Oct-Dec.
2003
CERTAIN
ASPECTS
OF
THE
AGRARIAN
SITUATION
AND
ALTERNATIVE
POLICIES*
S.
Ramachandran
Pillai
Growing
Crisis
in
Agriculture
An
unprecedented
and
all-encompassing
agrarian
crisis
is
deepening.
India
is
moving
fast
towards
severe
food
shortage
and
starvation.
The
per
capita
availability
of
food
grain
has
declined
and
has
reached
a
level
unprecedented
in
the
last
five
decades.
The
growth
rate
of
productivity
and
production
in
agriculture
is
also
declining.
Unemployment
is
growing
fast.
The
number
of
days
of
work
available
to
a
worker
in
a
year
and
the
wages
of
agricultural
workers
are
declining.
Indebtedness
is
growing.
Many
sections
of
the
rural
poor
are
being
marginalised.
The
increasing
migration
of
agricultural
labourers,
poor
and
middle
peasants
from
the
rural
areas
is
causing
serious
social
and
economic
problems.
The
steep
fall
in
prices
of
agricultural
commodities
and
the
increase
in
prices
of
agricultural
inputs
have
adversely
affected
the
interests
of
all
sections
among
the
peasantry,
particularly
the
poor.
Poverty
is
spreading
to
new
sections
and
areas.
Starvation
deaths
and
peasant
suicides
are
increasing.
Unevenness
in
growth
and
development,
sectoral
and
spatial,
is
increasing.
Since
independence,
India
has
been
able
to
make
substantial
gains
in
agricultural
production,
including
cereal
production.
This
has
been
made
possible
because
of
increases
in
aggregate
area
sown,
the
expansion
of
irrigation
facilities,
certain
land
legislation,
the
introduction
of
high-yielding
seed,
the
use
of
fertilisers,
improved
implements,
farm
machines,
and
technology
for
pest
management,
a
price
policy
based
on
minimum
support
price
and
procurement
operations,
infrastructure
for
storage
and
cold
storage,
increase
in
investments,
improvements
in
the
trade
system
and
other
factors.
These
achievements,
however,
have
not
stopped
the
growing
crisis
in
agriculture;
the
crisis
is
caused
by
inherent
structural
defects
in
production
relations,
and
the
weakness
of
the
path
of
development
chosen
as
well
as
certain
specific
measures
taken
in
the
agrarian
sector.
Land
Reforms
Land
legislation
passed
and
implemented
in
States
by
bourgeois-landlord
State
Governments
have
failed
to
achieve
genuine
land
reform.
Left-led
State
Governments
in
West
Bengal,
Kerala
and
Tripura
alone
have
made
substantial
changes
in
land
relations
in
the
interests
of
the
overwhelming
majority
among
the
peasantry.
In
other
States,
land
concentration
remains
more
or
less
unchanged.
Breaking
land
monopoly
and
distributing
land
gratis
to
agricultural
labourers
and
poor
peasants,
destroying
the
structures
of
traditional
systems
that
hamper
the
process
of
development,
such
as
caste
and
gender
oppression
and
servitude
and
bondage
are
prerequisites
for
releasing
the
creative
energy
and
labour
enthusiasm
of
millions
of
peasants.
Such
reform
also
helps
the
political
need
to
establish
economic
and
political
citizenship
for
the
excluded
masses
in
order
to
ensure
their
integration
into
a
cohesive
nation.
The
land
legislation
of
bourgeois-landlord
governments
did
not
aim
to
abolish
landlordism
but
to
transform
semi-feudal
landlords
into
capitalist
landlords
and
to
develop
a
stratum
of
rich
peasants.
The
legislative
measures
to
abolish
statutory
landlordism
permitted
the
payment
of
huge
compensation
to
landlords
and
allowed
them
to
retain
vast
tracts
of
land.
Different
kinds
of
provisions
for
the
right
of
resumption
in
tenancy
laws
led
to
the
eviction
of
millions
of
tenants.
Loopholes
in
land
ceiling
laws
helped
landlords
keep
large
holdings
intact.
Millions
of
acres
of
surplus
land
were
neither
taken
over
nor
distributed
to
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants.
Instead
of
implementing
land
reform
measures
and
providing
facilities
for
increasing
productivity
and
production
to
the
mass
of
the
peasantry,
the
Congress
governments
relied
on
landlords
and
rich
peasants
for
agricultural
growth,
and
on
their
ability
to
make
investments
to
increase
productivity
and
production.
By
contrast,
much
progress
was
achieved
by
the
land
reform
measures
introduced
in
West
Bengal,
Kerala
and
Tripura.
The
strength
of
the
peasant
and
agricultural
worker
movements,
their
struggles
and
the
existence
of
the
Left-led
State
Governments
made
the
implementation
of
land
reform
measures
possible
in
these
States.
Land
reform
measures
were
responsible
for
noteworthy
achievements
in
advancing
the
interests
of
the
poor,
who
constitute
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
rural
people
in
these
states.
With
regard
to
achievements
in
the
West
Bengal
countryside,
Surjya
Kanta
Mishra
and
Vikas
Rawal
(2002)
write:
The
impact
of
the
wide
ranging
changes
in
power
structure
brought
out
through
land
reform
and
reorganisation
of
institutions
of
local
government
is
seen
in
various
indicators
of
economic
and
social
development
in
rural
West
Bengal.
Land
reform
and
reorganisation
of
panchayats
created
conditions
by
which
West
Bengal
emerged
from
a
long
period
of
agrarian
impasse.
In
the
1980s,
the
rate
of
growth
of
foodgrain
production
in
the
state
was
the
highest
among
the
major
foodgrain
producing
states
of
India.
Among
all
States,
West
Bengal
is
the
highest
producer
of
rice
and
the
second
highest
producer
of
potato.
Cropping
intensity
in
West
Bengal
has
increased
steadily
from
136
in
1980-81
to
180
in
2001
--
the
highest
in
the
country
next
only
to
Punjab.
The
post-land
reform
period
has
been
associated
with
large-scale
expansion
of
irrigation...
West
Bengal
has
also
improved
its
position
in
allied
sectors
like
fisheries
and
poultry.
For
more
than
a
decade,
West
Bengal
has
had
the
highest
production
of
fish
and
fish
seedlings
among
all
the
Indian
states.
