(a) Programmes of Rural Development, Community Development Programme, Cooperatives, Poverty Alleviation Schemes

Community Development Programme

First major step towards rural transformation after independence was taken up in first five year plan and that was through Community Development Programme. CDP initiated a process of transformation of socio-economic conditions of villages.

It was designed to promote better living for whole community with active participation of entire community. It aimed at inculcating in the villagers new desires, new incentives, now technologies and new confidence so that the vast resources of human resource may be used for the growing economic development of the country.

As the name suggested, it conceived of village as a community cutting across caste,

religious and economic differences. According to A.R. Desai, in the context of agrarian society in India, the philosophy underlying this movement was based on the following sociological assumptions.

(1) Individuals and groups forming the village community have a large number of common interests and sufficiently strong to bind them together, that the interests of different sections of community are not irreconcilably conflicting, rather they are sufficiently alike to create a general enthusiasm as well as a feeling of development for all.

(2) State is a supra class and an impartial association and that the major policies of the government are of such a nature that they wouldn’t sharpen the existing inequalities further.

(3) Government conceived of Community Development Programme, to bring about rural industrialization by developing community as a whole. It is possible because members of village community interests have shared interest if interests are promoted, it would benefit and if differences exist they can be reconciled. And there was a belief that State was impartial. That is why there was reliance on state as a basic instrument of transformation.

Community Development Programme was designed on the basis of certain earlier

experiments in rural India like that intensive rural development activities carried out at Sevagram and Sarvodaya centers in Bombay State, Firca development schemes in Madras presidency, experiments to build community centers to refuges in Nilokheri and on the times of some pilot projects initiated by Elbert Mayors at Etowah and Gorakhpur in U.P

Along with this, there was another realization that developed. Provincial autonomy was granted after GOI Act 1935. So, Indians gained experience in administration. The main problem was that, activities of various departments were not carried out in a coordinated manner. All these experiments didn’t prove to be effective. In a single program they wanted to have multiplicity of programs, simultaneously introduced to bring development. As far as the content of program is concerned, there were various dimensions to it:

(a) Constructional programs: These involved building of schools, laying roads, dispensing buildings, community centre buildings, houses for poor, drinking water resources etc.

(b) There were also irrigation which consisted of constructing wells, canals, tank etc. Along with this there were agricultural programs which introduced soil conservation techniques, reclamation of waste lands. Encouraging farmers to adopt improved seeds, manures and pesticides. It also aimed to familiarizing farmers with better agriculture implements, consolidation of land holding etc.

(c) Institutional programs were also launched. Youth clubs, women organization, Vikas Mandal, cooperative societies, veterinary dispensaries, primary schools, maternity centers, midwives training centers etc. were started. This is how a multipurpose program was envisaged.

Programme implementation

Administrative structures which consisted of four tiers consisting of Centre/State/District and Block were created. The program was highly centralized, centrally controlled and executed. There was an administrator at Centre, Divisional commissioner at state level and a District level and Block development officer at block level. At the bottom of hierarchy there was a village level worker or Gram Sevak etc. Program was launched on 2nd October 1952 more than 50 projects were launched to begin with. Each project comprised of 300 villages with a population of 2 lakhs each, three divisional blocks of 100 villages, Block of 20 units of 5 villages each and for every unit there was a Gram Sevak.

The whole program was divided into three phases. The first phase was the National

extension phase, second phase was intensive community development phase, and third phase was post intensive development phase In first phase, areas selected were subjected to provision of services on the ordinary rural development pattern. In the second phase, the blocks that were selected were subjected to a more composite and increasing government expenditure. In the post intensive phase, it was presumed that the basis for self perpetuation of the development process has been created and the need for special government intervention reduced. And gradually these areas were handed over to concerned department. And in this way the multipurpose program of rural development was initiated.

