just reversing the
policies of the past two decades cannot redress the injustice meted out to the majority of
the agricultural population over centuries. The roots of agrarian crisis have to be traced in
the distorted capitalist development trajectory that we inherited from our colonial past. It
created:
I mbalance between industry and agriculture
In order to transfer surplus from India to Britain the colonial power forcibly ruptured the
domestic links between agriculture and industry. Artisan manufacturing was destroyed
and linkages from new industry and railways were not allowed to spread out
domestically. This led to lumpy and uneven industrialization. While surplus was
transferred from agriculture to industry, sufficient employment was not generated in
manufacturing to facilitate the shift of workforce in that direction.
T
3

The post independent Nehruvian development model actually failed to make a decisive
break from our colonial past. The transfer of surplus from agriculture to industry and
services continued but the workforce remained confined to agriculture and allied sectors
for lack of productive employment possibilities outside. The share of agriculture in
national income declined from 59 per cent in 1950-51 to 36.4 per cent in 1982-83 to 18
per cent currently. The share of agriculture in the workforce remained more or less
unchanged at 70 per cent till 1972-73 and after that it declined slowly to 59 per cent by
2004-5. In absolute numbers, the agricultural workforce has increased from 191 million
in 1993-94 to 257 million in 2004-05. Average size of operational holdings has declined
from 2.63 hectare in 1960 to 1.34 hectare in 1991-92 to 1.06 hectare in 2003-04.
I nequitable resource base in agriculture
Apart from the imbalance between agriculture and industry, colonial rule was also
responsible distorting the production structure within agriculture. The British rulers
restructured land holding arrangements so as to maximize the extraction of surplus. This
was done without disturbing feudal relations in rural India. Land revenue levels were
steeply increased and the farmers were forced to increase the share of cash crop
production. The decline of subsistence farming depressed consumption of peasantry and
increased landlessness.
Cash crops were exported and Britain paid for these exports from the land revenue
collected from Indian farmers. Surplus was thus transferred from India to Britain. At the
same time Indian agriculture got integrated into the world market. Starting with the fall in
Jute prices, the Great Depression of the thirties dislocated Indian farmers in a major way.
In the year 1931, 32 per cent of rural workforce was classified as landless. The
depression was followed by a steep rise in agricultural prices during 2
nd
world war. The
end result was the Bengal famine of 1943.
The land reform programme of Independent India abolished absentee land lordship and
intermediaries but failed to correct the skewed distribution of land holdings. According to
the NSS survey for the year 2003-04 , the top 5.2 per cent of rural households own 42.8
per cent of the area, and the top 9.5 per cent own 56.6 per cent of the area. The remaining
90.5 per cent of households owned just 43.4 per cent of the land area. Ten per cent of
4

rural households do not own any land. If we exclude homestead land then 41.6 per cent of
rural households would be classified as landless.
3

Resolution of the agrarian crisis demands that both these anomalies be corrected. The
neo-liberal capitalist solution to the agrarian question is to modernize and corporatize
Indian agriculture, so that it is appropriately integrated into world market. As is already
evident, this process will automatically flush landless and small farmers out of the
agricultural sector. The misery and suffering of the agrarian workforce is not a matter of
concern in the capitalist development paradigm.
If this solution is not acceptable, then it is necessary to concretize a political agenda of an
alternative institutional frame. The resolution of agrarian crisis, as suited to the needs and
aspirations of workforce engaged in agriculture, is only possible in a radically
restructured institutional frame.
In the year 2009, Joshi-Adhikari Institute undertook a study of marginal farmers across
the country to understand the dynamics of agrarian crisis. We hope that the study would
provide an appropriate material basis and contribute towards formulation of the required
political agenda.
*****

3
NSS report no. 491
5

OBJECTIVE, METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGE

Objective
The basic premise of the study is that the dynamics of the agrarian crisis cannot be
correctly understood if peasantry is treated as one homogeneous entity. Different sections
of peasantry are situated differently in the agrarian scene and their production and
marketing trajectories should be delineated separately. This analytical frame is necessary
to see the differential impact of new technological and economic environment on
different sections of the peasantry.
We examined the production and marketing patterns of marginal farm households across
eight states and specific problems faced by them in the new environment. The study also
traced differences in the production and marketing trajectories by region and land size
category.

Methodology and Coverage
Sample selection
We selected eight states for our study Punjab in the North, West Bengal and Bihar in
the East, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in West and center and Andhra Pradesh,
Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the South. Selection was done so that different parts of the
country could be covered. Punjab was selected to include capitalist farming in a
developed agricultural region. Bengal was selected to link the states land reform
programmes with the current agrarian scene. Bihar was selected as state still embroiled in
feudal relations and caste hierarchy. Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh were selected to
cover farmers with poor resource base. Kerala is special because of its topography,
different cropping practices, and plantation of export oriented crops. It is also a very
important state for studying experiences of service and production cooperatives. Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh were selected as states where initiatives have been taken by
6

the state and several other agencies to change the cultivation practices. We refer to the
initiatives toward sustainable farming in Andhra Pradesh and the SRI (System of Rice
Intensification) cultivation programme undertaken by of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
governments.
In each state we identified the crops grown by marginal farmers i.e. rain fed crops, and
selected 4 districts where these crops were predominantly grown.
In each district 4 villages were selected. We made a random selection of 4 villages from
the villages given in District Census volumes. If a particular village did not have
sufficiently many marginal farmers, it was dropped and another selection was made.
In every village, we listed around 150 to 200 households. If the village was small, the
entire village was listed. If the village was larger with more than 150 to 200 households,
every second or fourth household was listed, depending on the size of the village. This
ensured that the listed households adequately represented the village.
The listed households were categorized according to land cultivated as landless, marginal
farmers (0.01 to 2.5 acres), small farmers (2.51 to 5 acres), semi-medium farmers (5.01 to
10 acres), medium farmers (10.01 to 25 acres) and large farmers (above 25 acres). A
random selection of 8 marginal farmers, one semi medium farmer and one large farmer
was made from listed households of every village.
In all, we covered 113 villages, 15173 listed households and surveyed in detail a sample
of 1096 households.
(The coverage of the survey giving district names, village names and major crops is given in the
annexure 1)

Questionnaires canvassed
We prepared three questionnaires for each village. One was the village schedule, which
collected basic information about the village. This included: (a) the geographical
situation, village history, water availability and soil condition, (b) the socio-economic
profile of the village population, (c) Physical, financial and social infrastructure of the
village, and (d) the crops cultivated in the village and marketing practices. This
information was gathered from village elders and/or Panchayat level workers.
7

While listing the households, we collected some rudimentary information like (1)
family size, (2) Caste and religion, (3) Land owned, (4) Land cultivated, (5) Cropping
pattern, (6) Occupation of the head of the household and other information.
Finally a detailed questionnaire was canvassed in the selected sample of 10 farmers. The
information collected was as follows:
1. Household details
2. Resource base of the households Farm size and situation, land leased, irrigation,
other physical assets, livestock, financial assets and debt.
3. Cropping details crops cultivated in kharif and rabi season, farm operations,
seeds, fertilizer and pesticide applications.
4. Production and marketing Total produce, its division into home consumption and
marketed surplus, the buyer of the produce and income from crops and other sources.
(The copies of the village questionnaire, listing schedule and detail questionnaire for the sample
are given in the annexure.2, 3 and 4.)

Resource base for the survey work
The survey was conducted primarily with the help of the Kisan Sabha. However, activists
and researchers who were not part of Kisan Sabha also joined in. State coordinators were
selected in each of the state. The investigators were chosen from among the district level
activists. The questionnaires were translated into local languages. Core team members
trained the investigators by accompanying them up to the till village and individual
household levels. The investigators are not professionals but information collected by
them is very rich. From all states, we have received copious notes on villages and on
individual households.
Data compilation has been a challenging job. The forms had to be translated. We had to
get details about information on cultivation practices for different crops in different parts
of the country. In our survey we have listed more than 100 crops ranging from cash crops
like sugarcane, rubber, cashew and cardamom to local coarse grain staples like kodo, kutki
and warli and nagli. We repeatedly phoned our investigators, village contacts, agricultural
officers at block levels, and many others and received cooperation from all quarters.
*****
8

ORGANIZATION OF FINDINGS

The data obtained from the survey is extensive, incorporating the specificities of different
states.
1. In this volume we present our reading of agrarian crisis as enabled by the study.
We present a broad canvas describing the lopsided integration of marginal
farmers in the agrarian scene. We describe their land, their crops, their production
and their incomes.
In our script, we also include a recommendation to bring formation of
cooperatives back on the political agenda. This, we feel, is the only way to make
an effective intervention in the prevailing ruthless market dynamics.
As can be seen from Annexure 1, the coverage of the survey is extensive.
However, the sample size is not sufficient for any statistical inferences at the state
or district level. We required a statistical frame in which the findings of the
survey could be contextualized. This statistical frame was provided by the 59
th

round of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), Government of India.
This was a special survey of farmers conducted by the NSSO (Jan-Dec, 2003)
covering various aspects from land to consumption and debt.
4

2. We have prepared a separate report for each state. In these State Volumes, section
1 presents a sketch of the socio-economic profiles of the listed households based
on our listing schedules. Section 2 gives the location of village blocks in district
maps and a detailed description of one village from each district. This description
is based on the village schedule information and listing data. Section 3 gives the
resource base of sample households chosen for detailed questioning. Section 4
gives the production and marketing trajectories of the sample farmers for the

4
The NSSO Reports are listed in the Reference
9

selected crops in the state. Section 5 gives the factsheet of farmers growing a
particular crop according to land size categories along with their income details.
We have presented the differences in resource base and cropping patterns according to
districts, villages and land size categories. In most cases the marginal farmers have
further been split into categories less than 0.5 acres, 0.51 to 1 acre and 1.01 to 2.5 acres
of land. This was particularly necessary for Bihar, Bengal and Kerala, where farm sizes
are very small.
We wanted to capture the changes in cropping patterns, seed and fertilizer applications
and marketing patterns in the new environment. However, this requires detailed time
series observations which were not possible in this survey.
The data collected in the primary survey has to be situated in a broader framework and
some more field visits are also required. These state volumes represent only a
compilation of our primary data.

*****
10

A SCRIPT OF AGRARIAN CRISIS

The Question of Land

Irrigation and Crop Choices

Production and Marketing Patterns

Farm Income, Other Income and Debt
A Script of Agrarian Crisis
12

13

1. THE QUESTION OF LAND

We begin with the central question: the question of availability and distribution of the
main resource base - Land.

Arable Land is Shrinking
There has been a dramatic drop in total cultivated area in the country. During the period
1992 to 2003, total arable land decreased from 125 million hectares to 107.6 million
hectares a decline of 17.4 million hectares. As can be seen from the table AC-1, this
decline has occurred in all the major states without exception. At the same time, farm
holdings have increased from 93 million to 101 million. This implies that the farm size of
an average holding has dropped from 1.34 hectares in 1992 to 1.06 hectares in 2003.
Table AC-1: Loss in Arable Land by State (1991-92 to 2002-03)
State
2002-2003 1991-92 1991-2003
Kharif(A1) Rabi(A2)
Total Land
(B)*
Change**
Percentage
Change
AP 8,860,300 8,123,300 9,214,600 -354,300 - 4%
Assam 2,353,100 2,216,700 2,636,800 -283,700 -11%
Bihar (Combined) 6,711,400 6,691,700 7,632,900 -921,500 -12%
Gujarat 6,384,200 5,938,800 7,395,800 -1,011,600 -14%
Haryana 2,700,000 2,512,600 4,555,200 -1,855,200 - 41%
Himachal 672,200 660,400 650,200 22,000 3%
Karnataka 6,559,700 6,103,700 8,483,100 -1,923,400 - 23%
Kerala 1,126,300 1,157,700 1,312,400 -154,700 - 12%
Maharashtra 12,051,500 10,529,400 15,256,000 -3,204,500 - 21%
MP (Combined) 16,148,500 15,323,000 17,463,500 -1,315,000 - 8%
Orissa 3,469,100 3,021,000 4,758,600 -1,289,500 - 27%
Punjab 2,647,500 2,713,600 2,290,800 -14,682 - 1%
14

Rajasthan 14,324,600 13,874,800 15,825,200 -1,500,600 - 9%
Tamil Nadu 3,582,900 3,211,400 4,099,900 -517,000 - 13%
UP (Combined) 13,807,100 14,374,400 17,099,800 -2,725,400 - 16%
W. Bengal 3,748,400 3,581,200 4,875,700 -1,127,300 - 23%
All India 107,648,000 102,446,200 125,104,500 -17,456,500 - 14%
* NSS Arable Land Data for 1991-92 does not distinguish between Kharif and Rabi sown areas
** Calculated as B (minus) greater of A1 or A2. (Source: NSSO Reports 407 & 492 on Operational Land Holdings)

Dadri, Kalinganagar, POSCO, Raigad, Plachymada, Nandigram and others have become
names synonymous with farmers protecting their farmlands and fiercely resisting
industrialization, particularly the land lost under Special Economic Zones (SEZs). While
Special Economic Zones have been deservedly opposed by farmers across the country,
the entire area proposed to be allocated to these projects is only 2.1 lakh hectares.
5
The
total land area which has disappeared from farming in the last decade is 90 times this
area.
There are innumerable stories not so well known of arable land being transferred
permanently to non-agricultural uses. In some instances, farmers have resisted, in others,
they have willingly surrendered their land. Paatni Pandapur is a small coastal village of
Raigad District in Maharashtra with 250 households of Agari community (OBC)
cultivating paddy. These farmers have always lived with the threat of rising sea levels
and flooding of their farms. They build small bunds to protect their farms. If seawater
enters their farms, it renders the soil useless for 8-9 years.
In 1989, Johnson & Johnson and the Nippon Company operating in the area began
dumping waste and blocked a seawater outlet. This water washed back into the farms and
wells. Farmers agitated against the Nippon Company and forced it to build permanent
protection structures, and to provide drinking water. In 2004, a major flood occurred on
the Raigad coast. All constructions in the village to stop seawater were destroyed once
again. Most farmers want the barriers to be reconstructed. The Maharashtra government
has a special provision to protect coastal villages, but Patni Pandapur is not listed with the
government. With proper representation the village could be included in the government
list and a demand that government should facilitate resumption of farming in the ravaged
farms could be made. But local leadership is not interested. They hope that soon
companies will buy up the land and they will gain by becoming middlemen. Meanwhile,

5
www.sezindia.nic.in
15

small farmers have been forced to farm on nearby hill slopes, with poorer soil. Most
paddy farmers in this village are now dependent on PDS for food and many survive by
selling eatables on a nearby railway line.
Pimpalvihir, another village of Maharashtra has a slightly different story to tell. Situated
on the Amrawati-Nagpur highway the village houses around 250 families. With very
poor irrigation, cotton farmers here have never found farming an easy prospect. But in the
last decade, rising costs, repeated crop failures and fluctuating prices have made cotton
farming a definite loss-making proposition. Most cotton farmers have either shifted to
soyabean or are ready to leave farming altogether. In 1990s, the Maharashtra government
allocated the area to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Over
the last decade companies have started setting up units in the area and the price of land
has shot up. The farmers are happy with the opportunity and are ready to sell the land at a
good price. With the real estate boom, the land market has become very active even in
rural India. The story of Pimpalvihir is being repeated over and over again in many other
villages.