In
the
1990s,
West
Bengal
had
the
highest
growth
of
per
capita
net
state
domestic
product
(NSDP)
among
all
states
in
the
country...
Economic
growth
in
West
Bengal
has
been
accompanied
by
improvement
in
levels
of
nutrition
and
decline
in
poverty.
The
NSS
data
show
that
the
per
capita
calorie
intake
in
rural
West
Bengal
increased
from
2,027
Kcal
in
1987-88
to
2,211
Kcal
in
1993-94;
in
rural
India
as
a
whole,
by
contrast,
calorie
intake
declined
from
2,221
Kcal
to
2,183
Kcal
in
the
same
period.
West
Bengal
is
the
only
state
among
the
major
states
of
India
where
monthly
per
capita
cereal
consumption
has
increased
between
1972-73
and
1993-94.
In
terms
of
the
head-count
ratio,
the
decline
in
the
proportion
of
the
rural
population
below
the
poverty
line
between
1977-78
and
1997
was
the
highest
in
West
Bengal
among
the
fifteen
most
populous
states
of
India;
the
rural
poverty
ratio
in
West
Bengal
declined
by
36.3
percentage
points
in
this
period.
West
Bengal
had
the
second
lowest
proportion
of
population
below
the
poverty
line
among
the
fourteen
most
populous
states;
in
1974,
its
rank
among
these
fourteen
states
was
eleven.
Indicators
of
human
development
also
showed
steady
improvement
in
the
State
of
West
Bengal.
The
infant
mortality
ratio
(IMR)
declined
from
92
per
thousand
in
1977
to
53
per
thousand
in
1999.
Presently,
West
Bengal
has
the
third
lowest
IMR
and
birth
rate
and
the
second
lowest
crude
death
rate
among
all
Indian
states.[1]
Skewed
Nature
of
Distribution
of
Assets
Assets
such
as
land,
agricultural
implements,
vehicles
and
transport
equipment
and
pump-sets,
tube
wells,
and
other
machinery
are
concentrated
in
the
hands
of
landlords
and
rich
peasants.
So
also
are
financial
assets,
including
access
to
institutional
credit.
This
skewed
distribution
of
assets
has
enabled
the
rich
to
garner
the
benefits
of
productivity
and
production
increases
in
the
rural
economy.
The
concentration
of
assets
in
the
hands
of
the
rich
sections
makes
the
situation
more
adverse
to
the
interest
of
the
poor.
Facilities
Provided
by
Government
The
major
portion
of
government's
grants,
including
subsidies
to
agricultural
inputs,
credit
facilities,
high-yielding
seeds,
agricultural
implements,
irrigation
and
power
facilities,
and
infrastructural
facilities
(including
facilities
for
storage
and
cold
storage)
are
cornered
by
landlords
and
rich
peasants
who
are
the
politically
influential
sections
in
the
bourgeois-landlord
political
parties
in
rural
India.
In
areas
where
the
Left
and
progressive
movements
are
weak,
these
sections
control
cooperatives
and
panchayat
raj
institutions.
The
richer
sections
make
use
of
these
institutions
for
their
narrow
benefit
and
against
the
interest
of
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
peasantry.
Liberalisation
policies,
based
on
the
retreat
of
the
state
and
surrender
to
the
capitalist
market,
have
aggravated
the
crisis
in
agriculture
further.
The
liberalisation
process
is
biased
in
favour
of
the
rich
and
against
the
interests
of
the
poor,
who
are
mainly
agricultural
labourers,
poor
peasants
and
middle
peasants.
Capitalist
Development
in
Agriculture
The
economic
and
agrarian
policies
pursued
by
successive
governments
since
Independence
have
developed
capitalist
production
relations
in
agriculture
and
have
benefited
the
rural
rich,
comprising
landlords,
capitalist
farmers,
rich
peasants
and
their
allies.
The
development
of
capitalist
production
relations
is
clearly
a
major
all-India
trend
but
there
are
regional
and
sub-regional
variations
and
unevenness.
There
are
regions
where
capitalism
in
agriculture
has
advanced
and
when
commercial
agriculture
and
cash
transactions
dominate
the
rural
economy;
there
are
regions
where
old
forms
of
landlordism
and
tenancy
and
archaic
forms
of
labour
service,
servitude
and
bondage
still
play
an
important
part
in
agrarian
relations.
Caste
divisions,
caste
oppression,
gender
oppression
and
the
exploitation
of
the
poor
by
usurers
and
merchant
capital
continue
unabated
all
over
the
country.
Capitalist
development
in
Indian
agriculture
is
not
based
on
a
resolute
destruction
of
older
forms,
but
has
been
super
imposed
on
a
swamp
of
pre-capitalist
production
relations
and
forms
of
social
organisation.
The
development
of
the
"modern"
does
not
preclude
the
continued
existence
of
the
archaic.
[Programme
of
the
Communist
Party
of
India
(Marxist)]
The
development
of
capitalist
relations
in
the
countryside
can
be
seen,
inter
alia,
in
the
proletarianisation
of
large
sections
of
the
rural
working
masses
and
the
huge
increase
in
the
number
of
agricultural
workers
as
a
proportion
of
the
rural
population,
the
differentiation
taking
place
among
the
peasantry,
the
large-scale
evictions
of
tenants,
production
for
the
market,
mechanisation
and
increased
levels
of
reinvestment
of
capital
in
agriculture
and
agricultural
related
activity.
TWO
PHASES
OF
CAPITALIST
DEVELOPMENT
The
post-independence
period
of
capitalist
development
in
agriculture
can
be
broadly
divided
into
two
phases
--
the
State-sponsored
capitalist
development
phase
and
the
liberalisation-globalisation
phase.
State-Sponsored
Capitalist
Development
Phase
During
the
State-sponsored
capitalist
development
phase,
governments
invested
in
the
expansion
of
irrigation,
power,
science
and
technology,
transport,
communication,
storage
facilities
and
so
on,
and
considerable
progress
was
made
in
these
areas.
Public
investment
in
science
and
technology
helped
develop
high-yielding
seeds
and
the
production
of
agricultural
implements
for
increasing
productivity
and
production.
Governments
also
provided
subsidies
for
the
purchase
of
agricultural
inputs.
Measures
were
also
taken
to
protect
the
interests
of
producers
by
establishing
a
minimum
support
price
mechanism
in
the
case
of
certain
crops.
Many
types
of
credit
facilities
were
also
provided.