This program aroused enormous curiosity among social scientists including sociologists. It was in 1950’s and 1960’s, that they thronged Indian villages. Oscar Lewis, S.C. Dube, David Mandelbaum, Daniel Thorner etc conducted numerous studies. S.C. Dube identifies some of the salient features of this program. They are as follows:

1. This program recognized need for a unified and coordinated direction of development activities.

2. It also recognized need of associating non-officials and civil society with both planning and execution.

3. They also streamlined administrative hierarchy into four tires to reduce delays and red tapes.

4. They tried to use various local agencies to mobilize popular participation. However, very soon it was realized that program was not very successful. Balwant Rai Mehta committee laid a general consensus that the project was not successful in

achieving the targeted objectives.

The failures were:

(a) The basic assumption that village as a community of shared interests went wrong. It was found that village had over riding interests.

(b) That state will act as a neutral, impartial and supra manner proved to be wrong.

(c) Most of programs tended to benefit land owners. Gram Sewak and members of his caste received most of its benefits.

(d) High reliance on bureaucratic machinery alone for programmed implementation rendered the program ineffective.

(e) There was hardly any people’s participation. Also bureaucracy was not able to enthuse people.

(f) There was no consultation, discussion, participation and suggestions of people. Decisions were taken at the top and they were ordered to ground level functionaries.

(g) Most of the people and even bureaucrats had no social service ethos and skills. There still remained a confusion regarding powers and duties of functionaries.

(h) Most importantly there was a general apathy of public because there was no form or agency which represented people through which participation could be mobilized and held accountable for implementations of programmes.

(i) It was also realized that villagers normally showed distrust at officials with whom they hardly had any communication and who were outsiders.

Thus, at the end of the program it was found that existing inequalities stood sharpened. So, there was serious rethinking about efficiency of an area development approach. In a society characterized by gross inequalities, many programs tended to benefit the privileged. By end of 2nd FYP, we started moving away from Community Development Programme. From Community Development Programme, we moved to rural development programmes. While approach was changed to target group approach as needs and interests of different groups are different. That is why by 3rd FYP we had IADP (Intensive Agricultural District Programme) for rich, SFDP (Small Farmers' Development Programme) for landless, MFDP (Marginal Field Development Programme) for better peasants. Also separate agencies for each were created to implement these.

Cooperatives

India recently celebrated the centenary of the establishment of cooperatives in the

country. The first of these societies were started on the initiative of colonial officials

essentially as the best way of enabling farmers to get out of the clutches of usurious

money lenders seen as the major cause of widespread rural poverty. Gradually, the scope got extended beyond agricultural credit to cover numerous other activities including production, finance, marketing and processing in a wide range of sectors, as well as trading of several important farm products, consumer stores and housing.

During British Rule

It was an altruistic measure. The cooperative movement owes its origins to the initiative of a few visionary officials of the colonial government in the early 20th century. The idea of establishing cooperatives of the type that were proving to be successful in Germany was mooted in the late 19th century. Concerned with the acute poverty of the peasantry, aggravated by recurrent droughts, these cooperatives were seen essentially as a means that would enable farmers to get out of the clutches of usurious moneylenders.

The pioneering officials persuaded the colonial government to adopt an active policy of encouragement and to provide support to nurture these institutions. Weaknesses in the functioning of societies, their failure to promote thrift, excessive dependence on state support, and poor financial management became manifest early on. Their persistence and the need for corrective action too was recognised. But the remedy was seen to lie in tightening the laws and stricter government supervision to ensure greater discipline in their management, rather than by addressing structural defects of the institutions. The Royal Commission on Agriculture (1927) endorsed this approach and made strong recommendations for the continuance of state patronage for cooperatives on the ground that the “failure of cooperatives would mean failure of best hope for rural India”. This strategy has been pursued ever since. In the 1930s, the newly established Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was mandated to play a central role in expanding and strengthening credit cooperatives by providing finances to enable them to increase their lending capacity. Gradually, the scope was expanded beyond agricultural credit to cover other activities.

The pace of expansion and diversification was slow and fitful in the pre- Independence period but gathered increasing momentum after 1947.

Post Independence India

After Independence, the state policy under planning attached a great deal of importance to cooperatives as a desirable form of organisation to enable small farmers, households and cottage industries to acquire greater bargaining strength in the economy, vis-à-vis the big players, through access to credit, input and produce markets. More generally, the concept of organising economic activity in a spirit of mutual help and managing them democratically for the benefit of members rather than for profit had a wider moral and ideological appeal to the leaders of that time.