The Skewed Distribution of Land
Farmland available to rural households has always been distributed in a very unequal
manner. While all the states have imposed a land ceiling, they have failed to effectively
redistribute the ceiling surplus land to the landless. The only notable exceptions are West
Bengal, Kerala and Jammu-Kashmir. The two states of West Bengal and Kerala account
for the major share of the total land redistributed under the land reform programme in the
country.

16

Table AC-2 gives the percentage distribution of households according to owned land in
the 8 states selected for our study.
Table AC-2: Percentage distribution of households by size class
of holdings of owned land (other than homestead)
State Nil Marginal Small Medium Large
Andhra Pradesh 53.1 29.8 9.5 7.1 0.5
Bihar

43.7 46.5 6.6 3.1 0.1
Kerala

68.3 28.4 2.4 0.9 -
Madhya Pradesh 34 29.2 17.5 18.2 1.1
Maharashtra 44.8 25 14.3 15 0.7
Punjab

56.8 20.1 9.7 12.6 0.8
Tamil Nadu 64.5 25.9 5.7 3.9 -
West Bengal 46.5 47 5.1 1.3 -
All India 41.6 38.8 10.6 8.3 0.6
Source: Table 4R, NSSO Report 491, 'Household Ownership Holdings in India Jan-Dec 2003'
We find that in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu, more than 55 per cent
households have no land other than homestead. In Bihar and West Bengal, where the
proportion of households having only homestead land is slightly lower, the share of
marginal farm holdings is 46 to 47 per cent. In Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, we
find that relatively more households have small and medium size holdings, but in these
states, the land quality is poor.
The NSSO data on which many government agencies base their policy decisions only
considers land owned by households. This excludes vast tracts of land held by trusts,
religious institutions and other such bodies. It also fails to capture the extent to which big
landlords have been able to flout land ceiling restrictions by making fictitious transfers.
For instance, Bihar, which is still characterized by feudal and caste dominance is not
represented as such in the NSSO data. According to this data, there are no landowners
with more than 50 acres of land in Bihar. Contrast this with the findings of Land Reforms
Commission constituted in 2006 under the chairmanship of D. Bandhyopadhyay. The
Commission held 15 Public hearings in 14 districts and prepared a list of number of big
landlords clandestinely holding thousands of acres of land and running a shadow
Zamindari system. Hathua Raj in Gopalganj, Bettiah Raj and Shikarpur estate in Bettiah,
Kursela Raj in Katihar are few such names.
17

In the neo-liberal era, the agenda of land reform has taken a backseat. In fact, state
governments in many places are reversing the clock of land reforms. Along with religious
trusts and institutions, the corporate sector is also being allowed to own vast tracts of
forest and so called waste land. At the same time, the corporate sector indirectly
controls huge areas of crop land through the provision of contract farming. In the year
2007, seven million hectares of land was under contract farming.

Religion, Caste and Distribution of Land
The data from our listing schedule enables us to examine a caste wise land distribution of
owned land for each state. This is presented in table AC-3.
Table AC-3: Caste-Wise Distribution of Households by Land Owned

Surveyed State

Caste
L
a
n
d
l
e
s
s

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
m
a
l
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
e
m
i
-
M
e
d
i
u
m

&

M
e
d
i
u
m

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
r
g
e

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Andhra Pradesh SC HHs 125 210 21 6 - 362
% 34.53 58.01 5.80 1.66 0.00
ST HHs 82 153 55 11 - 301
% 27.24 50.83 18.27 3.65 0.00
OBC HHs 257 549 179 80 17 1082
% 23.75 50.74 16.54 7.39 1.57
GEN HHs 88 216 68 50 7 429
% 20.51 50.35 15.85 11.66 1.63
DNT HHs 9 29 8 5 - 51
% 17.65 56.86 15.69 9.80 0.00

NR HHs 14 13 1 1 - 29
% 48.28 44.83 3.45 3.45 0.00 100.00
Andhra Pradesh HHs 561 1157 331 152 24 2254
Andhra Pradesh % 25.21 52.00 14.88 6.83 1.08

18

Surveyed State

Caste
L
a
n
d
l
e
s
s

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
m
a
l
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
e
m
i
-
M
e
d
i
u
m

&

M
e
d
i
u
m

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
r
g
e

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Bihar SC HHs 252 113 26 9 1 401
% 62.84 28.18 6.48 2.24 0.25
ST HHs 6 12 - - - 18
% 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
OBC HHs 345 652 130 79 6 1212
% 28.47 53.80 10.73 6.52 0.50
GEN HHs 56 93 38 36 1 224

%
25.00 41.52 16.96 16.07 0.45
Bihar HHs 659 870 194 124 8 1855
Bihar % 35.53 46.90 10.46 6.68 0.43
Kerala SC HHs 54 5 81 1 - 141
% 38.30 3.55 57.45 0.71 0.00
ST HHs 7 24 - - 31
% 22.58 0.00 77.42 0.00 0.00
OBC HHs 81 34 346 7 1 469
% 17.27 7.25 73.77 1.49 0.21
GEN HHs 65 42 353 15 - 475
% 13.68 8.84 74.32 3.16 0.00
NR HHs 43 8 199 8 - 258

%
16.67 3.10 77.13 3.10 0.00
Kerala HHs 250 89 1003 31 1 1374
Kerala % 18.20 6.48 73.00 2.26 0.07
Maharashtra SC HHs 218 167 98 28 1 512
% 42.58 32.62 19.14 5.47 0.20
ST HHs 76 61 58 12 1 208
% 36.54 29.33 27.88 5.77 0.48
OBC HHs 188 287 142 124 3 744
% 25.27 38.58 19.09 16.67 0.40
GEN HHs 64 65 55 63 7 254
% 25.20 25.59 21.65 24.80 2.76
DNT HHs 56 89 122 51 2 320

%
17.50 27.81 38.13 15.94 0.63
Maharashtra HHs 602 669 475 278 14 2038
Maharashtra % 29.54 32.83 23.31 13.64 0.69
19

Surveyed State

Caste
L
a
n
d
l
e
s
s

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
m
a
l
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
e
m
i
-
M
e
d
i
u
m

&

M
e
d
i
u
m

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
r
g
e

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Madhya Pradesh SC HHs 144 197 80 38 2 461
% 31.24 42.73 17.35 8.24 0.43
ST HHs 124 313 212 123 3 775
% 16.00 40.39 27.35 15.87 0.39
OBC HHs 186 352 256 286 40 1120
% 16.61 31.43 22.86 25.54 3.57
GEN HHs 25 15 22 25 3 90

%
27.78 16.67 24.44 27.78 3.33
Madhya Pradesh HHs 479 877 570 472 48 2446
Madhya Pradesh % 19.58 35.85 23.30 19.30 1.96
Punjab SC HHs 333 39 3 8 383
% 86.95 10.18 0.78 2.09 0.00
ST HHs 1 - - - - 1
% 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OBC HHs 44 67 14 14 139
% 31.65 48.20 10.07 10.07 0.00
GEN HHs 102 373 308 233 26 1042

%
9.79 35.80 29.56 22.36 2.50
Punjab HHs 480 479 325 255 26 1565
Punjab % 30.67 30.61 20.77 16.29 1.66
Tamil Nadu SC HHs 479 204 28 4 - 715
% 66.99 28.53 3.92 0.56 0.00
ST HHs 10 4 1 - - 15
% 66.67 26.67 6.67 0.00 0.00
OBC HHs 131 196 92 34 - 453
% 28.92 43.27 20.31 7.51 0.00
GEN HHs 7 10 5 1 - 23
% 30.43 43.48 21.74 4.35 0.00
MBC HHs 119 109 19 6 - 253
% 47.04 43.08 7.51 2.37 0.00
NR HHs 5 2 - - - 7

%
71.43 28.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tamil Nadu HHs 746 523 145 45 1466
Tamil Nadu % 51.13 35.85 9.94 3.08 0.00
20

Surveyed State

Caste
L
a
n
d
l
e
s
s

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
m
a
l
l

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
e
m
i
-
M
e
d
i
u
m

&

M
e
d
i
u
m

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
r
g
e

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

West Bengal SC HHs 513 149 4 1 667
% 76.91 22.34 0.60 0.15 0.00
ST HHs 95 18 1 1 115
% 82.61 15.65 0.87 0.87 0.00
OBC HHs 6 5 6 2 19
% 31.58 26.32 31.58 10.53 0.00
GEN HHs 493 739 101 37 1370
% 35.99 53.94 7.37 2.70 0.00
NR HHs 2 1 1 4
% 60.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
West Bengal HHs 1107 911 112 41 2175
West Bengal % 50.99 41.96 5.16 1.89 0.00
Total HHs 4884 5575 3155 1398 121 15173
Total % 32.19 36.74 20.79 9.21 0.80
Source: Primary survey data
Legend: SC-Schedule Castes ST-Scheduled Tribes OBC-Other Backward Castes GEN-General Castes DNT-
Nomadic and De-notified Tribes MBC-Most Backward Castes NR-No Response
Note: Land owned excludes house land

The land distribution data of NSSO and our study show broadly similar patterns except
that landlessness in our listing data is significantly less than that reported in NSSO data.
This is due to two reasons:
1. Our study was concerned with marginal farmers. Therefore, we rejected villages
which did not have sufficiently many marginal farmers. In any case, 4 villages in
4 districts cannot the state.
2. It is likely that the land area classified as homestead land in NSSO data was
classified as farmland by our investigator.
Caste and religion, it appears, are still strong determinants of land ownership and
distribution. Muslim and Scheduled Caste families own land only where the entire village
21

is inhabited by them. In villages dominated by OBC or general caste Hindus, the land
ownership of scheduled castes or Muslims is marginal. Among the states covered in our
study, the landlessness of Scheduled Castes is most glaring in Punjab, Bihar and Tamil
Nadu.
The appeal of several socio-religious movements among Dalits, such as Neo-Buddhism
in Maharashtra and Sikhism in Punjab, was the promise of escape from inequality.
However, simply changing religion has had no impact on the land ownership patterns of
these Dalit groups.
In Jalandhar district, we listed the caste and land ownership of 310 households in 3
villages. Out of these, 127 households reported themselves as belonging to other sects
(various deras). Out of these, 125 did not have any farm land. They are all SCs whose
ancestors earlier came to Sikhism to rid themselves of the unequal social strata of
Hinduism. When their aspirations remained unfulfilled, they moved on to other sects
within Sikhism. In contrast, we listed 170 Jat Sikh households in Jalandhar of which only
11 were landless.
Similarly, in Amrawati district where we listed 542 households, there were 123 Buddhist
households. However, they also reported themselves as Scheduled Caste households. Out
of these, 72 households were landless and 23 held land less than 2.5 acres.

Land Leasing
Land ownership in India had the dual inheritance of feudal land relations before the
British arrival and distortions introduced by the colonial government. Under the British,
landlessness was substantial and continued to increase. Not having access to land and not
having employment, poor rural households had no option but to lease land from
Zamindars and large farmers. Lease terms were exploitative and gave no security of
tenure. Tenancy reforms were, therefore, identified as a key issue in the land reform
programme in Independent India. However, land being a state subject, various states took
different positions. Some states made tenancy illegal and others provided perfunctory
provisions for tenancy protection. In either case, tenancy continued without protection
and without fair terms of lease. Once again, West Bengal has been the only exception
where Operation Barga ensured that tenants had their tenancy registered with the local
administration and were entitled to a two-third share of produce.
22

Over the years, the incidence of tenancy has declined. The NSSO survey reports
6
that the
share of tenant holdings in total operational holdings has reduced from 24 per cent in
1970-71 to 10 per cent in 2002-03. The share of the tenanted land in total operated area
came down from 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent during this period. However, these
percentages do not reflect the extent of leasing still prevalent. Even in the year 2002-03,
one crore holdings had leased in 70 lakh hectares of land.
The extent of tenancy varies from state to state. In our listing data we have found the
highest number of lessee households in Bihar but almost none in Kerala.
Table AC-4: Tenant Households by State
State
Households Leasing
In Land
% of total
Avg. Acreage
Leased In
Andhra Pradesh 113 5.01% 2.92
Bihar 266 14.34% 1.81
Kerala 2 0.15% 0.26
Madhya Pradesh 141 4.17% 2.37
Maharashtra 85 5.76% 2.82
Punjab 48 3.07% 4.29
Tamil Nadu 61 4.16% 2.08
West Bengal 158 7.26% 0.95
Total 874 5.70% 2.17
Most of the tenant farmers in Bihar are landless households or marginal farmers leasing
in land from big landlords on disadvantageous terms.
There are also cases of small farmers leasing in small pieces of land from other small
farmers. In these cases the lease terms are more equitable. Often, costs and output both
are shared equally by the lessor and lessee households.
Finally, there are small farmers leasing out land to big farmers because they are unable to
cultivate their own holdings. This reverse leasing is also reported in NSSO data. As
many as 14 per cent of large holdings (10 to 20 hectares) in the country, reported land
leasing. Reverse leasing is particularly noticeable in states like Punjab, where yields and
profits are attractive. Here we find 49 per cent farmers in the land size category 5 to 10

6
NSSO Report no. 492
23

hectares reporting at least one leased in plot.
7
Big landlords in Punjab lease in land from
small farmers and offer a meager amount as rent. In our study, we found reverse leasing
cases only in Jalandhar district, not in Bhatinda and Ropar.
Reverse leasing was also found in Ujjain and Sagar districts of Madhya Pradesh where
small farmers lease out their land for wheat cultivation to well to do farmers.

Box 1: Landless Farmers, Faceless Landlord
Hasouli is a village in Madhepura block of Madhubani district, spread over 300 acres. There are
82 families in the village. All of them are Sadays, also known as Mushars, a scheduled caste
community. They don't own any land, not even the land on which their homes stand. The entire
village area is owned by a Mahant, who lives far away in Hazaribagh. Most of the households
work as agricultural wage labourers, but 20 families reported that they leased in land for
cultivation. While some reported that they leased it from the temple (Mahant), others reported
leasing land from farmers of the neighboring village. This means they were subcontracting the
land originally leased in by the farmers of the neighboring village. Land leased is around 1 to 2
acres per family. They grow paddy on this land during kharif season and wheat on a smaller
portion of the land during rabi season. Yield rates for both paddy and wheat are low. Half the
produce is given to the landlord and rest is used for home consumption. No one markets the
produce. The villagers know little about the Mahant, have no security of tenure and have little
prospects of changing the lease terms and getting better returns for their labour.