Priority
was
given
to
increasing
food
grain
production
and
attaining
food
grain
self-sufficiency.
Many
restrictions
were
put
on
the
import
and
export
of
agricultural
commodities
in
order
to
protect
the
domestic
market.
Even
though
the
lion’s
share
of
the
benefits
of
these
measures
was
appropriated
by
landlords
and
sections
of
the
rich
peasants,
these
helped
the
agrarian
sector
achieve
certain
levels
of
growth
and
development.
The
landlords
and
the
richer
sections
that
benefited
and
gained
strength
and
assets
during
the
phase
of
State-sponsored
capitalist
development
expected
to
achieve
even
more
benefits
under
the
globalisation-liberalisation
policy
regime;
hence,
most
landlord-led
peasant
organisations
supported
the
globalisation-liberalisation
policies.
Liberalisation
Phase
The
second
phase
of
capitalist
development
during
liberalisation
period
witnessed
a
reactionary
change
in
the
policies
of
the
state.
Many
steps
have
been
taken
by
the
state
to
withdraw
from
economic
affairs
and
to
hand
over
everything
to
capitalist
market
forces
to
decide.
The
poor
have
suffered
most
during
the
period
of
liberalisation.
In
the
place
of
State-sponsored
capitalist
development,
a
strategy
of
development
based
on
trade
came
into
existence.
Most
non-Left
state
governments
are
taking
steps
to
reverse
the
land
reform
process
by
relaxing
land
ceiling
and
tenancy
laws
in
order
to
develop
the
land
market.
The
Government
of
Karnataka
has
amended
the
Land
Reform
Act
of
1961
reintroducing
land
leasing,
allowing
non-agriculturists
and
industrialists
to
own
land
and
removing
land
ceiling
for
aquaculture,
horticulture,
floriculture
and
the
housing
industry.
The
government
of
Maharashtra
has
relaxed
restrictions
on
the
conversion
of
agricultural
land
to
non-agricultural
land.
The
Agriculture
Land
Ceiling
Act
has
been
amended
to
permit
large
land
holdings.
Many
non-Left
governments
have
given
thousands
of
hectares
of
land
either
on
sale
or
on
lease
at
throwaway
prices
to
multinational
companies
and
domestic
monopolies.
Wasteland
has
been
given
to
multinational
companies
and
big
business
for
development
and
cultivation.
Instead
of
vesting
forestland
to
the
adivasis
who
cultivate
it,
the
Central
Government
has
issued
a
circular
calling
for
the
forcible
eviction
of
lakhs
of
adivasis
from
the
land.
Many
non-Left
state
governments
have
begun
the
process
of
eviction;
the
Left
Front
State
Governments
of
Tripura
and
West
Bengal
have,
however,
refused
to
implement
such
a
measure.
As
a
result
of
policies
of
liberalisation,
there
have
been
drastic
cuts
in
public
investment
in
areas
such
as
irrigation,
electricity,
science
and
technology,
and
infrastructural
facilities.
Public
sector
investment
played
a
crucial
role
in
the
development
of
irrigation,
power,
agricultural
research,
roads,
markets
and
communications.
As
a
result
of
current
policies
of
liberalisation,
investment
in
agriculture
declined
from
1.6
per
cent
of
the
GDP
in
1993-94
to
1.3
per
cent
of
the
GDP
in
1998-99.
This
decline
was
mainly
due
to
the
fall
in
public
investment.
The
share
of
agriculture
and
allied
sectors
in
total
gross
capital
formation
(GCF)
also
declined
during
the
period
of
liberalisation
(see
Table
1).
Contrary
to
what
was
claimed
at
the
time
of
initiating
this
process,
liberalisation
policies
have
been
responsible
for
the
decline
in
investment.
Investments
in
public
health
and
public
education
have
declined.
Privatisation
in
these
spheres
has
the
effect
of
denying
the
poor
access
to
facilities
for
health
and
education.
The
credit-deposit
ratio
is
an
important
indicator
of
the
degree
of
involvement
of
banks
in
lending.
The
credit-deposit
ratio
of
rural
branches
of
commercial
banks
in
the
country
as
a
whole
has
declined
from
69
per
cent
in
1991
to
40
per
cent
in
2001.
The
decline
in
the
rural
credit-deposit
ratio
has
a
direct
bearing
on
capital
formation
in
rural
India.
The
government
has
reduced
subsidies
provided
to
all
agricultural
inputs,
including
seeds,
water
and
electricity
charges,
fertiliser,
pesticides,
and
agricultural
implements.
Another
consequence
of
the
liberalisation
programme
is
the
removal
of
all
restrictions
on
import
and
export,
other
than
tariffs.
Liberalisation
is
also
leading
to
the
privatisation
of
water
and
the
creation
of
water
monopolies.
The
World
Bank
policy
paper
on
liberalisation
of
agriculture
recommends
the
creation
of
“markets
in
tradable
water
rights.”
Through
this,
water
can
be
diverted
from
common
peasants
to
corporate
super
farms.
The
new
agricultural
policy
of
the
Karnataka
government
stands
for
large
corporations
and
agri-businesses
gaining
monopoly
control
over
water.
The
sale
of
Ganga
water
to
the
French
company
Ondeo
Degremont
for
the
Sonia
Vihar
Water
Treatment
Plant
is
another
example.
Bio-diversity,
which
has
been
the
common
property
of
farmers
and
local
communities,
is
being
transformed
into
the
private
property
of
a
handful
of
corporations
such
as
Monsanto,
Syngenta,
Dupont,
Dow,
and
Bayer.
Control
over
seed
means
control
over
agriculture;
Monsanto,
for
instance,
clearly
uses
technology
to
force
farmers
into
seed
dependency.
Corporate
seeds
are
creating
difficulties
for
peasants
because
of
the
high
costs
of
seed,
high
dependence
on
costly
inputs
(pesticides
and
herbicides)
and
high
levels
of
unreliability
and
crop
failure.
Cotton
cultivators
in
Maharashtra,
Andhra
Pradesh
and
Karnataka
complained
that
the
Bt
cotton
plants
were
not
in
fact
protected
from
pests,
including
the
American
Bollworm.
The
public
distribution
system
is
being
dismantled.
The
targeted
public
distribution
system
has
proved
to
be
an
utter
failure,
and
the
Antyodaya
scheme
woefully
inadequate
in
its
coverage.
