Embedded Hierarchies of Indian Agriculture
Midhun Krishnan
TYBSc
.jpeg)
The Indian agricultural sector has a distinctly organised agrarian class structure. Following independence, an analysis of rural Indian society revealed three primary agricultural groups and a fourth class made up of individuals engaged in non-agricultural activities. About 20% of the population is made up of those who don't engage in any kind of agricultural activities, 22% of the population is made up of landlords who own the majority of the land and 27% of the population is made up of tenants. Tenants own the land they lease out from the landowners while the majority of the population, i.e. 31% is made up of agricultural labourers who don't own any land and do all the labour in the land of landlords, big tenants, etc. Within this agrarian class structure, marginal cultivators—those who work less than two hectares of land—make up about 60% of the cultivators, followed by small cultivators—roughly 16%—who work two to five hectares, medium cultivators—roughly 6%—who work five to ten hectares, and large cultivators—roughly 18%—who work more than ten hectares of land.
In rural Indian society, a man may occasionally be a member of all three classes simultaneously. In addition to cultivating some of his own land, he may also rent more property from a larger landowner and, in an emergency, work as an agricultural labourer in other cultivators' fields. This is called the dynamics of agrarian class structure. Three terms to analyse the dynamics of agrarian class structure are:
Malik : The way that members of this class make a living is by using their property rights. They have the option to rent out their land to others in exchange for giving the Malik a share of the land's harvest. Alternatively, the Malik can decide to use agricultural labour to develop the area. Maliks typically possess vast tracts of land.
Kisan : The peasant class, whether they own land or not, is known as the Kisan. Unlike the Malik class of people, the Kisan landed elite does not possess huge tracts of land. Additionally, the Kisan class of individuals typically engages in the real physical labour required in the process of farming, whereas the Malik class does not conduct agricultural labour.
Mazdoor : The members in this class are the poorest in the village. They work in other people's fields to make a living. The wages that the people whose fields they work in give them constitute their revenue. Since these methods don't pay well, these folks typically move to other places in quest of jobs that pay more.
There is a complex relationship between caste and class. Usually the upper caste owns the majority of the land. But the upper caste who own the majority of the land may not always be Brahmins. Brahmins usually stay away from agriculture and agriculture related activities. The caste which owns a major share of the land can be called the dominant caste. For example, Jats and Rajputs of U.P., the Vokkaligas and Lingayats in Karnataka, Kammas and Reddys in Andhra Pradesh, and Jat Sikhs in Punjab. Most of the marginal and landless farmers belong to Scheduled Caste or Tribe (SC / ST) or Other Backward Classes (OBC). The reason why SC, ST and OBCs own very little or no land is because of the social hierarchy we follow from thousands of years back. For centuries the Dalit castes were not allowed to own any land. This also led to the creation of a huge workforce to perform physical activities in the land of Maliks and Kisans so that they can increase their profits by exploiting the marginalised section of the society.
Post independence land reform policies were introduced both in the Centre as well as in certain states. The first one was the abolition of the zamindari system. This was arguably the most successful land reform law ever implemented because it was able to reduce the zamindars' economic and political dominance and remove their superior rights over the land in the majority of the affected areas. The tenancy elimination and regulation acts were the other significant land reform measures that were implemented. In an effort to provide the tenants with some security, they either tried to completely abolish tenancy or to restrict rent. Land to the tiller movement launched in the early 1970s is an example of this. This movement aimed at the emancipation of the actual tillers of the land from the yoke of the landlord. Throughout the majority of the states, these laws were never applied particularly successfully. The Land Ceiling Acts constituted the third main group of land reform legislation. A family's ability to own a certain quantity of land was restricted by these regulations. The ceiling differs from area to area based on the type of land, production, and other similar considerations. Agrarian structure along with implementation of land reforms varies greatly across the country. Agrarian structures have undergone significant changes from the colonial period till present. However the inequitable distribution of resources still remains the same.
The next experiment in the agriculture sector sought to bring substantial changes both in the production and social structure is the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution was a success in terms of production. The annual wheat production in India rose from 10 million tonnes in 1960 to 73 million tonnes in 2006. The production of cereal crops tripled only with an increase of 30% of land area cultivated. These all helped India from being a food deficient country to a self sufficient country. It was also expected that the Green Revolution would bring a substantial change in the social structure of the agrarian society. The green revolution solely depended on techniques which required high investments which were affordable only for farmers belonging to the elite or upper middle class. Therefore the conditions of the lower section of the society, particularly the landless and the tenants remained the same or had worsened. With the increase in the cropping area and the use of improved farm equipment, landlords were hesitant to lease out the land to the tenants. This affected the tenant class very badly.
The Government of India initiated the liberalisation policies in the 80s and opened the market completely in 1991 with Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Finance Minister of India. Indian farmers were now fighting against competition from the international market following decades of government backing and protected markets. With the advent of MNCs in the Indian agricultural sector, contract farming became very prominent. In such ‘contract farming’ systems, the company identifies the crop to be grown, provides the seeds and other inputs, as well as the know-how and often also the working capital. In return, the farmer is assured of a market because the company guarantees that it will purchase the produce at a predetermined fixed price. While contract farming appears to provide financial security to farmers, it can also lead to greater insecurity as farmers become dependent on these companies for their livelihoods. This also shifted the agricultural production from food grain to export based production. The intervention of MNCs in agriculture also made the indigenous knowledge about agriculture irrelevant. In addition, contract farming caters primarily to the production of elite items, and because it usually requires high doses of fertilisers and pesticides, it is often not ecologically sustainable.
Over the past decade or so, with the increase in the intervention of MNCs in the agriculture sector, governments have reduced public investments in the primary sector. This led to an increase in the influence of private tycoons in the sector and their interests. But there is also an increase in private investments in the agriculture sector. The government has scaled down its agricultural development programmes, and ‘agricultural extension’ agents have been replaced in the villages by agents of seed, fertiliser and pesticide companies. These agents are often the sole source of information for farmers about new seeds or cultivation practices, and of course they have an interest in selling their products. This has led to the increased dependence of farmers on expensive fertilisers and pesticides, which has reduced their profits, put many farmers into debt, and also created an ecological crisis in rural areas.
From all these aspects we examined so far, it is very evident that the agrarian structure in India has not advanced much from where it was before independence. The number of farmers who commits suicide itself is the solid proof for this. From 2014 to 2022, 1,00,474 farmers committed suicide according to the National Crime Record Bureau data, that means nearly 30 farmers committs suicide per day. What prevents the farmers from advancing is the exploitation by the upper class along with caste conflicts. So for the advancement of the farmers, effective economic measures, caste eradication programmes should also be carried out in full swing.
References
The agrarian class structure in India, its organisation and features. (n.d.). Unacademy. https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/sociology/agrarian-class-structure-in-india/
Bhattacharya, A., Raj, P., & Pathak, N. (2023, December 18). Average 30 Farmer Suicides Per Day in Modi Govt Years Points to a Systemic Apathy. The Wire. https://thewire.in/agriculture/average-30-farmer-suicides-per-day-in-modi-govt-years-points-to-a-systemic-apathy
John, D. A., & Babu, G. R. (2021). Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.644559
NCERT. (2015). Change and Development in Rural Society. In Social Change and Development in India. National Council of Education Research and Training. https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/lesy204.pdf
The Hindu Bureau. (2023, February 1). Economic Survey 2022-23 | Growth dips, public investment stagnant in agriculture sector. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/business/agri-business/economic-survey-2022-23-growth-dips-public-investment-stagnant-in-agriculture-sector/article66455088.ece
Comments
Post a Comment