Conclusion
Any move towards resolving the intractable agrarian crisis demands first and foremost
that the transfer of agricultural land to other usage is stopped, and a fair distribution of
land to the agricultural workforce is ensured.

*****

7
NSSO Report Number 492, Table no. 4R
24

25

2. IRRIGATION AND CROP CHOICES

There are around 10 crore operational holdings in the country out of which 7 crore
holdings are of a land size less than 2.5 acres i.e. marginal holdings
8
. While the share of
marginal holdings in owned farm holdings is 66%, this share is 70% in the case of
operational holdings. This is because operational holdings include leased land and land
possessed otherwise.
One acre of land, however, does not mean the same thing to everyone. Among other
things, access to water becomes a key differentiator between productive and unproductive
land. During kharif period, crops can be grown without any irrigation facility. The
farmers can depend on rain water. However, rabi crops require irrigation. In the country,
87 per cent of operated area is sown during kharif season, of which 41 per cent is
irrigated. In rabi season, only 58 per cent of total operated area is sown. Of the total
operated area, 38 per cent is left fallow. Further, 67 per cent of the sown area in rabi
season is irrigated.
The availability of water varies across states. In Punjab, 94 per cent of total operated area
is irrigated during rabi season while in Chhattisgarh only 8 per cent is irrigated. Within a
state, irrigation infrastructure varies from one district to another; within a district it varies
from one village to another, and within a village the availability of water varies from one
household to another.
Of the 114 villages covered in our study, we came across 48 villages where one or more
farmers reported having no source of irrigation. In Punjab, no one reported lack of
irrigation. In Bihar, only one farmer reported that he did not have any source of irrigation.
In contrast, every village in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra had farmers who lacked
irrigation facility. Lack of irrigation was also reported in 8 out of 16 Andhra Pradesh
villages, 5 out of 16 West Bengal villages and 4 out of 12 Tamil Nadu villages. However,
there were only 4 villages (one in Madhya Pradesh and three in Maharashtra) where none

8
NSSO Report 492
26

of the farmers had any irrigation facility. In the other 44 villages, while most of the
marginal farmers depended on rain fed agriculture, this was not the case for medium and
big farmers. We found that big and medium farmers in these villages had access to some
irrigation facility or the other. Table AC-5 gives the state wise and land category wise
distribution of farmers reporting no source of irrigation.
Table AC-5: Farmers Reporting No Irrigation Source
State Marginal Small Medium Large Total
Andhra Pradesh Households 41 1 5 - 47

% of total 87.23% 2.13% 10.64% -

Bihar Households 1 - - - 1

% of total 100.00% - - -

Kerala Households
All farmers report an irrigation source
% of total
Madhya Pradesh Households 69 1 6 - 76

% of total 90.79% 1.32% 7.89% -

Maharashtra Households 67 3 3 2 75
% of total 89.33% 4.00% 4.00% 2.67%
Punjab Households
All farmers report an irrigation source

% of total
Tamil Nadu Households 12 - - - 12

% of total 100.00% - - -

West Bengal Households 14 2 - - 16

% of total 87.50% 12.50% - -

Total Households 204 7 14 2 227

% of total 89.87% 3.08% 6.17% 0.88%


The answer to the water availability question cannot be given in plain yes or no. The
inevitable accompanying questions are how much water and at what cost.
27

How much water?
Often when farmer reports that he has access to irrigation facilities, he qualifies his
answer by saying that it is not perennial. It is a rain fed canal or well. A great number of
water bodies provide water only during the monsoon. A few months later, rivers, canals,
wells and tanks either dry up or have greatly decreased water availability. They provide
irrigation for kharif crops but in rabi season, when irrigation is most required, they
become redundant. It is only in states like Punjab and Haryana that water is released in
canals in a planned manner to facilitate irrigation.
Even in Punjab, the question 'how much water' differentiates between small and large
farmers. In Bhatinda and Mansa districts of Punjab, every farmer reports access to canal
water and cultivates both rabi and kharif crops. The marginal farmers, however, have
access to only canal water, while the medium and large farmers in all four villages have
two sources of irrigation - canal water as well as tube wells. Given the rainfall in Punjab,
canal water alone is not sufficient for paddy cultivation and is barely sufficient for cotton
cultivation. We found that while all the marginal farmers grew cotton, the large and
medium farmers in these two districts opted for paddy cultivation, which fetches higher
returns and has fewer production and marketing risks.

Cost of Irrigation
Traditionally, irrigation meant using surface storage of water in rivers, ponds and tanks
for crop cultivation. The flow of water was not tempered by pump sets and electric
motors. Irrigation infrastructure was in this sense, a public good. Although the
distribution of water was not always equitable, in principle every farmer had a right to
access this public good. In the 1950s and 60s, the government made substantial
investments in enhancing surface irrigation facilities. The emphasis was on big dams and
long canals. Over the course of time, the development paradigm of big dams was
challenged very forcefully. Since 1980s, the government's drive to lay down surface
water irrigation infrastructure slowed down. Many of the big dam projects were withheld.
Those who opposed big dams, asked for minor irrigation schemes, watershed projects and
revival of traditional water sources. Unfortunately, the transition away from big dams
took quite another turn. Crop cultivation began depending more and more on ground
water extraction. In 1981 1.5 crore hectares of land were under canal irrigation and 95
lakh hectares under tube wells. In 2005-06, canal irrigated area stayed constant at 1.5
28

crore hectares, but area under tube wells increased to 2.32 crore hectares, making it the
most dominant form of irrigation in India today. There are now more than 2 crore
irrigation wells in the country equipped with diesel and electric pumps.
9

The transition from surface water to ground water implies privatization of irrigation
infrastructure. The investment required for ground water extraction is substantial,
especially in areas where water tables are low. The ownership of groundwater assets is
naturally concentrated with rich peasants. In some areas of Punjab like Bhatinda, the
groundwater table has gone so low that some bore wells have failed even after going as
deep as 1000 feet. For successful bore wells, the average cost of the bore along with a
motor and electric facility is Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, groundwater has no
territorial rights. Therefore, rich peasants acquire control over disproportionately large
areas of ground water and become water lords. A natural corollary has been the
emergence of informal ground water markets and pump rental markets in different parts
of the country. Through these markets, although water is available to the small and
marginal farmers, the cost is exorbitant. Thus, when a marginal or small farmer reports
that he or she has access to tube well water, which is motorized; it doesn't imply that
ownership of that tube well and motor also lies with him or her. The farmer pays heavy
amounts as rental for this facility.
In Lalgaon village of Katihar district of Bihar, the farmers take only rabi crop. During
kharif season their farms are submerged by flood water from the Ganga River. The rabi
crop cultivated by them is summer paddy, locally known as garma dhan. The crop
requires a lot of water. The field is to be irrigated six times and pumping water requires
80 to 90 liters of diesel. We found that marginal farmers are spending as much as Rs.
5000 per acre just for irrigation.

Crop Choice
In a given agro climatic region, the possible uses of farmland depend upon the land size
and water availability. As there is a very high correlation between land size and water
availability, changes in cropping pattern according to changing land size categories are
noticeable. According to NSSO data, in kharif season 76 per cent of area sown by
marginal farmers is under cereals. This share goes down to 50 per cent for land holdings

9
Source: GOI, Ministry of Agriculture
29

greater than 10 hectares (25 acres). Big farmers use a substantial proportion of their land
for cultivation of oil seeds, pulses, sugarcane and fibre crops.
Lack of sufficient water does not allow marginal farmers to grow sugarcane in the major
sugarcane producing states of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Marginal farmers in Haryana
do not produce sugarcane at all. Sixty to sixty five per cent of their farm area is allocated
to cereals. In Uttar Pradesh, they devote around 8% of their land for sugarcane and 70 to
78 per cent for cereals. In both the states, big farmers with greater than 20 hectares of
land, allocate around 55 to 60 per cent of their land for sugarcane cultivation. Like
sugarcane there are other crops, especially horticultural crops which are beyond the reach
of resource poor marginal farmers.
We looked into the cropping pattern of 811 marginal farmers in our study. Our main
findings are as follows:
1. Out of 811 farmers, 393cultivated their farmlands only in one season, mostly
kharif. Only in Punjab, we found all the farmers taking kharif as well as rabi
crops. In water scarce states like Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, most farmers
are able to cultivate only kharif crop. In Maharashtra, 109 out of 126 marginal
farmers take only kharif crops. Madhya Pradesh is also a water scarce state but in
two tribal districts, Betul and Anuppur, farmers cultivate rabi crops without
irrigation. In Sagar and Ujjain districts, resource poor marginal farmers lease out
their land for rabi cultivation.
In Bihar, West Bengal and Kerala, there is no water scarcity but not everyone is
able to take two crops. The villages in these states have a different problem. In
many villages in Katihar and Khagaria districts of Bihar, Murshidabad district of
West Bengal and Thrissur district of Kerala farm land is flooded during kharif
season. The farmers can only take rabi crops.
2. In general, marginal farmers in all the states cultivate subsistence crops as their
primary choice. This is most true where paddy is the subsistence crop, such as in
West Bengal, parts of Bihar and the southern states excluding Kerala. In Punjab
and some parts of Bihar, the subsistence crop is wheat. We found that wheat is a
universal crop in Punjab as also in Rohtas district of Bihar. In Madhubani district
of Bihar the farmers do not have sufficient water. Despite this, they devote a small
part of their land to wheat cultivation.
30

The areas where jowar or other coarse grains were the traditional subsistence
crops, the cropping pattern has changed. Many farmers have now shifted to
soyabean, cotton or other oilseeds. This trend is observed in the districts of
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.
3. In every village, the large farmers had a much wider and superior spectrum of
crop choices available to them. In Jalandhar district, crop choice is directly related
to farm size. The smallest land size farmers grow wheat and maize. The slightly
better off farmers in the next category grow wheat and paddy. The large farmers
grow wheat, paddy and potato and the largest category farmers grow wheat,
paddy and sugarcane.
The table AC-6 gives the cropping pattern of the farmers according to land size category.
Table AC-6: Number of Crops Grown by Land Size Cultivated
Number of Crops Marginal Small Medium Large Total
1

321 15 18 1 355
2

322 16 42 4 384
3

126 18 23 7 174
4

58 10 22 4 93
5

21 4 6 3 34
6

10 1 8 3 22
7

12 1 5 1 19
8

2

1 3 6
9

4 1 5
10

2

2
11

1

1
Total Households 872 65 132 27 1096

We see that as land size increases the farmers have a wide ranging cropping
pattern and in 10 to 25 acre land size category, there is one farmer growing as
many as 11 crops.
31

4. In the tribal districts of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, farmers with very
small and fragmented holdings also cultivate a large number of crops. Their
subsistence crops are lesser known indigenous crops and their production is also
meagre. (See box below).
Even in Seetaljhiri, a tribal village, one sees the difference between small farmers
and large farmers. A large farmer with 54 acres of land cultivates crops like
kodo, kutki, jowar, maize, wheat, and soyabean, but he also cultivates sugarcane,
potato, and onion, which are crops with high profit margins not grown by the
small farmers of the village.

Box 2: Cropping pattern of a marginal farmer
In Seetaljhiri village, Betul district (Madhya Pradesh) having total land of 1.4 acres

Crops Land area sown Production
Tuar 0.20 acre 12 kg
Batla (Peas) 0.10 acre 10 kg
Kodo 0.15 acre 25 kg
Kutki 0.15 acre 22 kg
Maize 0.30 acre 20 kg
Paddy 0.15 acre 1.8 quintal
Wheat 1.30 acre 1.4 quintal

Note: All the production is used for home consumption, which is hardly sufficient for this family
of five members; four of them work as wage labourers in nearby towns.

* * * * *
32

33

3. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING PATTERNS

While small land sizes and limited availability of water constrain the land use
possibilities for marginal farmers everywhere, these constraints are more formidable in
some places than in others. There are marginal farmers situated in relatively more
developed areas, and there are marginal farmers situated in regions which are cut off
from basic infrastructural facilities. Naturally, the production and marketing patterns in
the two cases are different.
Marginal farmers in well endowed regions take both rabi and kharif crops. In West
Bengal, almost every farmer grows aman (kharif) paddy as the subsistence crop and then
takes either boro (rabi) paddy or potato or jute or wheat as a second crop. There are
farmers who grow three crops aman paddy (July to October), potato (October to
December) and then boro paddy (Janauary-March).
Every marginal farmer in Punjab grows two crops - wheat as the subsistence crop and
cotton, maize or paddy as the second crop. In some districts of Bihar like Rohtas, farmers
grow paddy in kharif and wheat in rabi. In Ujjain and Sagar districts of Madhya Pradesh,
marginal farmers grow soyabean in kharif season and then gram in rabi season. In
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, there are not many farmers growing both kharif and
rabi crops. However, in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh, farmers grow paddy in two
seasons (known as Sarwa and Dalwa). Likewise in some villages of Nashik district,
farmers grow wheat as their subsistence crop in rabi and maize as the second crop in
kharif. In Tamil Nadu, the monsoon cycle is different. Many farmers in irrigated area
take two crops of paddy while others grow groundnut along with paddy.