This is reflected in the prominence given to cooperation in the early five-year plans and the vigorous efforts to encourage, promote and support cooperatives. As a result, there has been a phenomenal expansion in the number of societies and the range of activities covered. Institutional lending to agriculture and allied activities has recorded a quantum growth during the last two decades as a result of the government’s aggressive policy of expanding credit to agriculture. Total disbursement in 1990-91 (Rs 128 billion) amounted to about 7% of the country’s agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). This increased to about a third of agricultural GDP by the turn of the century. By the end of the last decade it has grown further, though at a slower rate, and amounts to nearly half the agricultural GDP.

The rationale for aggressive expansion of institutional lending to agriculture and other priority sectors is that, being poor and socially disadvantaged, they cannot get credit from traditional informal sources or for that matter from commercial banks on a scale and at rates that would enable them to increase the productivity of their own resources or avail of other opportunities for raising their incomes in a growing economy. Inadequacy and high cost of credit are indeed severe constraints facing most rural households and small enterprises. But, effectiveness of policy depends on a realistic assessment of their overall credit needs and also on ensuring that credit of the magnitude required by different segments and for different activities actually reaches them. By this criterion the policy has been far less successful than the above figures suggest. Weakness

(i) In an effort to provide cheap credit to rural areas, the rates at which cooperatives are provided funds, as well as rates charged to borrowers, are kept much below rates applicable to other borrowers. The differential is so large that it is highly profitable to divert funds borrowed from cooperatives to other uses.

(ii) Central agencies, earlier RBI and latterly the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), have neither the authority nor the means to check the exploitation of this potential for misuse of funds.

(iii) The legal framework in which cooperatives are to operate is framed by state

governments. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with that framework also vests with them. But enforcement is notoriously lax. Violations of the letter and spirit of cooperative law regarding election of boards, maintenance of proper records and their audit, transparent and objective processes in granting loans, ensuring their proper use and recovery of dues, have been endemic features of cooperatives all over the country.

(iv) Enforcing discipline through supervision of a huge number of dispersed societies is impractical. More active interventions – such as appointing government officials to manage societies or superseding elected boards – have also proved ineffective. Though most of the resources of cooperatives come from public funds, there is no mechanism to ensure prudent and efficient management of funds.

(v) The opportunities for acquiring power and patronage for personal and party gain by managing these funds led to locally well-to-do and influential individuals and groups to gain control of societies. Elections became irregular, contentious and were often rigged (or countermanded) to help supporters of parties in power. The result has been a progressive deterioration in the financial health of the cooperative credit system marked by a high proportion of societies running losses, with low recoveries and huge overdues.

Way Forward (Solutions)

The strategy, therefore, has to be to find ways by creating sanctions and incentives for implementing some key elements and open up spaces for exploring healthier forms and practices. In conclusion we can outline some of the ways in which this could be done.

First, programmes for training personnel for computerisation, internal management and record-keeping, as well as improving the quality of audit of PACS, proposed as part of the revival package must be pursued vigorously.

Second, efficient and well-managed societies should be motivated and facilitated to

introduce structural and managerial reforms. The aim should be to transform them into models of true cooperatives that promote thrift, manage loans and repayments efficiently, and use surpluses for the collective benefit of their members. Third, successful and promising innovators need to be identified and brought forward to demonstrate to the wider co-operative community, including politicians and bureaucracy,

the possibilities and impact of institutional reform. The aim should be to mobilise opinion to persuade and pressurise governments to enact model cooperative laws and enable old model societies to migrate to them.

Fourth, civil society organisations could play a useful role in mobilising opinion in

support of enabling and encouraging the spread of societies under the model cooperative act. This is one way to blunt the hold of the political class to implement the much needed institutional reform.

[Andhra Pradesh has such a legislation that has made it possible to establish and operate cooperatives as truly democratic, self-reliant, efficient and dynamic institutions. Their strong and proactive civil society lobby has been able to thwart attempts to bring them under the control of the registrar of cooperatives, impede registration of such societies and allow the old-model ones to opt for the new model. This will be useful to create pressures on the government and the political class from within the cooperative movement for implementing institutional reform of wider scope and scale.]