Over
the
last
three
years,
the
BJP-led
Central
government
has
increased
the
price
of
wheat
for
“above
poverty
line”
households
by
85
per
cent
and
the
price
of
rice
for
“above
poverty
line”
households
by
61
per
cent.
In
2001,
the
Central
government
increased
the
price
of
wheat
for
“below
poverty
line”
households
by
66
per
cent
and
the
price
of
rice
for
“below
poverty
line”
households
by
62
per
cent.
Recurring
floods
and
drought
have
made
serious
changes
in
the
environment
and
the
intensity
of
the
adverse
effects
is
increasing
year
by
year.
The
government
is
not
taking
any
appropriate
remedial
measures.
Erosion
is
taking
place
at
an
alarming
level
and
a
vast
extent
of
land
has
been
made
unsuitable
for
cultivation.
The
situation
is
fast
deteriorating
in
most
parts
of
the
North-East.
Government
intervention
to
combat
natural
disaster,
particularly
in
the
form
of
compensation
and
rehabilitation
measures,
has
been
very
inadequate.
MAJOR
EFFECTS
OF
LIBERALISATION
Decline
in
Growth
Rate
of
Production
and
Productivity
Liberalisation
has
led
to
an
overall
decline
in
the
rate
of
productivity
and
production
in
agriculture,
particularly
with
regard
to
food.
The
overall
growth
rate
of
crop
production
declined
from
3.72
per
cent
per
annum
between
1979-80
and
1989-90
to
2.29
per
cent
per
annum
between
1989-90
and
1999-2000;
and
productivity
declined
from
2.99
per
cent
per
annum
to
1.21
per
cent
per
annum
over
the
same
periods.
The
growth
rate
of
food
grain
production
declined
from
3.54
per
cent
per
annum
during
1980s
to
1.92
per
cent
per
annum
in
the
1990s.
The
growth
rate
of
productivity
in
food
grain,
which
was
3.3
per
cent
per
annum
in
the
1980s,
declined
to
1.32
per
cent
in
the
1990s.
The
rate
of
growth
of
production
of
non-foodgrain
crops
fell
from
4.02
per
cent
per
annum
in
the
1980s
to
2.83
per
cent
per
annum
in
the
1990s.
Over
the
period
of
the
ninth
five-year
plan,
the
average
annual
growth
rate
of
food
grain
production
declined
to
1.1
per
cent,
a
rate
that
is
lower
than
the
population
growth
rate
between
1991
and
2001,
which
was
1.9
per
cent.
The
per
capita
net
availability
of
cereals
and
pulses,
which
was
510.1
grams
per
day
in
1991,
declined
to
414.1
grams
per
day
in
2001.
The
performance
of
the
agricultural
sector
during
the
ninth
five
year
plan
period
was
below
the
targeted
growth
rate.
The
average
annual
growth
rate
achieved
during
the
ninth
plan
was
estimated
to
be
only
2.06
per
cent,
against
a
target
of
3.9
per
cent.
The
share
of
agriculture
to
the
GDP
has
declined
from
61
per
cent
in
1950-51
to
24.2
per
cent
in
2001-02.
But
the
population
dependent
on
agriculture
has
declined
marginally
from
77
per
cent
to
69
per
cent
during
this
period.
The
persistent
decline
in
the
relative
productivity
and
income
of
agricultural
worker
is
a
serious
disturbing
trend.
Productivity
per
worker
in
non-agricultural
activity
was
1.8
times
that
of
an
agricultural
worker
in
1950;
it
had
risen
to
4.3
times
that
of
an
agricultural
worker
in
1997.
Workforce
diversification
is
also
not
taking
place
in
India.
One
of
the
other
disturbing
features
of
current
development
is
the
very
low
employment
generating
potential
of
growth
in
the
tertiary
sector,
which
was
the
fastest
growing
sector
during
this
period.
In
the
earlier
period,
agriculture
was
a
fast
growing
sector
but
it
had
a
very
high
employment
potential.
The
result
is
the
increasing
concentration
of
workforce
in
agriculture
and
continuous
decline
of
relative
productivity,
income
and
living
conditions
of
workers
engaged
in
agriculture.
Price
Crash
The
liberalisation
policies
and
removal
of
quantitative
restrictions
on
import
of
agricultural
commodities
has
led
to
sharp
falls
in
the
prices
of
many
crops
in
India.
According
to
Dr.
Vandana
Shiva,
"Indian
peasants
are
losing
more
than
Rs.
1,16,200
crores
per
year
due
to
falling
farm
prices
of
staple
foods
and
cash
crops.”
This
period
also
witnessed
very
wide
fluctuations
in
the
prices
of
many
crops.
Resource-poor
sections
of
the
rural
population
are
worst
affected
by
fluctuations
in
prices.
Major
Sufferers
--
Agricultural
Workers
and
Poor
Peasants
Agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
are
the
worst
sufferers
of
the
policies
of
the
government.
A
large
proportion
of
them
come
from
dalit,
adivasis
and
other
backward
classes.
The
proportion
of
landless
agricultural
workers
in
the
rural
population
increased
from
25
per
cent
in
1981
to
over
40
per
cent
in
2002.
This
indicates
the
growing
pauperisation
of
the
poorer
sections
of
the
peasantry
and
their
growing
alienation
from
land,
which
forces
them
to
join
the
ranks
of
landless
agricultural
labourers.
The
average
number
of
days
of
work
available
to
an
agricultural
worker
in
a
year
slumped
from
123
a
year
in
the
1980s
to
78
in
the
1990s.
NSS
data
show
that
the
annual
growth
rate
of
rural
employment
has
plunged
from
2.03
per
cent
between
1987-88
and
1993-94
to
just
0.58
per
cent
between
1993-94
and
1999-2000.
A
large
number
of
retrenched
workers
from
the
cities
have
returned
to
the
villages
and
have
added
to
the
number
of
rural
unemployed.
The
reduction
in
rural
employment
schemes
by
the
Central
and
State
Governments
have
also
adversely
affected
the
employment
situation
in
the
countryside.
Agricultural
workers
are
subjected
to
the
severest
forms
of
exploitation.
The
decline
in
public
investment
and
the
reduction
of
subsidies
to
agricultural
inputs
have
increased
the
difficulties
of
the
poor
and
middle
peasants.
They
also
face
difficulties
in
getting
institutional
credit
at
affordable
rates
of
interest
and
hence
have
to
rely
on
moneylenders
who
advance
loans
at
exorbitant
rates
of
interest.