Farm Operations
When big farmers mechanize their farm operations, they buy tractors, harvesters,
threshers, pump sets etc. When they buy these machines, they also create local rental
markets for them. Marginal farmers do not own these big farm implements, not even in
34

the prosperous state of Punjab. In our study, only two out of 811 marginal farmers
reported owning a tractor. Nevertheless, when machine use is initiated by big farmers and
machines are available on rent, marginal farmers hire these machines and mechanize their
farm operations. They use tractors for ploughing, diesel and electric pumps for irrigation,
threshers for threshing and trolleys for transportation. We also found marginal farmers
using harvesters in many villages of Punjab and in one village of Bihar.
The rentals for use of farm machinery are high. Normally, the rental for a tractor is Rs.
500 to Rs. 600 for ploughing one acre of land. For a tractor owner, the cost for the same
is Rs. 200 to Rs. 250. The cost of irrigation varies across states. In Punjab, Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, farmers reported that the electricity was free and electric pumps
could be used without incurring any substantial cost. In some villages of Andhra Pradesh,
even the pumps were provided by the state. In Madhya Pradesh, electric pumps are used
but electricity is not free. Farmers reported taking temporary connections during rabi
season and paid high charges for them. Some others reported that they got illegal
connections for which they had to pay bribes. In Bihar, the pump sets are all diesel pump
sets. We have already mentioned the exorbitant cost of Rs. 5000 paid by farmers for
irrigating one acre of land for garma dhan (summer paddy). Threshing and harvesting are
activities where the extent of mechanization is relatively less. But even in these activities,
if machines are available, the marginal farmers are ready to pay high rentals.
The net result is that farm operation cost per acre is much higher for marginal farmers as
compared to medium and big farmers. This trend is seen in every state. The higher cost of
farm operations is particularly noticeable in Punjab and Bihar.
Table AC-7: Comparative Per Acre Cost of Farm Operations for Wheat Cultivation
State Land Size Households Cultivated Area Cost/Acre
Punjab between 1 and 2.5 acres 90 141.07 3104.88
between 2.5 and 10 acres 11 80 2281.25
greater than 10 acres 11 304.5 2037.04

Bihar below 1 acre 44 22.85 2884.18
between 1 and 2.5 acres 53 72.59 2412.65
between 2.5 and 10 acres 14 57.18 2424.66

35

In West Bengal, the cost differential is small. There are several reasons for this. First,
there are very few big farmers in West Bengal and medium level farmers are like small
farmers. They do not own tractors. Moreover, ploughing with bullocks is still common
there. In addition, the rental markets for machines and wage rates for labour are directly
controlled by local panchayat administration.
It is not irrational for marginal farmers to opt for costly mechanized farm operations. The
situation is such that they have few options left. For instance, in Punjab, if wheat is
harvested with a harvester, the rent is Rs. 1300 per acre. However, if harvesting is done
manually, the labour cost for harvesting and threshing comes to Rs. 1300 or more per
acre and the time required is also more. Labour is only available there through
contractors and is quite expensive. Therefore, the farmer chooses to use a harvester.

Surplus Labour in Marginal Farm Households
We find that on an average every marginal farmer household has at least two adult
members which mean a minimum of 500 to 600 labour days available. A small farm of 1
to 2 acres does not require this much labour. The labour requirements in crop cultivation
are clustered around the sowing and harvesting periods. Even during these periods, for
ploughing/sowing or harvesting a particular farm, labour is required for one day in most
cases or three days at most. For instance, transplanting paddy in one acre of land requires
10 to 12 man days, i.e. 10 to 12 persons transplanting in one day. This cannot be replaced
by one person planting paddy over 10 to 12 days. Similarly, harvesting also has to be
done all at once. In other words, even marginal farmers have to hire wage labour for their
labour requirements. Only in the case of very small land sizes or very poor households,
farm operations are carried out by domestic labour alone.
Mechanization reduces the labour requirement drastically. For instance, in Punjab,
cultivating wheat in one acre of land requires less than 20 man days of labour on an
average.
However, even if the extent of mechanization is lower and we add labour required for
supervision, transportation, marketing and other miscellaneous tasks, the labour
requirement for one crop season does not exceed 100 man days. If the farmer takes 2
crops, the total labour requirement does not exceed 200 man days. In these 100 or 200
labour days, there will also be a component of wage labour. Thus, a marginal farm
36

household cannot make optimal use of the labour available just in farm activities. Surplus
labour is present in every marginal farm household.

Application of Improved Seeds, Fertilizers and Pesticides
In developed regions, marginal farmers also use improved varieties of seeds, and apply
adequate (or excess) quantities of fertilizers and pesticides. The term improved seeds
however, has different meanings in different cases.
With the advent of green revolution in 1960s, National Seed Corporation and State Seed
Corporations were set up by the government. Production and distribution of improved
varieties of seeds was the responsibility of state. From 1970s onwards, seed production
was opened up to the private sector. In 1980s, multinational companies entered Indian
seed market and made deep inroads.
It would be incorrect to infer that, the state has absolved itself of all responsibilities.
Although production and distribution of seeds has been privatized to a large extent, the
development of new varieties of seeds is still the responsibility of agricultural universities
and state owned research institutes. Farmers in Punjab largely report using seed varieties
developed by Punjab Agricultural University. Only a few farmers use seeds developed by
PepsiCo. Farmers in Madhya Pradesh report using soyabean seed varieties developed by
National Research Centre of Soyabean (NRCS). In some cases the state agencies also
undertake the responsibility of production and distribution of improved seed varieties.
The state initiative in Tamil Nadu to solve the problems of paddy farmers in Cauvery
delta region deserves a mention here. The Cauvery delta region receives medium rains
from south-west monsoon (July-October) and heavy rains from north-east monsoon
(October-December). Thus, dry spells are not available between July and December. This
makes it difficult to grow and harvest ordinary paddy with a 90 days maturity cycle. A
special seed variety, CR-1009 was developed by Cuttack Rice Research Institute, which
has a maturity cycle of 140 days. Tamil Nadu government found CR-1009 variety
appropriate for farmers in Cauvery delta region and introduced it there. This variety is
sown in mid-August and harvested around mid-December. The average yield is 20
quintals per acre and maximum is 30 quintals per acre. Paddy farmers are supplied CR-
1009 seeds directly by the government at a uniform price and the produce is bought by
37

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Supply Company. We found this support being extended to
every farmer in our sample from Thiruvarur district, in the Cauvery delta region.
The Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu governments have also taken a major initiative to
promote SRI (System of Rice intensification) cultivation in dry upland areas. It has the
potential to make a big impact on livelihood possibilities of paddy farmers by drastically
reducing the irrigation requirement for the crop.
The other side of the story related to 'improved seed varieties' can be heard from the
cotton fields of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab. Field trials to assess the
efficacy of transgenic seeds in cotton were conducted in different agro-climatic regions
between 1998 and 2001. Despite a great deal of controversy over these trials, the
government of India gave permission for commercial cultivation of Bt cotton hybrid
seeds in March 2002. The seeds were developed by Mahyco (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed
Company Ltd.) in collaboration with the multinational giant Monsanto.
Since then, Bt cotton has spread rapidly in cotton fields. By 2007, Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC) approved altogether 131 Bt cotton hybrids developed by
24 companies. The area under Bt cotton increased from 29,000 hectares in 2002, to 62
lakh hectares in 2007. A study in Vidarbha has estimated the production cost of Bt cotton
to be 30 to 50 per cent higher than that of non Bt seeds. This is primarily because Bt
seeds are more expensive. These expensive seeds require expensive inputs. Therefore,
expenditure on all other items like irrigation and fertilizers also increases. The study
observes that the consequent productivity is higher as is the risk. Bt cotton is water
sensitive. If rainfall is delayed there can be a complete failure of the crop. Hence,
productivity in a particular year may be higher but the frequency of crop failure is also
high in Bt cultivation. The risk of failure also increases because cotton areas have been
swamped with different varieties of spurious seeds.10
Sale of spurious seeds is not limited to the cotton crop alone. In 2010 kharif season,
thousands of farmers in Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh
cultivating urad, til, gram and soyabean were hit by spurious seeds. No grain formation
took place in the standing crops. Reportedly, these seeds were being distributed under
public private partnership (PPP). The seeds were produced by private parties, bought by
the government agency, and distributed through them only. When the media raised a hue

10
A. Narayanmoorthy, S. S. Kalamkar, Is Bt Cotton Cultivation Economically Viable for Indian Farmers?,
EPW, June 30, 2006.

38

and cry, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh announced that a committee would look
into the matter and offer compensation to affected farmers. There was of course, no
mention of punishing the spurious seeds suppliers and taking action against government
officials responsible for distributing these seeds.
The Seed Bill, 2010, which is currently awaiting introduction in the Rajya Sabha talks
about imprisonment extending to one year and a fine of Rs. 5 lakh for spurious seed
dealers. In the mayhem that exists in the neo-liberal markets, this provision of a minor
punishment will have no impact on dealings in spurious seeds. If the government really
means business, rigorous regulatory networks should be established at all levels and the
role of private seed producers and dealers should be minimized.
Further, one also needs to look at the impact of so-called genuine and legally approved
'improved seeds.' The high price of Bt cotton was justified by Monsanto Company on the
grounds that it would reduce expenditures on pesticides. Bt cotton seeds have failed to
keep the promise. The heavy use of pesticide for cotton crop can be seen everywhere. In
the cotton belt of Punjab, the pesticide use is so intense that it has started affecting the
lives of villagers. In Bhatinda and Mansa districts, farmers use pesticides worth Rs. 2500-
3000 per acre for cotton and Rs. 1200-1500 per acre for wheat. In Krishna district of
Andhra Pradesh, cotton farmers spend around Rs. 6000 per acre on pesticides. Some
farmers reported spraying 4 different varieties of pesticides on their cotton crop.
Box 3: A report from Punjab
Locals call Train No. 339 by a chilling name the cancer train. It routinely carries at least 60
cancer patients who make the overnight journey with their families to the town of Bikaner for
treatment at the governments regional cancer centre. Research by one of the most respected
medical institutes in India recently found that farming villages using large amounts of pesticides
have significantly higher rates of cancer than villages that use less of the chemicals. (Source:
Editorial of Analytical Monthly Review, April, 2010)

The government of India, however, actively promotes research in transgenic plant and
seed varieties and their applications in Indian agriculture. This is one of the main areas of
research work under Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture. The Seed Bill 2010 is
being opposed by farmers organisations because it is designed to enable the multinational
companies acquire greater control on seed markets and seed research. It will facilitate the
39

companies to charge high prices for their seeds and also introduce untested and
genetically modified crop and seed varieties through the backdoor.

Indiscriminate use of pesticides
The use of pesticides varies region wise and crop wise. Farmers growing cash crops like
soya, cotton, potato etc very often apply more than the required dose. Pesticides are also
being used in food grains, vegetables and fruits. They pose a serious threat to the very
existence of life.
A significant number of farmers in our survey reported that they applied pesticides but
did not even know the name. This doesn't mean that those who knew the names also
knew about the risks involved in using the pesticides. Around one-fourth of the surveyed
farmers reported that they use 'Endosulfan' pesticide, which is banned in the US, Europe,
Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. In India, the lethal effects of
Endosulfan came to light in 1995, when villagers in Kasargod district of Kerala started
reporting serious health impairments. This was the result of the reckless aerial spraying of
Endosulfan undertaken by Plantation Corporation of Kerala on cashew plantation since
1978. The pesticide, which is not easily degradable, contaminated the soil and water and
entered the food chain. About 500 deaths since 1995 have been officially acknowledged
but the unofficial estimates are as high as 4000 deaths in last two decades. People are still
dying and children are born with congenital disorders and malformations. After a long
struggle waged by the people of Kasargod, the Kerala Pollution Control Board
announced a blanket ban on Endosulfan use and heavy sentences for violators. On 20th
November 2010, the Kerala government also announced compensation for affected
families.
Endosulfan is still being freely used elsewhere in our country and even continues to be
used in some parts of Kerala. We know about Endosulfan because of the Kerala tragedy
but there may be many other pesticides, which are equally lethal. Once again, to stop the
use of life threatening pesticides, a network of regulatory bodies is required. Private sale
and purchase of pesticides should be banned.
40

Productivity and Total Production
Spending large amounts on farm operations and farm inputs, marginal and small farmers
often manage to obtain produce, which can compare with the produce of big farmers both
in respect of grading and yield rate.
If weather is favourable, seeds are reliable, and pests do not attack, these marginal
farmers can expect to reach the average productivity of the region or even exceed it.
However, the small size of the land puts the ultimate limit on total production. Consider
the farmers in West Bengal growing aman (kharif) paddy. West Bengal and Bihar have a
large proportion of farmers with very small land sizes. Around 30 per cent farm
households have land size less than 0.5 acre. Our survey covered 15 aman paddy growers
in West Bengal in the land size category 0 to 0.5 acre. The following figures are the
averages of these 15 farmers. The average land holding in this category was 0.34 acres of
land. Farmers spent Rs. 1800 on farm operations and seeds, fertilizers and pesticides.
They produced 5.3 quintals of paddy. This meant a yield rate of 15 to 16 quintals per
acre. As aman paddy is primarily a subsistence crop, 4.5 quintals of paddy are kept for
home consumption and 0.8 quintal of paddy was sold in the market. In 2008, the price of
aman paddy in West Bengal villages was Rs. 700 per quintal. An average farmer, by
selling 0.8 quintal earned only Rs. 560 that year. Cultivating aman paddy thus meant
getting 4.5 quintals of paddy, or 3 quintals of rice, and a net loss of Rs. 1240. In other
words, even under favourable circumstances the farm operation can hardly be called
viable.
On the other hand, if the crops fail then marginal farmers have no capacity to absorb the
shock. Suppose, because of failed monsoons, aman paddy yield rate dropped from 15
quintals per acre to 5 quintals per acre. A farmer with 20 acres of land would get 100
quintals instead of 300 quintals, but a farmer with 0.34 acres of land would get only 1.7
quintal of paddy which would not be sufficient even for his home consumption. The
fragile equilibrium of marginal farmers can break down with slightest of perturbation.
In our survey, many villages reported crop failure in rabi as well as kharif seasons of
2008-09. To name a few, paddy crop failed in Gopinathpur village of Burdwan district,
potato crop failed across the entire Hooghly district (West Bengal); soya, gram and wheat
crops failed in Vinayka & Bangela villages of Sagar district and Rudrakheda village of
Ujjain dstrict (Madhya Pradesh); paddy crop failed because of Cyclone Nisha in
Muvakallur & Marudhavanam villages of Thiruvarur district (Tamil Nadu); cotton crop
41

failed in Amravati (Maharashtra), wheat crop failed partially in Jalandhar district
(Punjab).
In Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, the farm sizes are relatively bigger. However,
farmers in these states face other constraints like limited availability of water or less
fertile soil. It is only in Punjab that farmers have a slightly robust equilibrium and greater
capacity to absorb shocks.