Commitments to undertake radical legal and institutional reforms and eliminate

governmental interference in their functioning. NABARD can and should play an

important role by (a) conducting a forensic audit of the loan portfolios of a representative sample of PACs (Primary Agriculture Credit Society) in each state to check the veracity of their records, of the characteristics of their borrowers and purposes for which loans have been given, (b) impose penalties, including withholding of funds, for gross inaccuracies and misfeasance, and (c) make continued access to NABARD funds conditional on the implementation of grass-root level reforms specified in the MOUs signed by the state government.

Sixth, the MOUs signed by states are in the nature of contracts under which they have undertaken commitments to implement a series of specific reform measures in exchange for substantial central financial assistance. The possibility of invoking judicial sanctions to enforce these contractual commitments should be seriously considered.

Poverty Alleviation Programmes

At the time of independence because of the colonial legacy we inherited a society with widespread poverty. We had more than 50% population BPL who were not able to afford two square meals a day. And, poverty was overwhelmingly rural in character. 80% of the population in 1947 lived in rural areas. Right from the days of independence we were confronted with problems of wide spread poverty.

As the 1st Five Year Plan (FYP) clearly demonstrated that, the elimination of poverty can’t obviously be achieved merely by redistributing existing wealth. Nor can a programme aimed only at increasing production remove existing inequalities. The two need to be considered together. The fundamental urges of Indian people namely right to work, right to education, right to adequate income and a measure of insulation against sickness, old age, and disability have to be accommodated.

We tried to address the problem at two levels

(1) By initiating a process of sustained growth

(2) As process of growth by itself doesn’t lead to development, we thought to redistribute wealth through land reforms, CDP, DPAP etc. Even in DPSP’s we had enjoined that state has to function in a manner which progressively reduces inequality and concentration of power has to be prevented. We needed both growth and redistribution. As far as diagnosing the problem is concerned, the 1st FYP didn’t do much about it except that of Community Development Programme. Besides CDP there was no other strategy to alleviate poverty.

At the end of 1st FYP, as we had become quiet up-beat after its success in achieving targeted objectives, we embarked as a Mahalanobision strategy of growth. In the course of this strategy, we in a way moved away from the view that growth alone can’t solve the problem. In Mahalanobision strategy we tended to rely primarily on growth. We moved to target based approach. New programs like SFDP, MFDP, IADP, and DPAP were launched. Both 2nd and 3rd FYP didn’t address to eliminate poverty through employment. But still, some kind of tokenism was resorted to, when there was a criticism that plan was neglecting employment. A special rural work programme to provide 100 days of work for 2.5 million people. Also programmes for water supply and local developmental programmes for rural areas were launched.

But on the whole, as far as issue of poverty and unemployment was concerned, the view point of planners as articulated in the paper didn’t go well and even didn’t achieve the said objectives. So, a plan holiday followed. Incidence of poverty shot up during the plan holiday. There was a social ferment in India. INC for the first time lost power in many states in the 1967 general elections. Opposition parties got power at this time. The loss of power by INC is due to conspicuous neglect of agriculture plan holidays also made no investment on agriculture. In the 4th FYP, we thought of making a direct assault on poverty. While we wanted to continue with process of growth, we wanted to immediately attend to the problem of poverty. Minimum needs programme was launched. It tried to ensure food, education, housing etc. But to spend for the program there were no resources left. So, the program didn’t address to the local felt needs. At this point of time 32 million, i.e. nearly 54% of our populations were BPL.

Except for implementation of land reforms, the redistributive remained a failure. It only marginally reduced economic power by conferring ownership rights in serving tenants by abolishing intermediaries.

The 2nd FYP addressed the problem of poverty primarily as a growth problem. The idea was that, poverty in India was attributed to the colonial legacy and thus they said that Indian society is characterized by structured mass poverty which is widespread. Structured mass poverty means that poverty is built-in the economic relations that exist in society. So, they thought that, this structured mass poverty could be reduced through growth. Pitambar Pant presented a paper to the planning commission where he outlined the approach to address problem of poverty. According to him, if a sustained growth of 7% for a decade can be maintained then we can effectively address structured mass poverty through trickle down process by 2nd FYP, we adopted ‘growth’ as the strategy for solving poverty.’