Expectations
of
Market
Access
Not
Fulfilled
The
Government
of
India
and
many
landlord-led
peasant
organisations
were
very
keen
to
bring
agriculture
within
the
purview
of
GATT.
India,
from
the
very
beginning
of
the
Uruguay
round
of
discussions
at
Punta
Del
Este
in
September,
1986,
took
the
stand
that
“agriculture”
should
be
brought
within
the
purview
of
GATT.
In
the
present
changed
world
situation,
the
imperialist
countries
are
exerting
pressure
on
developing
countries
through
international
institutions
like
IMF,
World
Bank
and
WTO
to
accept
new
conditions
and
new
forms
of
exploitation.
These
pressures
and
the
expectations
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
sections
prompted
government
of
India
to
take
the
stand
that
“agriculture”
be
brought
within
the
purview
of
GATT.
The
Government
of
India
and
the
landlord
sections
expected
that
the
withdrawal
of
subsidies
by
the
developed
countries
would
result
in
a
significant
increase
in
exports
of
tradable
agricultural
goods.
Since
agriculture
is
backward
and
labour-intensive,
this
would
not
only
provide
more
employment
to
agricultural
workers
but
would
also
help
raise
their
productivity
and
incomes.
Agro-processing
industries
would
also
develop
and
this
would
lead
to
a
gradual
diversification
of
the
labour
force,
away
from
agriculture
and
into
non-agricultural
occupations.
Investment
in
agriculture
and
agro-processing
industries
would
also
increase,
leading
to
progress
and
prosperity.
These
high
expectations
were
reflected
in
the
inaugural
address
of
Shri
Pranab
Mukherjee,
then
Commerce
Minister
in
the
Congress
Government
at
the
Centre,
at
a
symposium
on
the
impact
of
the
Uruguay
Round
on
agro-exports
held
in
August,
1994:
Coming
to
the
area
of
trade
in
agriculture...I
would
like
to
emphasise
that
India
was
one
of
the
leading
developing
nations
which
initiated
from
the
very
beginning
of
the
Uruguay
round
of
discussions
at
Punta
Del
Este
in
September
1986,
that
"Agriculture"
should
be
brought
within
the
purview
of
GATT.
The
need
for
liberalisation
in
the
world
trade
in
agriculture
was
felt
due
to
extensive
subsidisation
by
the
developed
countries
which
led
to
distortion
in
the
prices
of
agricultural
commodities.
As
a
result,
the
poor
and
developing
countries
like
India
were
finding
it
difficult
to
have
access
to
the
markets
of
agricultural
products
in
the
developed
and
developing
countries.
A
note
circulated
by
the
Ministry
of
Agriculture
at
a
meeting
of
representatives
of
peasant
organisations
and
political
parties
held
on
September
13,
2000
in
New
Delhi
explained
what
the
Government
expected
from
liberalisation
and
what
happened
subsequently.
During
the
Uruguay
round,
it
was
expected
that
pursuant
to
the
Agreement
on
Agriculture,
distortions
in
agricultural
trade
would
be
reduced
and
scope
for
exports
of
products
from
developing
countries
would
increase.
The
anticipated
increase
in
exports
of
agricultural
products
from
developing
countries
has
not
been
realised.
It
was
also
expected
that
the
contemplated
fair
trading
regime
would
help
the
efficient
producers
in
realising
higher
prices
for
their
products.
On
the
contrary,
prices
of
most
agricultural
commodities
are
declining
in
the
world
markets.
It
was
anticipated
that
due
to
the
reduction
in
domestic
support
in
developed
countries,
cereal
production
would
shift
from
developed
to
developing
countries.
Empirical
evidence,
however,
shows
that
there
has
not
been
much
change
in
the
pattern
of
world
cereals
production
and
exports.
A
number
of
developed
countries
have
continued
to
provide
high
domestic
support
to
their
agricultural
sectors.
At
best
the
policies
in
many
developed
countries
have
only
been
cosmetically
altered
by
shifting
the
support
from
one
box
to
another.
The
level
of
support
can
be
gauged
from
the
fact
that
the
level
of
subsidy
other
than
that
allowed
under
the
green
box,
in
1995,
in
some
developed
countries
was
around
30%
of
the
GDP
contributed
by
their
agriculture
sectors.
In
absolute
terms,
the
total
farm
support
in
the
developed
countries
(OECD)
increased
by
8%
to
363
billion
US
dollars
in
1998.
Reportedly
in
response
to
a
collapse
in
commodity
prices,
for
the
past
two
years,
US
Congress
has
approved
a
total
of
$15
billion
worth
of
emergency
farm
aid
during
the
last
three
years.
The
continuation
of
the
high
domestic
support
to
agriculture
in
many
developed
countries
is
a
cause
of
concern
as
they
encourage
over-production
in
these
countries
leading
to
low
levels
of
international
prices.
It
is
obvious,
therefore,
that
benefits
to
developing
countries
in
terms
of
increasing
their
exports
will
only
occur
from
complete
elimination
of
export
subsidies
and
substantial
reduction
in
domestic
support
in
the
developed
countries.
In
this
context,
it
may
be
in
the
interest
of
India
to
demand
a
substantial
reduction
in
the
domestic
support
and
export
subsidies
in
developed
countries.
Market
access
to
the
developed
countries
is
hampered
by
persistent
protection
by
high
tariffs
and
other
barriers.
In
a
recent
study
of
14
countries,
FAO
concluded
that
there
was
little
change
in
the
volume
exported
or
in
diversification
of
products
and
destination.
Tariff
peaks
continue
to
block
exports
from
developing
countries
to
the
developed
world.
Tariffs
still
remain
very
high
in
certain
sectors,
specially,
in
cereals,
sugar
and
dairy
products.
Tariff
escalation
(increase
in
tariff
with
successive
stages
of
processing)
continues
to
block
exports
of
value
added
products
from
developing
countries
to
the
developed
countries.
Sanitary
and
phytosanitary
(SPS)
issues
continue
to
be
a
major
barrier
in
diversifying
exports
in
horticulture
and
meat
items.
Fresh
commitments
should,
therefore,
be
negotiated
to
substantially
improve
market
access
for
products
of
particular
interest
to
developing
countries.