Regions with no infrastructural facilities
There are marginal farmers situated in regions where they do not have access to
mechanization, water and other inputs. Farmers in Anuppur and Betul (Madhya Pradesh),
Madhubani (Bihar), Raigad and some parts of Nashik (Maharashtra), Salem (Tamil
Nadu) and Ananthpuram (Andhra Pradesh) belong to this group.
In Anuppur district, we surveyed 30 marginal farmers growing paddy in kharif season.
They ploughed their land with bullocks (only 5 farmers hired tractor for this purpose),
they used seeds saved at home (only 4 bought), 6 farmers spent a little on fertilizers and
no one used insecticides. It was not the case that those who hired tractors also bought
seeds and spent on fertilizers. In fact, there was little overlapping in these three
categories. The productivity of these farmers ranged between 1 to 3 quintals of paddy per
acre (compare this with average productivity of Punjab and West Bengal which ranges
between 15 to 25 quintals per acre). Of course, no one among these 30 farmers produced
enough to take his crop to the market.
Similarly in Betul district, no marginal farmer had access to irrigation facilities.
However, most of the farmers cultivated number of crops, both in rabi and kharif season.
The productivity of every crop was very low. For wheat, it was 1 to 2 quintals per acre.
Many of the villages in this category are scheduled tribe villages with undulating plains,
poor quality soil and no source of water. Because the topography has been unsuitable for
agriculture and the people living here have had no say in country's planning priorities, no
infrastructure developed in these villages. We found in our survey that in some of the
villages, even big farmers with 20 acres of land did not have any source of irrigation,
invested little in their land and obtained no returns. In other villages, the big farmers had
42

obtained control over good quality land and whatever water was available in the area.
Their cultivation was viable.
The marginal and small farmers in these areas do not expect to get any worthwhile
returns from their land. Naturally, they do not invest anything other than labour on their
farms. Labour, they can invest because surplus labour, they have. In many such tribal
villages, we were told that all family members including women and children migrate to
agriculturally prosperous areas or nearby urban areas in search of employment.

On the Margins of the Market
The farmers who produce cash crops or produce enough to market a portion of their
subsistence crop are minor entrants in markets and have little bargaining capacity. The
volatile markets of agricultural commodities and dramatic responses of farmers make
news routinely. Last year we heard of sugarcane farmers in U.P. and Haryana burning
their standing crops in the fields. A few years ago, potato farmers in Hooghly and
Burdwan districts of West Bengal threw their potatoes on the roads because the potato
price had crashed. Opening up the trade in agricultural commodities have subjected our
farmers to world market fluctuations. The maximum impact has been on the farmers in
Kerala. Most of their production is for export markets.
The capitalist solution to market fluctuations is to introduce forward trading and contract
farming. The speculation in forward trading can create chaotic situations. The rapid rise
of world food prices in the beginning of 2008 was largely due to commodity speculation.
Impervious to farmers' demands to give protection to domestic markets, the government
has systematically dismantled all controls and has allowed direct access to multinational
companies in our agricultural markets.
In the post-Independence era, the government had taken initiatives to provide fair market
terms to farmers. Cooperatives were set up at village levels to buy farmers' produce.
Institutions like FCI and CCI were created to intervene in commodity markets and ensure
minimum support price. During 1970s, every state government enacted Agricultural
Produce Marketing Act (APMC Act). According to these acts, agricultural produce could
only be sold in government regulated market yards (Mandis) through a system of open
auction. There are 7177 mandis established in the country. Even companies had to make
their purchases in these mandis only.
43

Over the years, village level cooperatives have got discredited and stopped functioning in
most places. In 2003, the government of India sent a guideline to all state governments
for modifying their APMC acts. The modified acts now allow companies to set up their
own purchase hubs outside the mandi premises. The dynamic initiative taken by ITC Ltd.
to spread a network of e-choupals and make direct purchases from farmers has made big
news. The modified APMC acts have also legalized contract farming. This enables
companies to hire large tracts of land for their specific requirements.
Both in contract farming and in e-choupal networks, the companies negotiate only with
farmers with respectable resource base. The marginal and resource poor farmers are left
out of their ambit. Moreover, with corporate entry the government mandis, village traders
and small processing units, all will get marginalized in due course of time. Thus, for
small farmers the traditional market links are getting weakened and no new alternatives
are in sight.

Box 4: NO ENTRY
The ITC purchase hubs for soyabean in Madhya Pradesh have an efficient
weighing system. The lorry full of grain is weighed by electronic weighing
machines. Lorries are then emptied and weighed again. The small farmers
who do not produce lorry loads of soyabean, nor can afford the rent of a lorry
for transport, get automatically excluded from ITC hubs.

*****

44

45

4. FARM INCOME, OTHER INCOME AND DEBT

Farm and Income and Other Income
As explained above, the total produce of marginal farmers is ultimately limited by small
land size and the unavailability of water. In most cases, the marketable surplus is very
small. Even when farmers grow cash crops and produce a respectable surplus for the
market, the returns from the market are uncertain. The sale-proceeds of farmers, in many
cases, do not even cover their cost of cultivation. Even if the cost of cultivation is
covered, the farm income is insufficient to meet the basic consumption needs of the
family.
Almost every marginal farmer household requires supplementary income. This
supplementary income comes from wage labour, income from livestock and other
income. The other income includes income from self employment in non-farm activities,
income received from family members who migrate out, either permanently or
seasonally, and so on. The exact composition of supplementary income depends on many
factors and every household can have a different story to tell. However, certain broad
trends can be identified.
A major constituent of the supplementary income is the income of family wage labour. In
most cases, the wage income component is 2 to 3 times as large as the farm income. In
the year 2002-03, at all India level the monthly farm income for the land size category 0
to 1 acre was Rs. 296. The monthly wage income was 3 times as large i.e. Rs. 973.11 In
such cases, some academics consider it more appropriate to classify wage income as the
primary income and farm income as the supplementary income. These marginal farmer
households are classified as landed agricultural labour households by some academics.
We think that this classification has incorrect political implications. The marginal
farmers' identity as a farmer should not be compromised.
In our survey, different components of farmers income is given in table AC-8. We find
that in all states except Kerala and Punjab, wage income constitutes the major share of

11
NSSO report no. 497, Table 6
46

farmers gross income in the land size categories of 0 to 0.5 and 0.51 to 1 acre. Around
100 days of wage work is reported by men and women in all states. Relatively more
households report agricultural wage work, but non-agricultural wage work is also
reported. The agricultural wages are Rs. 80 to 100 in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
and Rs. 50 to 75 in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and West Bengal. Wage rate for
women is always lower than that for men. In Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, in some
villages, wage rate for women was reported as low as Rs. 30 to 40 a day. It is only in
West Bengal that wage rates are equal for men and women. But in West Bengal, less
women are employed in agriculture. Paddy transplanting is traditionally done by women.
In our survey, most farmers reported hiring men for the task.
Table AC-8: Distribution of Average Household Income of Cultivators By Source
Income Source
Land Size Categories (Land Cultivated)
Under 0.5
acres
0.5-1 acre 1-2.5 acres 2.5-5 acres 5-10 acres 10-25 acres
Greater than
25 acres

Andhra Pradesh
Farm Income 12,245.79 14,214.74 30,277.77 73,713.89 175,981.80 331,350.00 492,688.33
%of total income 32.83% 33.75% 52.60% 60.45% 93.57% 96.74% 97.95%
Wage Income 22,236.84 24,402.70 22,862.90 29,000.00 - - -
Livestock Income 1,505.26 1,405.41 1,856.45 - 7,100.00 - 10,333.33
Other Income 1,315.79 2,094.59 2,567.74 19,222.22 5,000.00 11,166.67 -
Avg. Total Income 37,303.68 42,117.44 57,564.86 121,936.11 188,081.80 342,516.67 503,021.67
Bihar
Farm Income 1,859.58 5,186.86 14,382.99 32,748.75 105,113.85 227,094.44 608,460.00
%of total income 8.31% 19.83% 31.90% 36.45% 72.46% 72.55% 91.85%
Wage Income 10,618.50 7,326.22 10,446.57 47,625.00 - - -
Livestock Income 3,741.67 2,183.78 3,231.34 2,400.00 4,415.38 13,333.33 16,666.67
Other Income 6,152.08 11,461.62 17,031.34 7,075.00 35,538.46 72,600.00 37,333.33
Avg. Total Income 22,371.83 26,158.49 45,092.24 89,848.75 145,067.69 313,027.78 662,460.00
Kerala
Farm Income 27,346.36 56,194.38 41,865.62 175,060.91 226,275.71 104,750.00 -
%of total income 61.72% 77.15% 53.28% 90.78% 74.96% 49.70% -
Wage Income 12,381.82 8,893.75 18,423.08 1,590.91 - - -
Livestock Income 2,318.18 500.00 2,284.62 10,272.73 6,314.29 25,000.00 -
Other Income 2,263.64 7,250.00 16,000.00 5,909.09 69,285.71 81,000.00 -
Avg. Total Income 44,310.00 72,838.13 78,573.31 192,833.64 301,875.71 210,750.00 -
47

Maharashtra
Farm Income 1,000.00 5,589.71 8,965.67 8,827.27 66,305.00 388,460.00 110,970.00
%of total income 6.31% 23.92% 31.26% 20.96% 55.66% 92.93% 85.34%
Wage Income 11,142.86 10,629.41 10,072.67 5,418.18 5,800.00 - -
Livestock Income 0.00 617.65 3,688.26 4,418.18 4,680.00 29,575.00 9,860.00
Other Income 3,714.29 6,529.41 5,958.14 23,454.55 42,340.00 - 9,200.00
Avg. Total Income 15,857.14 23,366.18 28,684.74 42,118.18 119,125.00 418,035.00 130,030.00
Madhya Pradesh
Farm Income 2,443.33 4,192.84 5,633.96 1,400.00 56,760.29 79,036.54 839,600.00
%of total income 12.46% 16.52% 18.36% 13.08% 65.84% 75.50% 75.47%
Wage Income 17,000.00 17,718.42 19,278.50 9,300.00 9,323.53 4,938.46 -
Livestock Income - 631.58 2,880.78 - 15,138.82 5,484.62 31,234.29
Other Income 166.67 2,834.47 2,886.43 - 4,985.29 15,230.77 241,714.29
Avg. Total Income 19,610.00 25,377.32 30,679.67 10,700.00 86,207.94 104,690.38 1,112,548.57
Punjab
Farm Income 6,980.00 32,394.31 67,373.32 172,125.00 303,256.67 841,716.67 1,849,880.00
%of total income 6.11% 39.29% 46.46% 51.06% 80.41% 92.63% 92.22%
Wage Income 6,375.00 6,044.44 5,846.15 - 4,444.44 - -
Livestock Income 8,175.00 10,166.67 16,510.77 15,000.00 19,000.00 17,000.00 4,000.00
Other Income 92,625.00 33,833.33 55,273.85 150,000.00 50,444.44 50,000.00 152,000.00
Avg. Total Income 114,155.00 82,438.75 145,004.09 337,125.00 377,145.56 908,716.67 2,005,880.00
Tamil Nadu
Farm Income 8,256.13 11,350.99 29,094.79 77,545.00 84,921.88 288,600.00 -
%of total income 32.42% 25.10% 48.95% 67.33% 48.43% 85.28% -
Wage Income 10,975.00 17,232.14 17,699.62 17,400.00 9,750.00 - -
Livestock Income 3,235.00 5,609.71 5,106.79 8,954.00 28,553.13 12,300.00 -
Other Income 3,000.00 11,022.86 7,538.49 11,280.00 52,118.25 37,500.00 -
Avg. Total Income 25,466.13 45,215.70 59,439.70 115,179.00 175,343.25 338,400.00 -
West Bengal
Farm Income 6,719.23 14,023.24 28,416.44 67,079.00 111,802.18 150,220.00 -
%of total income 20.26% 27.53% 41.27% 58.29% 57.40% 75.03% -
Wage Income 22,740.91 14,716.47 23,771.22 33,722.22 15,709.09 - -
Livestock Income 1,959.09 6,424.41 6,763.24 12,742.22 26,706.36 - -
Other Income 1,744.27 15,776.32 9,907.50 1,525.83 40,545.45 50,000.00 -
Avg. Total Income 33,163.50 50,940.44 68,858.40 115,069.28 194,763.09 200,220.00 -
48

In Bihar, a major portion of supplementary income is contributed by family members
migrating seasonally to other states for agricultural wage work. Men and young boys
migrate in the sowing and harvesting seasons to Punjab and other states and get
employment through contractors. There are also households where men migrate to urban
areas on a more permanent basis. They return home at the sowing and harvesting time to
help in farm work. In their absence, the farm and house is looked after by women and
elders. We also found that many such women kept one or two cows and sold milk to
supplement their income.
As expected in Punjab and Kerala, many households reported receiving substantial
income from abroad. In these two states, the share of wage income is small.
We found that although most farmers do not keep bullocks any more, they do keep a cow
or a buffalo. However, keeping a cow is not necessarily a source of income for them.
Most marginal farmer households do not receive any significant income from livestock
they possess. Income from livestock was significant (Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 per month) only
in Punjab.
Unfortunately, in most households the farm and supplementary income together is also
insufficient to meet the basic consumption needs. In our survey, 90% of marginal farmer
households said that their income was insufficient to meet their basic needs. This is also
reported in the NSSO Survey. At an all India level, in the land size category of 0 to 1.25
acre, the monthly household income (farm and supplementary for the year 2003) is Rs.
1633 and monthly household consumption is Rs. 2427. In the land size category of 1.25
to 2.5 acre, the income is Rs. 1809 and the expenditure is Rs. 2768. This trend is
observed in every state including Punjab.
When expenditure exceeds income on a regular basis, the households try to make ends
meet by taking loans.

Indebtedness
The NSSO Survey
12
recorded 48.6% of farmer households in the country as indebted in
the year 2002-03. Maximum indebtedness was found in Andhra Pradesh 82%. Next
was Tamil Nadu at 74%, and then came Kerala, Punjab, and Karnataka. In these three

12
Report number 498
49

states 60 to 65% farmers were indebted. The incidence of indebtedness also varied by
land size categories. At an all India level, the indebtedness was 45% for marginal farmers
and 66% for large farmers having more than 10 hectares of land. The average outstanding
loan was in the range of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 for marginal farmers and more than Rs.
76,000 for large ones.
The higher incidence of indebtedness for big farmers does not mean that they are more in
need of loans. It only means that they have greater access to credit on reasonable terms.
The marginal farmers on the other hand are in far greater need of credit for farm
operations and for their consumption needs. Their access to institutional credit is limited
and they have no option but to approach the informal credit market. This difference is
most noticeable in Andhra Pradesh. The NSSO report tells us that 15% of marginal
farmers' outstanding loans are from banks and 60% from professional moneylenders. In
the case of large farmers 45% of outstanding loans are from commercial banks and only
20% from professional moneylenders. The rate of interest charged by banks is in the
range of 7% to 12%, whereas moneylenders routinely charge 24% and 36% interest and
sometimes even more.
In Andhra Pradesh, the moneylenders are not necessarily the traditional Sahukars. A
number of unregistered financial institutions have cropped up, which call themselves
banks. These unauthorized banks charge compound interest on the loans which they
extend. Compounding is done more than once a year - in some cases monthly or more
frequently. In Tippepalli village of Ananthpuram district, we found two cases where Rs.
4,000 and Rs. 5,000 were taken as loans in 1998. In ten years, these amounts have
increased to Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 44,000 respectively. Additionally, there are registered
micro-finance agencies in AP villages. In our survey, all the 16 villages reported presence
of micro-finance agencies. The villagers said that the micro-finance companies recover
their loans on a weekly basis. If a household is unable to pay, the agents behave harshly.
There are cases of household members getting kidnapped by these agencies. Women's
groups are demanding that micro-finance agencies should not be allowed to operate in the
state. In Warangal district, three villages out of four, reported farmers' suicides due to
financial problems. These villages are Burhanpur 15 suicides, Krishnajigudam 6
suicides and Ramteertham 4 suicides.
On one hand, the poor farmers in Andhra Pradesh take loans on exploitative terms and
when they cannot return them, they give up their assets or their lives. On the other hand,
there are farmers in Bihar, West Bengal or Maharashtra who have no access to any sort of
50

credit. In our survey many West Bengal farmers reported that they do not take any loans.
On further enquiry they informed us that they buy their food, grocery and other
necessities on credit. The interest is recovered by the grocery shop keeper by charging
higher prices for the goods that they buy. In many cases the farmers also sell their farm
produce to the same shopkeepers at prices much lower than the market rates.
In Raigad district of Maharashtra, when farmers did not report having taken any loan, we
specifically enquired if they had bought their groceries and other necessities from the
local shopkeeper on credit. Some reported that the shopkeeper did not give them any such
credit, and others said that they were afraid to buy anything on credit. They knew that
they would not be able to repay it.
In Bihar, farmers reported that small loans up to Rs. 5000 were taken from friends and
relatives without any interest. For loans bigger than that, farmers approach money
lenders. The interest rate is 60 percent or more. For a loan of Rs. 15-20 thousand the
standard procedure is to mortgage one beegha of land. The money lender keeps the land
till the loan is returned. He cultivates it and takes the entire produce as interest.
Debt cannot be the solution for everyone and it cannot be a permanent solution for
anyone. What, then, is the solution envisaged in a capitalist economy? One solution that
is given to losers is to quit the game. The household has the option to give up land
and move into the landless agricultural labour category. The farmer household may also
decide to quit agriculture completely and move on to join the burgeoning urban informal
sector howsoever overcrowded, self-exploiting and subhuman it may be. Finally, the
farmer also has a choice to quit this world altogether as more than two lakhs have
chosen to do since 1997.
* * * * *
51

5. THE CASE FOR A COLLECTIVE PRODUCTION BASE

Amidst all the variations in the resource base and production patterns of 7 crore marginal
farm households spread across the country, two common features emerge without any
ambiguity. One, that farm income inclusive of livestock income is insufficient to meet
basic cultivation costs and consumption needs. Supplementary income is necessary for all
marginal farmers.
Two, marginal farm households obtain this supplementary incomes by offering their
labour in markets that are unfair and exploitative. In other words, the agrarian question
looms large in the face of the Indian economy. The surplus labour in agriculture
distributed among numerous small holdings cannot be contained in this sector.
The neo-liberal policy frame is designed to make agriculture modern and structured. This
is to be attained by facilitating the entry of corporates. This design will debouch surplus
labour out of agriculture. Unfortunately, there is no employment space available for this
workforce outside.
To intervene effectively in this process, the farmers must come together. Transcending
caste and religious differences and coming together politically is necessary as a first step.
But one can look beyond that and consider pooling land together to form production
cooperatives. This will enable small and resource poor farmers to acquire the strength of
collective production base.

The strength of a Cooperative
Rural society in India has had a long experience of service cooperatives providing credit
and other inputs, and facilitating marketing. It is true that in many places, these
cooperatives have malfunctioned and there is rampant corruption in this sector. However,
this does not warrant discarding the very concept of cooperatives. What is required is to
52

cleanse the existing system, break local hierarchical structures and ensure participation of
the wider village community in a democratic way.
A production co-operative demands a much greater degree of integration than a service
co-operative. Poor households are apprehensive because their meager resources are put at
stake. It is necessary that they get convinced of the advantages of pooling their resources
together.
When 10 or 15 or more farmers pool together their land and form a cooperative holding
of 15 or 20 acres, the endeavour would open up many possibilities. Water management
would be better. Mechanized farm operations would be more efficient. The spectrum of
available crop choice would widen. The bargaining capacities in input and output markets
would improve. The risks would be shared within the group.
In addition to all these advantages, the surplus labour in individual small farms will also
get collectivized in the cooperative. This collective labour then can be engaged in
infrastructure build up and agro processing activities linked to the cooperative. In this
manner, the shift of labour from farm to non-farm activities can also be planned in a
humane and dignified manner.
Formation of a cooperative would also prevent the transfer of agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses. The institutional barrier of a cooperative would not allow real estate
market or companies to take away non viable holdings from the farmers.
Forming a production cooperative does not mean surrendering ownership of land. It only
means pooling land together for joint production. The income and production from the
cooperative would be distributed in accordance with the resources and labour offered by
each member. The exact blue print of the cooperative will be decided by members who
come together to pool their resources. Nevertheless, two points must be clear in any
programme of cooperative formation.
First, any joint endeavor succeeds when the partners are equal. Unequal partners beget
unequal exchange. Therefore, small and marginal farmers' cooperatives must restrict
membership based on a criterion of resource base size. Second, the feudal backdrop of
Indian villages and the predatory character of neo liberal markets will not allow
cooperatives to survive on their own. A programme of cooperative formation must
necessarily demand state support.
53

Women farmers show the way
In our survey, we could not adequately delineate the role of women in the agrarian scene.
It is, however, noticed by everyone that Indian agriculture is acquiring a feminine face.
Especially, among the small and resource poor farm households, men generally migrate
out leaving the non viable holdings to women. These women farmers do not have legal
rights on these holdings. While we must insist that women should have ownership rights
on the land that they till, we would also like to point out that their special situation makes
them particularly receptive to the idea of joint productive activities.
In Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, there already exist instances of successful joint farming
exercises by women.
Since 1989, an NGO, Deccan Development Society (DDS) has been supporting poor dalit
women to jointly lease in or purchase land through various government credit schemes.
Now there are 144 women who have leased in land collectively. These groups are small
in size with 5 to 15 members each. A total of 211 acres of land have been leased in across
26 villages. Rent is paid partly by the group members and partly by interest free loans
from DDS. Similarly, women's groups have jointly purchased land in 21 villages. The
government provides subsidized credit for these purchases. In all, there are 436 women
who have made group purchases of 555 acres of land in Andhra Pradesh.
The experiment in Kerala is far wider and is directly initiated by Kerala government.
Under the Kudumbasree programme of Kerala government, 46,444 groups are engaged in
collective farming. The size of a group varies from 4 to 10 members. Correspondingly,
the land given to a group varies from 50 cents to 2.5 acres. Women under this scheme are
engaged in cultivating tapioca, paddy, vegetables, pineapple, etc. In all 27,270 hectares of
land has been recruited in this scheme. The land given to these womens groups is either
fallow land under government ownership or private land taken up by the government on
lease. Area incentives are given for bringing fallow land under cultivation and performance
incentives are given when production exceeds the stipulated average productivity.
These are still small experiments but they demonstrate that poor women farmers are able
to realize the advantages of collective production activities. It is perhaps nave to
generalize at this stage and think of a nation-wide agenda for formation of cooperatives
of landless and land-poor farmers. However, if such an agenda is taken up by the farmers
and if the state can be pressurized to accede to their demand of state support, then we
have an immense possibility for a radical political project.
54

Box 5: Cooperatives in the Socialist world
Socialist countries have had a rich experience with cooperative programmes. A detailed study of
these programmes would give us an invaluable insight into the working of cooperatives.
In the Russian revolution, the worker-peasant alliance played a big role. The traditional Russian
communes, Mirs played a crucial role in the 1905 uprising against the Tzar and continued this
pivotal role of providing an organizational base for peasant mobilization till the 1917 revolution.
Immediately after the revolution, Lenin implemented land reforms. Lenin's vision was to make a
transition to a socialist base by forming cooperatives of poor peasants. Unfortunately,
collectivization of land in Soviet Union used force and laid greater emphasis on state farms.
Mao in China chose a different path. As a first step in the programme of commune formation he
initiated producer cooperatives of poor farmers. In these cooperatives, ownership of land,
draught animals, and farm implements remained with individual members. However, the
resources were used jointly by cooperative members. The labour that was released by
cooperatives was used for building infrastructure in rural China and promoting rural industries.
The transformation in rural China was dramatic. The ultimate shape that these cooperatives
acquired were "communes" where a large number of families got engaged not just in collective
production activities but in building a life together.
The Socialist government in Cuba realized the transformation of privately owned land into
cooperatives through persuasion. On the National Broadcasting Corporation, the government
announced, Whenever a Cooperative is established, a school springs up. The government
formed national association of small farmers to initiate the programmes. The cooperatives took
many years to take concrete shape. The government kept persuading farmers and kept offering
various incentives over a long period of 15 years.
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela's 21st century socialist programme has promoted cooperatives in a
big way. Over 1.5 million workers in Venezuela are working in cooperatives. The agricultural co-
operatives have 7 to 100 members depending on the type of crop. The government supports these
cooperatives by setting up special markets to buy their produce, producing organic fertilizers and
farm tools for them, supplying tractors and providing seed banks.
The Venezuelan government took a categorical stand that cooperative ownership alone is not
sufficient. The operation of cooperatives should not be based on the principle of maximizing
profit. Venezuelan co-operatives get special preferential treatment from the government when
they promote solidarity, equity and sustainability.

Marginal and small farmers own 44% of total arable land. If this 44% of the arable land is
recruited under cooperatives, the land use pattern can change, the markets can change and
a concrete shape can be given to our dream that a just and exploitation free world is
possible.
*****

55

Reference

Assessment Survey of Farmers, NSS 59
th
Round (January-December 2003)
Report 491 : Household ownership holdings in India
Report 492 : Some aspects of operational land holdings in India
Report 493 : Livestock ownership across operational land holdings classes in India
Report 494 : Seasonal Variation in the operational land holdings in India
Report 495 : Consumption expenditure of households
Report 497 : Income, Expenditure and Productive assets of Farmer Households
Report 498 : Indebtedness of farmer households
Report 499 : Access to modern technology for farming
56

ANNEXURES
Annexure 1: State, District, Village and Major crops
District name
(crop for which it was chosen)
Village name Main Crops of the Village
1. ANDHRA PRADESH
1. Ananthpuram
(Groundnut)
1. Palayam Groundnut, Paddy and Sweet lime
2. Narsineyanikunta Groundnut and Paddy
3. Kalluru Paddy and Groundnut
4. Tippepalli Groundnut and Jowar
2. Krishna
(Paddy)
1. Seriamaravaran Paddy, Subabul, Cotton
2. Munjulooru Paddy, Groundnut, Pisci-culture
3. Vekanuru Paddy, Mango
4. Kokilampadu Paddy, Mango, Cotton
3. Srikakulum
(Pulses)
1. Kavali Paddy, Urad, Groundnut
2. Teppalavalasa Gram, Jowar, Chilli, Paddy
3. Cheepi Paddy, Cashew nut, Mango, Groundnut
4. Warangal
(Cotton)
1. Ramatheertham Paddy, Cotton, Maize
2. Krishnajigudam Paddy, Cotton, Maize
3. Kondaparti Paddy, Cotton
4. Burhanpur Paddy, Cotton, Arhar, Moong
2. BIHAR
1. Katihar
(Sunflower and Jute)
1. Kandhlawari Jute, Paddy
2. Mahmadia Paddy, Wheat
3. Lalgaon Summer Paddy
4. Baidanda Wheat, Maize
2. Khagaria
(Banana)
1. Tartar Wheat, Maize
2. Madhopur
(Vishnupur)
Wheat, Maize, Mustard
3. Badtad Wheat, Maize, Paddy
4. Sathma Wheat, Maize, Sunflower
3. Madhubani
(Paddy)
1. Hasauli Paddy, Wheat
2. Piprahi Paddy, Wheat
57

4. Muzaffarpur
(Banana)
1. Basudev chhapra Banana
2. Gadhma Banana, Wheat, Paddy
5. Rohtas
(Wheat and Paddy)
1. Bhagiratha Paddy, Wheat
2. Gokhulpur Paddy, Wheat
3. Itwan Paddy, Wheat
4. Patanwan Paddy, Wheat
3. KERALA
1. Idukki
(Black Pepper)
1. Perumkala
Black Pepper, Cocoa, Paddy, Coconut, Coffee,
Cardamom,
2. Marayur
devikulam
Sugarcane, Cocoa, Mango, Areca Nut, Rubber,
Banana, Tapioca, Paddy,
3. Nadumattam
(Rajakumari)
Cardamom, Paddy, Pepper, Cocoa, Coffee,
Coconut
4. Anakkara Cardamom, Black Pepper, Coffee, Banana
2. Thrissur
(Coconut and Paddy)
1. Anandapuram
(Mukundapura)
Paddy, Coconut, Rubber
2. Paralam Paddy, Coconut, Banana, Rubber
3. Mmullasery Paddy, Coconut, Banana, Areca Nut, Cashew
4. Puzhakkal Paddy, Coconut
4. MADHYA PRADESH
1. Anuppur
(Paddy)
1. Bijodi Paddy
2. Chakethi Paddy, Wheat
3. Karondatola Paddy, Soyabean
4. Kumharwar Paddy, Soyabean
2. Betul
(Soyabean)
1. Bagdara Soyabean
2. Datora Soyabean, Jowar
3. Mandai khurd Soyabean, Paddy
4. Seetal jhiri Maize, Soyabean
3. Sagar
(Pulses)
1. Bangela Gram, Pulses
2. Ganiyari Soyabean, Gram
3. Vaardha Soyabean, Gram
4. Vinayaka Soyabean, Wheat
4. Ujjain
(Soyabean)
1. Piploo Soyabean, Wheat
2. Raipura Soyabean, Gram
3. Ramgadh Soyabean, Potato
4. Rudrkheda Soyabean, Maize