The
Government
of
India
claimed
that
it
took
a
firm
position
in
the
ministerial
conference
of
the
World
Trade
Organisation
in
Cancun
in
Mexico
against
the
developed
countries
along
with
other
developing
countries
and
that
that
led
to
the
stalemate.
Nobody
disputes
the
fact
that
the
Government
of
India
took
a
position
demanding
reduction
of
domestic
and
export
subsidies
given
by
the
developed
countries.
But
the
Government
of
India
and
the
landlord
sections
are
trying
to
create
an
impression
that
if
the
developed
countries
reduce
their
domestic
and
export
subsidies
and
peak
tariff
rates,
Indian
agricultural
commodities
will
get
market
access
and
the
situation
will
change
radically
in
favour
of
Indian
agriculture.
The
need
to
demand
reduction
of
subsidies
and
peak
tariff
rates
of
the
developed
countries
cannot
be
disputed.
India
can
also
ask
for
a
"development
box"
or
"food
security
box"
similar
to
"green
box"
or
"blue
box",
where
the
domestic
support
given
is
excluded
from
the
calculation
of
total
aggregate
measure
of
support
(total
AMS).
India
--
Certain
Important
Specificities
The
strategy
of
market-oriented
development
cannot
bring
development
and
progress.
For
the
vast
majority
of
the
peasantry
in
India,
agriculture
continues
to
be
subsistence
cultivation
and
not
a
commercial
venture.
The
proportion
of
poor
and
middle
peasants
who
hold
operational
holdings
that
are
not
more
than
5
acres
is
very
high
in
India
and
their
numbers
are
growing
with
the
development
of
capitalist
production
relations
(see
Table
2).
Table
2
shows
that
three-fourths
of
all
operational
holdings
belong
to
poor
and
middle
peasants.
In
India,
the
other
important
issue
to
be
addressed
is
the
wide
regional
variation
in
productivity
and
production.
Productivity
levels
are
higher
where
irrigation
is
available.
Peasants,
particularly
poor
peasants,
living
and
cultivating
in
those
areas
where
the
productivity
level
is
below
the
average
level
suffer
many
disadvantages.
When
the
minimum
support
price
(MSP)
is
announced
by
the
Government,
there
have
always
been
complaints
about
the
low
level
of
the
MSP
from
peasants
who
live
in
those
areas
where
the
productivity
level
is
comparatively
low.
Kerala
coconut
cultivators
always
complain
about
the
copra
MSP
announced
by
the
Government
of
India.
The
difference
in
the
productivity
level
of
sugarcane,
cotton
and
other
cash
crops
in
different
regions
is
another
perennial
problem.
Another
feature
of
Indian
agriculture
is
that,
owing
to
regional
agro-climatic
differences,
most
crops
are
region-specific.
Rubber,
coconut
and
many
spices
are
concentrated
in
Kerala.
Oil
seeds
are
concentrated
in
dry
and
rain-fed
areas.
Rice
is
concentrated
in
areas
of
heavy
rainfall
and
irrigated
areas.
If
edible
oil
is
imported
freely
because
of
its
relatively
low
price
in
the
international
market,
there
is
no
choice
for
the
dry
land
farmers
but
to
change
to
other
crops.
The
economies
of
oilseed
mono-crop
areas
would
suffer.
Cropping
patterns
in
India
are
determined
by
specific
agro-climatic
situations
and
there
is
little
room
for
flexibility
in
the
choice
of
cropping
pattern.
In
the
present
circumstances,
the
peasantry
will
suffer
great
difficulties
if
free
trade
is
allowed.
Productivity
and
Production
Increase
--
The
Crucial
Issue
The
problems
of
the
peasantry
and
agriculture
can
only
be
solved
by
increasing
productivity
and
production
and
ensuring
equitable
distribution.
The
increase
in
productivity
and
production
is
dependent
on
releasing
the
creative
energy
and
labour
enthusiasm
of
millions
of
peasants
by
breaking
up
land
concentration
and
traditional
systems
of
exploitation
and
by
distributing
land
to
agricultural
labourers
and
poor
peasants.
Steps
should
be
taken
to
protect
the
interests
of
the
poor
from
disadvantages
hthat
flow
from
the
skewed
distribution
of
assets.
The
major
share
of
concessions
and
benefits
to
the
countryside
should
reach
the
disadvantaged
sections.
The
productivity
level
of
most
crops
in
India
is
below
the
world
average
level
(see
Table
3).
In
the
context
of
an
emerging
world
market,
the
productivity
level
of
crops
in
India
needs
to
be
raised
to
world
average
levels.
The
interests
of
the
peasantry
and
agriculture
cannot
be
protected
without
increasing
productivity
and
production.
Serious
attempts
should
be
made
in
this
direction.
There
has
been
general
improvement
in
the
yield
of
cereals
over
the
years
globally.
But
the
improvement
in
yield
achieved
by
India
is
very
minor.
For
example,
France
had
the
best
cereal
yield
at
7126
kilogram
per
hectare
in
1996-98
followed
by
Egypt
at
6595
kilogram
per
hectare.
Yields
were
high
--
more
than
six
tonnes
per
hectare
--
in
Germany,
Japan
and
the
US.
The
yield
of
cereals
in
China
was
more
than
twice
than
that
of
India.
Yields
inBrazil
and
Germany
also
increased
substantially
(see
Table
4).
Peasantry
--
Different
Sections
Agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
constitute
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
rural
workers
in
India.
They
are
subjected
to
ruthless
exploitation
by
landlords,
capitalists
and
by
globalisation
policies.
The
middle
peasants
are
exploited
by
landlords
and
usurers
and
the
capitalist
market
controlled
by
big
companies
and
multinational
corporations.
Rich
peasants
constitute
an
influential
section
among
the
peasantry
and
certain
sections
among
them
have
gained
very
much
from
post-Independence
agricultural
policies.
They
employ
agricultural
workers
and
have
contradictions
with
them.
But
they
are
also
adversely
affected
by
constant
fluctuations
in
prices
and
exploited
by
the
market
controlled
by
big
business
and
MNCs.
Even
though
many
of
them
are
inclined
to
join
the
capitalist
landlord
class,
the
difficulties
they
face
also
force
them
to
oppose
the
policies
of
the
Government.
Even
landlord
sections
are
facing
certain
difficulties
as
a
result
of
steep
price
falls
and
price
fluctuations
under
the
liberalisation-globalisation
regime.