58

5. MAHARASHTRA
1. Amrawati
(Cotton)
1. Borikheda Soyabean, Paddy, Gram
2. Pimalvihir Soyabean, Cotton, Gram
3. Ramgaon La Tur, Gram, Soyabean, Green Millets
4. Temburni Soyabean, Cotton, Pulses
2. Beed
(Coarse grain)
1. Gitewadi Jowar
2. Girwali Soyabean, Red Tur, Gram, Jowar
3. Pimpalgaon Mochi Cotton, Jowar, Sorghum
4. Jawadka Cotton, Jowar, Sorghum
3. Nashik
(Grapes and Onion)
1. Dhondmand Nagali, Warali, Paddy, Urad
2. Punegaon Grapes, Onion, Paddy
3. Rojhe Onion, Cotton, Fruits
4. Tamaswadi Nifad Maize, Soyabean, Grapes, Onion
4. Raigadh
(Paddy)
1. Bapuvan Paddy
2. Nellephodi Paddy, Til
3. Patni Pandapur Paddy
4. Sawane Panvel Paddy, Jowar Fodder
6. PUNJAB
1. Jalandhar
(Wheat)
1. Dolike Sunderpur Wheat, Paddy, Potato, Sugarcane
2. Semi Wheat, Paddy
3. Fatehpur Wheat, Paddy
(Nawaan Sheher) 4. Saidpur Khurd Wheat, Paddy
2. Ropar
(Wheat and Paddy)
1. Barsalpur Wheat, Paddy, Sugarcane
2. Ratangadh Wheat, Paddy
3. Algran Paddy, Maize, Wheat
4. Mhen Paddy, Maize, Wheat
3. Bhatinda
(Cotton & Wheat)
1. Chugge Kalan Wheat, Cotton, Paddy, Fodder
2. Mehraj Patti Sol Wheat, Cotton, Paddy, Fodder
3. Sema Kalaan Wheat, Cotton, Paddy
(Mansa) 4. Chakk Alisher Wheat, Cotton, Paddy, Fodder
7. TAMIL NADU
1. Salem
(Pulses)
1. Chennagulur Turmeric, Groundnut, Sugarcane, Paddy, Cotton,
Tapioca
2. Vallay Karannur Flowers, Paddy, Groundnut, Turmeric
3. Chikanam Patte Sorghum, Ragi, Groundnut, Millet
4. Umyalpuram Coconut, Beetlenut, Paddy, Sugarcane,
Turmeric, Millet, Cotton, Tapioca, Sorghum

59

2. Thiruvarur
(Paddy)
1. Visallur Paddy, Urad Dal, Millet
2.Chitakamangalam Paddy
3. Marathavanam Paddy
4. Muvanallur Paddy, Groundnut, Urad Dal, Coconut
3. Thiruvanna-Malai
(Groundnut)
1. Attipadi Paddy, Groundnut, Sugarcane, Sesame (Til)
2.Pudupalayam
(Annamalaipalayam)
Sugarcane, Paddy, Cotton, Millet
3. Nerungkavadi Groundnut, Paddy, Ragi, Millet, Sesame (Til)
4.Memnithal(Bennthal) Groundnut, Sugarcane Millet, Sesame (Til), Paddy
8. WEST BENGAL
1. Birbhum
(Paddy)
1. Bishnupur Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Wheat, Oilseed, Potato
2. Bishaypur Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Potato, Wheat, Sugarcane
3. Maajh kalita
Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Wheat, Mustard, Brinjal,
Potato
4. Simlakuri Aman, Boro Paddy, Wheat, Oilseed,
2. Burdwan
(Mustard, Rapeseed and
Paddy)
1. Jaluidanga Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Potato, Jute, Mustard
2. Gopinathpur Aman Paddy,
3. Hatkanda Potato, Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy
4. Sonai Aman Paddy, Mustard, Potato, Wheat, Boro Paddy
3. Hooghly
(Potato and Paddy)
1. Dakshin
ramchandrapur
Potato, Aman Paddy, Jute, Boro Paddy
2. Ghoradaha Potato, Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Jute
3. Makrar Aman Paddy, Potato, Jute
4. Natagarh Aman Paddy, Potato, Boro Paddy, Jute, Mango
4. Murshidabad
(Jute)
1. Bahara Aman Paddy, Jute,Paddy, Potato, Wheat Boro,
2. Hulashpur Jute, Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Wheat, Mustard
3. Kantanagar Jute, Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Wheat
4. Naith Aman Paddy, Boro Paddy, Wheat, Mustard, Potato

Annexure 2: Village Schedule

Page 1 of 3

VILLAGE SCHEDULE
1. Name of the Village, Tehsil, District & State
2. Name, address and designation of the persons
responding. Telephone no. if any.

3. A brief history of the village, for instance .
1. When & how the village came into
existence, 2. Important happenings during
freedom struggle or after independence, etc.

Physical Description
4. Geographical Area and number of HHs.
5. Road connection & distance to near by towns.
6. Water resources in the village (Drinking &
Irrigation) & nearby water bodies?

7. What is the rainfall history?
8. When the village was affected by drought or
flood, and what was the special assistance
given by government at that time?

9. Has there been any change in the rainfall
history in recent past?

10. What are the irrigation facilities?
11. Has there been any change in the irrigation
facility in recent past?

12. What is the soil condition of the village? How
is it described locally?

13. Has there been any recent change in the soil
condition eg. Erosion, salinity, etc?

14. Is there a common village pasture land?
15. How do the villagers collect firewood?
16. Electricity connectivity in the village & how
many hours do the villagers get the power?

17. What are the education facilities available?
18. What are the health services available in and
near the village?

Page 2 of 3

19. Is there a PDS (Ration) shop in the village?
Are people satisfied with the facility?

Population Description
20. What is the population of the village?
21. What is the caste composition of the village?
22. What is the religious composition of the
village?

23. Approximate no. of cultivator households.
24. Are there non resident cultivators too?
25. What is the land holding composition of the
village? (Landless, Small & big farmers)

26. What is the extent of migration in the village?
27. Has NREGA been implemented in your
village? How many in the village have
benefitted from the scheme? What wages did
they get? What assets were created through
the scheme?

28. What are the other non farm activities in the
village?

29. What is the educational profile of the village?
30. What access villagers have to the banks and
bank credit? What are the other facilities in
the village and what is the interest pattern for
the credit? What is the interest rate?

31. Are there micro finance agencies and what are
the repayment terms?

32. Are there self help groups in the village?
33. Do the villagers read newspaper?
34. Do they have TVs?
35. How many motor vehicles are in the village?
Crop Production and Marketing
36. What crops are mainly grown?

Page 3 of 3

37. What are the changes in cropping pattern in
last 10-15 years?

38. What are the main seed varieties?
39. What has been the change in seed varieties&
seed outlets in recent past?

40. Name of the fertilisers commonly used for
rabi and kharif crops.

41. Has there been any change in the type or
quantity of the fertilisers in recent past?
Mention the changes.

42. Main diseases affecting crops?
43. Name of the pesticides commonly and mainly
used for rabi and kharif crops. And mention
the changes therein.

44. During reference year 2008 what was the
maximum yield for main crops?

45. What is the marketing facility for the
agricultural produce?

46. Has there been any change in the marketing
pattern in recent past?

47. Is contract farming practised in the village?
48. Is village produce bought by FCI? Do
villagers feel satisfied with FCI operations?

49. Approximate number of the livestock in the
village?

50. Veterinary facility available in the village.
51. In which areas companies have registered
there presence in the village? It will include
things like SEZ, e-choupals, companies
projects on seeds or forestry, etc.

52. Whether the villagers have any experience of
cooperative productive activities or
cooperative marketing?

*****************************

Annexure 3: Listing Schedule

r
o
[
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

S
p
e
c
|
f
|
c

r
o
b
|
e
m
s

o
f

M
a
r
g
|
n
a
|

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

|
n

L
|
g
h
t

s
t
a
t
e
s

n
o
u
s
e
h
o
|
d

L
|
s
t
|
n
g

S
h
e
e
t

I
o
s
h
|
A
d
h
|
k
a
r
|

I
n
s
t
|
t
u
t
e

o
f

S
o
c
|
a
|

S
t
u
d
|
e
s

4

W
|
n
d
s
o
r

|
a
c
e

N
e
w

D
e
|
h
|

1
1
0
0
0
1
h
o
n
e

0
1
1
2
3
7
1
1
7
3
2

2
3
2
7
3
8
9
4

S
L
a
L
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

u
l
s
L
r
l
c
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

1
e
h
s
l
l

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

8
l
o
c
k

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
v
l
l
l
a
g
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

n
o

o
f

P
P
s

l
n

L
h
e

v
l
l
l
a
g
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

n
o

C
f

P
P
s

L
l
s
L
e
d

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

n
o

C
f

M
a
r
g
l
n
a
l

l
a
r
m
e
r
s
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

L
o
c
a
l

u
n
l
L

f
o
r

L
a
n
d

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
L
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

1
a
c
r
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
L
o
c
a
l

u
n
l
L
s

***C
w
n
e
r
s
h
|
p

S
t
a
t
u
s

S
l
n
g
l
e

!
o
l
n
L

w
l
L
h

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

!
o
l
n
L

w
l
L
h

o
L
h
e
r
s

*
*
C
c
c
u
p
a
t
|
o
n

C
o
d
e
s

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
o
r

A
g
r
l

W
a
g
e

L
a
b
o
u
r

n
o
n
a
g
r
l

W
a
g
e

L
a
b
o
u
r

S
e
l
f

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

L
r
a
d
e
/
b
u
s
l
n
e
s
s

S
e
l
f

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

a
r
L
l
s
a
n

L
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

l
n

n
8
L
C
S

C
L
h
e
r
s

*
*
*
S
t
r
a
t
|
f
|
c
a
t
|
o
n

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
l
n
g

n
o

l
a
n
d

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
l
n
g

l
e
s
s

L
h
a
n

1

h
a

1

L
o

2

h
a

2

L
o

4

h
a

4

L
o

1
0

M
o
r
e

L
h
a
n

1
0

N
o

N
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

n
e
a
d

o
f

t
h
e

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
|
d

A
d
d
r
e
s
s

M
a
|
e

]

I
e
m
a
|
e

I
a
t
h
e
r
'
s

n
a
m
e

k
e
|
|
g
|
o
n

(
n
|
n
d
u
1

M
u
s
|
|
m

C
h
r
s
t

S
|
k
h

8
u
d
h
h
|
s
t

C
t
h
e
r
s
6
)

C
a
s
t
e

n
o
u
s
e
h
o
|
d

S
|
z
e

(
N
o
s
)

L
a
n
d

(
k
e
f
e
a
r

k
a
b
|

2
0
0
8

k
h
a
r
|
f

2
0
0
8
)

(
k
e
c
o
r
d

|
n

|
o
c
a
|

u
n
|
t
s

w
|
t
h

t
w
o

d
e
c
|
m
a
|
s
)

M
a
[
o
r

c
r
o
p
s

g
r
o
w
n

(
k
e
f
e
a
r

k
a
b
|

k
h
a
r
|
f

o
f

2
0
0
8
)

C
c
c
u
p
a
t
|
o
n
s
*
*

o
f

t
h
e

n
n

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

S
t
r
a
t
|
f
|
c
a
t
|
o
n

o
f

h
o
u
s
e

h
o
|
d
s

*
*
*

A
d
u
|
t
s

C
h
|
|
d
r
e
n

L
a
n
d

o
w
n
e
d

L
a
n
d

C
u
|
t
|
v
a
t
e
d

C
w
n
e
r
s
h
|
p

S
t
a
t
u
s
*

1

1
0

1
1

1
2

S
L
a
L
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

u
l
s
L
r
l
c
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

v
l
l
l
a
g
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

*

*

C
w
n
e
r
s
h
|
p

S
t
a
t
u
s

S
l
n
g
l
e

!
o
l
n
L

w
l
L
h

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

!
o
l
n
L

w
l
L
h

o
L
h
e
r
s

*
*
C
c
c
u
p
a
t
|
o
n

c
o
d
e
s

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
o
r

A
g
r
l

W
a
g
e

L
a
b
o
u
r

n
o
n
a
g
r
l

W
a
g
e

L
a
b
o
u
r

s
e
l
f

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

L
r
a
d
e
/
b
u
s
l
n
e
s
s

s
e
l
f

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

A
r
L
l
s
a
n

L
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

l
n

n
8
L
C
S

o
L
h
e
r
s

*
*
*

S
t
r
a
t
|
f
|
c
a
t
|
o
n

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
l
n
g

n
o

l
a
n
d

C
u
l
L
l
v
a
L
l
n
g

l
e
s
s

L
h
a
n

1

h
a

1

L
o

2

h
a

2

L
o

4

h
a

4

L
o

1
0

M
o
r
e

L
h
a
n

1
0

N
o

N
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

n
e
a
d

o
f

t
h
e

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
|
d

A
d
d
r
e
s
s

M
a
|
e

]

I
e
m
a
|
e

I
a
t
h
e
r
'
s

n
a
m
e

k
e
|
|
g
|
o
n

(
n
|
n
d
u
1

M
u
s
|
|
m

C
h
r
s
t

S
|
k
h

8
u
d
h
h
|
s
t

C
t
h
e
r
s
6
)

C
a
s
t
e

n
o
u
s
e
h
o
|
d

S
|
z
e

(
N
o
s
)

L
a
n
d

(
k
e
f
e
a
r

k
a
b
|

2
0
0
8

k
h
a
r
|
f

2
0
0
8
)

(
k
e
c
o
r
d

|
n

|
o
c
a
|

u
n
|
t
s

w
|
t
h

t
w
o

d
e
c
|
m
a
|
s
)

M
a
[
o
r

c
r
o
p
s

g
r
o
w
n

(
k
e
f
e
a
r

k
a
b
|

k
h
a
r
|
f

o
f

2
0
0
8
)

C
c
c
u
p
a
t
|
o
n
s
*
*

o
f

t
h
e

n
n

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

S
t
r
a
t
|
f
|
c
a
t
|
o
n

o
f

h
o
u
s
e

h
o
|
d
s

*
*
*

A
d
u
|
t
s

C
h
|
|
d
r
e
n

L
a
n
d

o
w
n
e
d

L
a
n
d

C
u
|
t
|
v
a
t
e
d

C
w
n
e
r
s
h
|
p

S
t
a
t
u
s
*

Annexure 4: Detailed Questionnaire

Page 1 of 19

STUDY OF PROBLEMS OF MARGINAL FARMERS

IN THE CONTEXT OF
CHANGING TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

(Reference Year: Rabi & Kharif of 2008)

2009

Joshi-Adhikari Institute of Social Studies
4, Windsor Place, New Delhi 110001
Phone: 91-11-23711732, 23273894.

Page 2 of 19

Name of the Village - Date of Interview:
Name of the Respondent - Name of Surveyor:
Caste/Community & Religion

1. Household Particulars

Sr.
No.
Name
Sex
(M/
F)
Relation
with the
Head of
the HH
Age in
comple-
ted yrs
Educati-
on
(class
complet-
ed )
Employment* Income**
1 2
1
Income &
Time spent
2
Income &
Time spent
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

* Employment can be more than one. List two main in the table and if more, give details in the comments.
** Income may be spelt out for one day, one month or one year. Also mention time spent in the employment

COMMENTS

Page 3 of 19

2. Land Particulars

Record all land area in local units. Name of the local unit....................
Please specify: 1 acre =.local units.

2.1 Khasra Number or Farm Number
2.2 Land for the house including homestead Farm (0.00)
2.3 Farm Land (0.00)
2.4
Land Area where crop is processed and stored (Also
called Khalihan) (0.00)

2.5 Total Land Owned (0.00)
2.6

Do you have access to the village commons, Eg.
Village Pastures, wells for drinking water, facility for
firewood collection & other community space? (Yes-
1, No-2)
If not, then please mention the reason.

2.7*
Describe type of soil of your farm land in terms of six
land settlement categories.

2.7.1
Do you face the problem of soil degradation, like soil
erosion, salinity, etc.?

2.7.2 What is your suggestion for soil quality improvement?
2.8
Source of Irrigation (Well-1, Borewell-2, Canal-3,
Pond/Lake-4, River-5.)

2.8.1 Is irrigation motorised or not?

2.7* We want to know the productivity of soil for the respective crop. Eg. In Bihar there are six
categories i.e. 3 upland (Taan) and 3 lowland (Don). These categories refer to productivity of soil for
paddy. Low land 3 or Don-3 is most productive and upland 3 is most deficient. Every region would
have terminology for productivity of land. Write the local term and explain its meaning for the
productivity of land.

Page 4 of 19

2.9 Situation of the Farm

Distance of your own farm from the house. (in kms)
Distance of farm from the Market / Mandi. (in kms)
Pl. give details about the owner/s* of the
neighbourhood farms, farm sizes, crops grown & how
these neighbouring farms are irrigated? Please fill in
the diagram given below.

Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
OWN
FARM
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-
Owner-

Size-

Crop-

Irrigated-

2.9 * Owner-We dont want the name of the owner. Please specify owner is resident or non
resident of the village and his caste/community. If neighbourhood farm are of the same size then find
out if larger neighbourhood also contains farms of the same size.
Page 5 of 19

3. Land Ownership Details

3.1 In whose name is the land title?
3.2 How did you get the land? (Bought-1,
Inherited-2, From Govt.-3, Others specify- 4)

3.3 Whether land is singly owned or jointly?
(Single-1, With household members-2, With
others-3)

3.4 Did you lease out land any time during last 10
years? (Yes-1, No-2)

3.5 If yes, specify details below?
Year To whom* How much
(0.00)
What were the
terms of deed?
What were the reasons
for leasing out?
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

* Small Farmer-1, Large Farmer-2, Company-3, Others, specify-4.
Page 6 of 19

3.6 Did you lease in land any time during last 10 years?
(Yes-1, No-2)

3.6.1 If yes, specify details below.
Year From
Whom*
How
much?(0.00)
What were the terms
of the lease deed?
for leasing in?
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
* Small Farmer-1, Large Farmer-2, Others, specify-4.
3.7 Did you mortgage your land any time during last 10
years? (Yes-1, no-2)

Year With whom did
you mortgage
your land?
How much land
was mortgaged?
(0.00)
What was the
value of the
mortgage?
What was the
reason for the
mortgage?
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Page 7 of 19

2001
2000
1999
1998
* Local Money lender -1, Relative/ Friend-2, Input Dealer-3, Institution 4, Others, specify-5.
3.8 Did you sell any portion of your land during last 10
years? (Yes-1, No-2)

Year To whom
did you
sell?*
How much
portion of
land did you
sell?
At what price
did you sell?
for selling?
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

*Person of the same village-1, Person outside the village - 2, Company / SEZ 3, Others, specify-4.

Page 8 of 19

4. Assets other than Land
4.1 Physical Assets
4.1.1 Type of House (Kuchcha-1, Pucca-2, Semi Pucca-3)
4.1.2 Size /Area of the house (length and breadth in ft.)
4.1.3 Since when do you have a house?
4.1.4 How did you get the house? (Bought-1, Inherited-2,
From Govt.-3, Others specify- 4)

4.1.5 If bought or built, how did you finance it?
4.2 Vehicles owned (Bullock Cart-1, Bicycle-2,
Motorcycle/Scooter-3, Car-4, Tractor-5, Others-6)

4.2.2 Value of the vehicles owned (In Rs.)
4.2.3 Specify the year of purchase of each of these vehicles?
4.2.4 How did you finance the purchase of the
vehicle/vehicles?

4.3 Agricultural Tools and equipments
List the instruments you have
(eg. Plough, thresher, spade,
hoe, etc.)
Year of
Purchase
Value of
Purchase (In Rs.)
How did you
finance it?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page 9 of 19

4.4 Financial Assets
4.4.1 Do you have a bank account? (Yes-1, No-2)
4.4.2 If yes, since when do you have this account?
4.4.3 How much deposit you have now? (In Rs.)
4.4.4 Do you have an account in the Post Office?
4.4.5 If yes, since when do you have this account?
4.4.6 How much deposit you have now? (In Rs.)
4.4.7 Do you have Kissan Credit Card?
4.4.8 Which year did you get it?
4.4.9 What is the total value of the card?
4.4.10 If you do not have a Kissan card, what is the reason?
4.5 Debt
4.5.1 How many times did you take loan during last 10 years?
(Between 1998 and 2008)
Year Amount of loan
taken (Rs.)
Source of
loan*
Interest
rate**
Reason for
taking loan
Loan out
-standing

* Local Money lender - 1, Relative/ Friend- 2, Input Dealer-3, Institution like Nationalised Banks,
Cooperative Bank, Private Bank, Micro Finance, SHG 4. Others, specify-5
** Simple Interest-1, Compound Interest-2.
Page 10 of 19

4.6 Other Financial Assets Quantity Value in Rs.
Specify other valuables, like gold, silver, utensils, etc.

4.7 Livestock Assets

Type Number Year of Purchase
or possession
Value in
Rs.
If purchased, how did you
finance it, or get it?
Cow
Bullock
Buffalo
Goat
Others
(Specify)

4.7.1 Maintenance of Livestock
Feed where from you get the feed for the livestock?

Cost of the feed-(daily/monthly)

Do you find veterinary services satisfactory?

Is water available for the livestock clean and hygienic?

4.7.2 Income from the livestock (During last one year)

Page 11 of 19

5. Cropping Pattern (Ref: Rabi & Kharif of 2008)
5.1 Cropping pattern
Crop Area Cultivated

Whether
the crop
was
insured
Sowing
month
Harve-
sting
month Owned Land Leased
in land
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
5.2 Change in Cropping Pattern
5.2.1* During last 10 years, was there any change in the cropping
pattern? (Yes-1, No-2).

5.2.2 If yes, specify the years.
5.2.3 Specify the crops replaced.
5.2.4 Specify the new crops grown.
5.2.5 Area under each changed crop.
5.2.6 Reason for changing the cropping
pattern.

* If the response comes to this question as NO, but if there were any changes before 10 years of
period, please write that and specify the year of change. If the changes were done more than 4 times,
than use the blank space to register all the details. Similarly if crops replaced and new crops grown
exceeds the space given, then use another sheet of paper.
Page 12 of 19

6. Input Costs (Ref: Rabi & Kharif of 2008)
6.1 Labour Input
6.1.1 Processes Method
(extent of
Mechan-
isation)
Domestic
Labour (No.
of Days
worked)
Wage Labour
(No. of
Days)
Wage Rate
(Rs.)
Total
Expenses
*
Female Male Female Male Female Male

Ploughing
Sowing
Planting
Weeding
Harvestin
g

Threshing
Others

6.2 Do these farmers help each others in their farming operations informally? What are
these processes of informal cooperation called?

6.3 Changes during Last 10 years
Yes-1
No-2
How?
6.3.1 Has there been any change in the Method of
farming? (Yes-1, No-2)

Has there been any change in the domestic labour
input? (Yes-1, No-2)

Has there been any change in the wage labour
input? (Yes-1, No-2)

Has there been any change in the wage rate?

* If a tractor, harvester or any other machine is hired then the hiring charges should be included in the total
expenses.

Page 13 of 19

6.4 Seed Details
Crops Seed Variety Seed
Quantity
Total expenses
on seed
Source
of seed
Remarks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.4.1 Was there any change in seed variety during last 10 years? (Y-1, N-2)
Crops Yr. Of
change
Seed Variety Qty. of
seed per
acre
Expense
on seed
per acre
Source
of seed
Remarks
(The change
was beneficial
or adverse?)

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

6.5 Ask whether any rare traditional indigenous varieties of seeds
are preserved in the household. (Yes-1, No-2)

If yes, give crop wise details.
Page 14 of 19

6.6 Fertiliser (F)/ Manure (M) used
Crops Type of F/M Qty. of
F/M
Total Expense Source Remarks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.6.1 Was there any change in fertiliser/Manure variety during last 10 years?
(Yes-1, No-2)

Crops Yr. Of
change
F/M Variety Qty. of
F/M per
acre
Expense
on F/M
per acre
Source
of F/M
Remarks
(The change
was
beneficial or
adverse?)

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Page 15 of 19

6.7 Pesticides and Weedicides Used
Crops Type of
Pest./ Weed.
Qty. Total
Expense
Source Remarks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.7.1 Was there any change in pesticide/weedicide variety during last 10
years? (Y-1, N-2)

Crops Yr. Of
change
P/W Variety Qty. of
P/W per
acre
Expense
on P/W
per acre
Source
of P/W
Remarks
(The change
was
beneficial or
adverse?)

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Page 16 of 19

7. Production and Marketing (Ref: Rabi & Kharif of 2008)

7.1 Crop wise Total Production
Name of the
Crop
Specify
unit
Total
Production
Home
consumption
Qty.
Sold
Qty. retained for
seeds
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
7.2 Sale of the Produce
7.2.1 Mandi/Market

Crop
Buyer
*
Qty.
in
Qtls.
Grading
**
Price
per
unit
Payment
Schedule
Expense on
transport, loading,
unloading, etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
* Buyer: Middlemen/Trader-1, Local Company-2, Big Company-3, FCI-4
** Grading: Different crops have different criteria of grading, like moisture content for Soya bean
or staple length for cotton. When a farmer goes to sell the produce, the grade is decided for fixing the
price. Please note the grade of crop as mentioned by the farmer.
Page 17 of 19

7.2.2 Local Traders
Crop Qty. in
Qtls.
Grading
*
Price
per unit
Payment
Schedule
Exp. on transport,
loading, unloading, etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
7.2.3 Company
Crop Qty. in
Qtls.
Grading
*
Price
per unit
Payment
Schedule
Exp. on transport,
loading, unloading, etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
* Grading: Different crops have different criteria of grading, like moisture content for Soya bean or
staple length for cotton. When a farmer goes to sell the produce, the grade is decided for fixing the
price. Please note the grade of the crop as mentioned by the farmer.
Page 18 of 19

7.2.4 Any Other
Crop Qty. in
Qtls.
Grading
*
Price
per unit
Payment
Schedule
Exp. on transport,
loading, unloading,
etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
7.3 During last 10 years was there
any change in your buyer or
market structure?
Year Year Year Year
7.3.1 If yes, specify the reasons.
7.4 During last 10 years was there
any change in the location of the
market/mandi or the place where
you used to sell?

7.4.1 If yes, specify the reasons.
7.5 During last 10 years, was there
any change in grading or
weighing procedure, and
abolition of middlemen? Give
year wise detail.

* Grading: Different crops have different criteria of grading, like moisture content for Soya bean or
staple length for cotton. When a farmer goes to sell the produce, the grade is decided for fixing the
price. Please note the grade of crop as mentioned by the farmer.
Page 19 of 19

8. Households Total Income in Rs.

Year 2008 2007 2006 2005
8.1 Income from Crops
8.2 Income from wages
8.3 Income from livestock
8.4 Income from other sources
8.5 Total Income
8.6 How did you utilise the income?

8.7 Give detailed description of subsidiary earning activities.

8.8 What problems do you face in agriculture in terms of soil, water quality and
availability, pests, climate changes, livestock, diseases? And what prospects do
you see to improve the situation?

8.9 Do you have any experience of formal Cooperatives-like cooperative
marketing or seed cooperative, dairy, fisheries, etc.?

THE STUDY TEAM

The study was conducted under the guidance of Shri S P Shukla.
CORE TEAM
Dr. Jaya Mehta | Shanta Venkatraman | Vineet Tiwari |
Sunita Kumari | Roshan Nair | Sarika Shrivastava | Vinod Koshti

SURVEY TEAM
Andhra Pradesh
State Coordinator : Kolli Nageshwar Rao and Dr. Vijaylakhshmi Reddy
Field Investigators : C. Mallikarjun | B. Ramesh | G. Rajeshwar Rao | A. Ramesh
Bihar
State Coordinator : Late Harihar Prasad
Field Investigators : Birendra Singh | Kumar Gautam | Rajvind Kamat |
Ranjan K. Mondal
Kerala
State Coordinator : I. V. Sasankan
Field Investigators : C.M. Madhu | P.V. Rajappan | Karimbil Kunhikrishnan |
Dr. Ambi Chirayil
Madhya Pradesh
State Coordinator : Janak Rathor
Field Investigators : Ravi Rajak | Sarika Shrivastava
Maharashtra
State Coordinator : Afsar Jafri
Field Investigators : Chandrakant Wadaskar | Kiran Mhatre |
Jyotiram Atmaram Hurkude | Rana Rajpal Singh

Punjab
State Coordinator : Gurnam Kanwar
Field Investigators : Devinder Nangli | Balkaran Singh Brar | Sandeep Singh Dolike
Tamil Nadu
State Coordinator : Suresh Kanna
Field Investigators : Sumati | Mahendran | John
West Bengal
State Coordinator : Dr. Sudipta Bhattacharya
Field Investigators : Rajiv De | Samir Paramanik

DATA COMPILATION
Farokh Daji | Roshan Nair | Archishman Raju | Sachin Shrivastava | Vibhor Mishra

TRANSLATION
Tamil : Vatsala Raman
Malayalam : Ms. Joseph | Tibin Thomas
Punjabi : Sandeep Singh Dolike
Telugu : Rajeshwari Rao
Marathi : Mahadeo Sukhtankar
Bengali : Rajeev De

Report Preparation
Rajnish Shrivastav | Mohit Srivastava | Shruti Jain | Manish Shrivastava
Cover Design
Rajnish Shrivastava

* We would like to remember Late Comrade R P Nene here who not only helped
organising the regional meetings in Pune with Shanta Tai Ranaede very enthusiastically
but also bestowed us with his encyclopedic knowledge.

We shall not lose heart, no matter which turn history takes. But we shall not
allow history to take any turn without our participation, without the active
intervention of the advanced class.
V. I Lenin (From The Land Question and The Rural Poor)

Agrarian Crisis - Life at Stake in Rural India

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Agrarian Crisis - Life at Stake in Rural India

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

About the cover

In December, 1946, the Communist Party of India sent Somnath Hore to

Potrebbero piacerti anche