They
stand
for
reducing
domestic
and
export
subsidies
and
tariff
peaks
in
the
developed
countries
and
other
such
demands.
Emerging
Contradictions
The
present
situation
is
characterised
by
the
emergence
of
two
important
contradictions.
First,
the
sharp
division
between
the
rural
rich
comprising
the
landlords,
capitalist
farmers
and
their
allies
on
the
one
hand
and
the
mass
of
the
peasantry
mainly
agricultural
workers,
poor
peasants
and
artisans
on
the
other.
The
second
is
the
growing
opposition
to
imperialist-driven
globalisation
and
liberalisation
policies
not
only
from
among
the
mass
of
the
peasantry
but
also
from
sections
of
the
rural
rich.
A
powerful
agrarian
movement
has
to
be
built
on
alternative
policies
centred
on
the
interests
of
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
who
constitute
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
peasantry
and
who
suffer
most
due
to
the
growth
of
capitalism
and
liberalisation-globalisation
policies.
The
interest
of
the
middle
peasants
and
genuine
interest
of
the
rich
peasants
and
the
agriculture
can
only
be
protected
by
such
alternative
policies.
The
market-driven
liberalisation-globalisation
process
in
agriculture
is
strongly
biased
towards
richer
sections,
landlords
and
also
prosperous
regions.
The
richer
sections
oppose
the
high
subsidies
given
by
developed
countries,
peak
tariff
rates
and
inequitous
provisions
of
the
agreement
on
agriculture
as
they
are
against
their
interests.
Some
landlord-led
organisations
that
supported
liberalisation
policies
have
now
begun
to
oppose
them.
The
agrarian
movement
should
support
whoever
comes
forward
to
oppose
any
of
the
policy
measures
of
liberalisation
and
globalisation.
But
some
changes
in
such
policies
alone
cannot
solve
the
real
problems
faced
by
Indian
agriculture
and
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
peasantry
in
the
country.
An
alternative
that
is
centred
on
the
interests
of
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
and
also
works
in
defence
of
the
genuine
interests
of
middle
and
rich
peasants
alone
can
find
a
solution
to
all
problems.
It
is
also
necessary
to
wean
away
these
sections
of
the
peasantry
from
the
ideological
influence
of
landlords
and
other
richer
sections
to
build
a
powerful
agrarian
movement
based
on
the
genuine
interests
of
the
peasantry,
agriculture
and
the
country.
A
powerful
all-India
agrarian
movement
can
be
built
only
through
struggles
against
the
policies
of
the
state,
which
is
the
organ
of
the
class
rule
of
the
bourgeoisie
and
landlords
led
by
the
big
bourgeoisie
who
are
increasingly
collaborating
with
foreign
finance
capital
in
pursuit
of
the
capitalist
path
of
development.
Alternative
Policies
The
present
trade-oriented
strategy
of
agricultural
development
should
be
rejected
and
an
alternative
policy
of
development
that
stands
for
active
intervention
by
the
state
to
increase
productivity
and
production
in
agriculture
should
be
implemented
in
its
place.
The
great
unevenness
in
agricultural
development
--
both
spatial
and
sectional
--
in
India
creates
great
difficulties
for
the
poor
and
for
peasants
living
in
backward
areas.
The
state
should
make
appropriate
interventions
in
developing
backward
areas.
The
persistence
of
poverty
and
unemployment
in
rural
India
can
only
be
solved
by
increasing
productivity
and
production
in
agriculture
and
rapid
industrialisation.
If
food
security
is
to
be
ensured
over
time,
production
and
yields
must
increase.
Given
the
emerging
globalisation
of
agricultural
markets,
increases
in
yield
are
the
starting
point
for
the
protection
of
the
peasantry
and
agriculture
in
India.
The
technological
changes
that
are
required
to
upgrade
agricultural
productivity
require
sustained
and
multi-dimensional
state
intervention.
An
alternative
agrarian
and
agricultural
policy
should
include
the
following
measures:
1.
Land
reforms
must
be
implemented
and
land
distributed
to
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
in
all
states
where
such
measures
have
not
been
implemented.
The
steps
to
reverse
land
reform
measures
must
be
resisted.
2.
The
state
must
ensure
minimum
wages
and
social
security
measures
such
as
provident
fund,
pension,
and
workers’
compensation,
in
order
to
improve
the
standards
of
living
of
agricultural
workers.
The
economic
and
social
conditions
of
agricultural
workers
should
get
adequate
attention
and
priority.
The
central
government
should
pass
a
comprehensive
law
for
agricultural
workers
in
order
to
ensure
minimum
wages
and
provide
protective
social
security.
3.
Government
should
make
investments
to
expand
and
upgrade
irrigation,
electricity,
agricultural
science
and
technology
(including
technological
applications
for
small
holdings),
transport
and
communication
facilities
in
the
countryside,
agricultural
processing
centres,
and
storage
units
(including
cold
storage
facilities).
With
regard
to
agriculture
and
rural
development,
the
policy
of
retreat
by
the
state
must
decisively
be
reversed.
4.
Steps
should
be
taken
to
ensure
food
security
for
the
people.
5.
Government
should
make
available
adequate
credit
at
low
rates
of
interest.
This
is
essential
if
peasant
investment
in
agriculture
is
to
be
sustained,
and
is
essential
to
provide
some
protection
to
the
rural
poor
from
moneylender
exploitation.
6.
Government
should
provide
subsidies
to
agricultural
inputs
to
protect
the
interest
of
the
poorer
sections
among
the
peasantry.
Additional
subsidies
should
be
given
to
peasants
farming
in
backward
areas.
Appropriate
types
of
peasants
committees
should
be
constituted
to
ensure
that
the
benefits
of
subsidies
reach
genuine
beneficiaries.
7.
A
comprehensive
crop
insurance
scheme
covering
all
crops
should
be
implemented.
8.
Government
of
India
should
take
a
firm
stand
on
WTO
related
issues
and
should
try
to
rally
other
developing
countries
to
make
making
appropriate
changes
to
eliminate
unjust
and
iniquitous
provisions
in
the
agreement
on
agriculture
in
WTO.
India
should
ask
for:
a)
Reduction
of
domestic
and
export
subsidies
of
developed
countries.
b)
Elimination
of
all
boxes
like
green,
blue
and
amber.
Fixed
allowable
minimum
subsidy
either
on
the
basis
of
per
acre
or
per
capita.
c)
Reintroduction
of
quantitative
restrictions
in
the
case
of
those
commodities
that
get
domestic
or
export
subsidies
above
the
allowable
minimum.
d)
Reduction
of
tariff
peaks.
9.
The
government
should
intervene
to
protect
the
peasantry
from
sudden
falls
in
the
prices
of
agricultural
commodities.
10.
The
public
distribution
system
should
be
universalised
and
strengthened.
11.
Panchayat
institutions
should
be
strengthened,
voluntary
cooperatives
should
be
organised
to
help
the
peasantry
in
production,
marketing,
and
primary
processing.
12.
Agro-based
industries
should
be
developed.
The
entry
of
MNCs
into
agriculture
should
be
regulated.
13.
The
state
must
take
adequate
measures
to
protect
the
environment,
regenerate
degraded
areas,
prevent
soil
erosion,
prevent
and
control
pollution,
and
conserve
forests,
wild
life,
flora
and
fauna.
The
state
must
promote
environmental
research,
the
dissemination
of
environmental
information
and
the
creation
of
environmental
awareness
among
the
people.
Table
1
Share
of
Agriculture
and
Allied
Sector
in
total
GCF
(%)
Year |
Public
Sector |
Private
Sector |
Total |
1987-88 |
10.1 |
13.2 |
11.7 |
1988-89 |
8.8 |
9.7 |
9.3 |
1989-90 |
7.5 |
9.1 |
8.4 |
1990-91 |
7.1 |
11.9 |
9.9 |
1991-92 |
6.6 |
9.9 |
8.7 |
1992-93 |
6.7 |
10.5 |
9.1 |
1993-94 |
6.9 |
9.4 |
8.4 |
1994-95 |
6.7 |
7.7 |
7.3 |
1995-96 |
7.1 |
5.9 |
6.2 |
1996-97 |
7.0 |
7.5 |
7.4 |
1997-98 |
6.2 |
7.5 |
7.1 |
1998-99 |
5.7 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
1999-2000 |
5.1 |
8.2 |
7.2 |
2000-01* |
4.9 |
8.2 |
7.1 |
*
Quick
estimates
Source:
Central
Statistical
Organisation,
New
Delhi.
Table
2
Changes
in
the
distribution
of
land
holdings
in
India
from
1980-81
to
1990-91
(Numbers
in
000'
area
in
000'
hectare)
Major
size
classes |
Number |
Area |
||||
|
1980-81 |
1985-86 |
1990-91 |
1980-81 |
1985-86 |
1990-91 |
Marginal
(below
1
hectare) |
50,122 (56.4) |
56,147 (57.8) |
63,389 (59.4) |
19,735 (12.0) |
22,042 (13.4) |
24,894 (15.1) |
Small
(1
to
2
hectare) |
16,072 (18.1) |
17,922 (18.4) |
20,092 (18.8) |
23,169 (14.2) |
25,708 (15.6) |
28,827 (17.4) |
Semi-medium
(2
to
4
hectare) |
12,455 (14.0) |
13,252 (13.6) |
13,923 (13.1) |
34,645 (21.2) |
36,666 (22.3) |
38,375 (23.2) |
Medium
(4
to
10
hectare) |
8,068 (9.1) |
7,916 (8.2) |
7,580 (7.1) |
48,470 (29.6) |
47,144 (28.6) |
44,752 (27.0) |
Large
(10
hectare
and
above) |
2,166 (2.4) |
1,918 (2.0) |
1,654 (1.6) |
37,705 (23.0) |
33,002 (20.1) |
28,659 (17.3) |
All
size
classes |
88,883 (100) |
97,155 (100) |
1,06,637 (100) |
1,63,724 (100) |
1,64,562 (100) |
1,65,507 (100) |
Note:
Figures
within
parentheses
indicate
percent
contribution.
Source:
Agricultural
Statistics
at
a
glance,
2001,
Directorate
of
Economics
and
Statistics,
Ministry
of
Agriculture,
government
of
India.
Table
3
Comparative
yield
of
principal
crops
(Kg
per
hectare)
Country |
Paddy |
Wheat |
Maize |
Groundnut |
Sugarcane |
India |
2929 |
2583 |
1667 |
913 |
68012 |
China |
6321 |
3969 |
4880 |
2799 |
85294 |
Japan |
6414 |
|
|
2336 |
|
USA |
6622 |
2872 |
8398 |
3038 |
80787 |
Indonesia |
4261 |
|
2646 |
1523 |
|
Canada |
|
2591 |
7974 |
|
|
Vietnam |
4105 |
|
|
1435 |
|
World
average |
3845 |
2711 |
4313 |
1336 |
65689 |
Rank
of
India
in
production
in
the
world |
Second
after
China |
Second
after
China |
Accounts
for
only
little
over
4%
of
world's
production |
Second
after
China |
Second
after
China |
Source:
Agriculture
at
a
glance,
2002,
Ministry
of
Agriculture.
Table
4
Improvement
in
Yield
(kg/hectare)
Country |
1979-81 |
1996-98 |
France |
4700 |
7126 |
Egypt |
4053 |
6595 |
S.
Korea |
4986 |
6450 |
Germany |
4166 |
6366 |
Japan |
5252 |
6017 |
Australia |
4143 |
5693 |
USA |
4151 |
5380 |
China |
3027 |
4821 |
Brazil |
2047 |
4081 |
Indonesia |
2837 |
3916 |
Vietnam |
2049 |
3754 |
Argentina |
2183 |
3284 |
Sri
Lanka |
2462 |
3103 |
Malaysia |
2828 |
3065 |
Thailand |
1911 |
2466 |
India |
1324 |
2200 |
Australia |
1321 |
1973 |
Cuba |
2458 |
1973 |
Source:
World
Development
Indicators,
2000
*Paper
Presented
At
The
All-India
Conference
On
Agriculture
And
Rural
Society
In
Contemporary
India,
Barddhaman,
December
17
To
20,
2003
[1]
Mishra,
Surjya
Kanta
and
Rawal,
Vikas
(2002)
“Agrarian
Relations
in
Contemporary
West
Bengal
and
Tasks
for
the
Left”,
in
Ramachandran,
V.
K.
and
Swaminathan
,
Madhura
(ed),
Agrarian
Studies:
Essays
on
Agrarian
Relations
in
Less
Developed
Countries,
Tulika
,
New
Delhi.