Although we witnessed growth in heavy industries, growth rate of economy didn’t reach the targeted levels. The average of the growth of initial three ‘five year plans’ was only 3%. Along with this we had droughts due to neglect of agriculture in 2nd and 3rd FYP. For all these reasons inflationary spiral started developing by mid 1960’s, poverty tended to increase while agriculture production tended to decrease. Also, we learnt from Community Development Programme that area development programmes only accentuate inequality.

We realized through CDP that members of a community didn’t have common interest. Caste divisions did create a divide in members of rural community, Abandoning area development approach.

Along with there a number of other programs like RLEGP which is a target group

orientated programme for landless laborers, TRYSEM for rural youth was launched. At the state level, Tamil Nadu launched mid day meal scheme, Andhra Pradesh launched 2 Rs a kg rice etc. Also in Maharashtra, Maharashtra employment guarantee scheme (MHEGS) was launched and was also given a statutory form in 1979. The programme was to give employment to unskilled laborers who would take up manual labor. The payment was to be consistent with minimum wages Act. Regionally all these programs created durable assets.

MHEGS was seen as an alternative to constitutional provision of right to work. BY 1988-89, Maharashtra government spent nearly 3180 million annually on this scheme. All this also reduced fertility levels in South India. Because due to employment opportunities and due to subsidized, infant mortality rate declined. Also children were born with enough nutrition. These reasons along with awareness on family planning reduced fertility level and helped in controlling population explosion.

By early 1990’s, poverty obstinately lingered around 38-40%. Benefits of these programs were far below from what was expected. Though many programs were launched, many programs had leakage of funds. 85% of money was eaten up. Also benefits of these programs reached only the better off sections. Politics also intervened, due to which identification of beneficiaries were biased.

The real poor and deprived still lacked. There was no adequate information about government programs, and government relied heavily on intermediaries. Also there was no access to mass media. So, they are uninformed and unorganized. There was also lack of coordination between various departments entrusted with these programs. In this context government thought of revitalizing Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI’s). In the meanwhile there were attempts for one window addressing - all programs were merged under new name JRY, where implementing agency would be PRI’s. Later JGSRY, EAS, IAY, were stated. In 2001, SGRY started which was later modified as SJGSY. NFWP was launched in 2004.

Poverty eradication became a political compulsion. Congress adopted a leftist orientation in approach- ‘Garibi Hatao’ phase of Indian politics started. In the budget, there was greater allocation for minimum needs program. A food for work programme also started.

In 1973-74 there was hyper inflation. That was the reasons why food for work program was launched. It was to pay the poor in kind.

In 1975, all the existing programs were rechristened as twenty point program. The

incidence of poverty hovered around 52-53%. Congress lost power in 1977. Janata Party came to power. They launched Antyudaya program. ‘Ant’ referred to the rock button of society where poorest of poor lived. ‘Yudaya’ referred to their upliftment. So Janata Party started to give unsecured loans and create employment opportunities etc. In 1980, INC came back to power. Now, the focus of government was to have twin objectives at same time. The twin objectives were high growth and poverty eradication. As growth didn’t eradicate poverty, they wanted to have a different approach.

The 6th FYP, document admitted that half of population in 1980 remained BPL. This also implied that 70% of India’s populations are poor, because people who were just above BPL were no better to counter this structured mass poverty. Anti-poverty measures were initiated with renewed vigour. Antyodaya, Food for work and minimum needs programme were clubbed together and integrated rural development programme was introduced. Also a national rural employment programme which was a rehashed version of food for work programme was introduced.

We wanted to solve two problems in one stroke. We accumulated lots of food grains in FCI godowns. It was done to help farmers to give incentive. Government introduced procurement price, to avoid a glut in the market. The government ensured that market prices are high enough for remunerative prices of farmer.

Green Revolution

Initially, the new technology was tried in 1960-61 as a pilot project in seven districts and was called Intensive Agricultural District Programme (IADP). Later the High Yielding Varieties Programme (HYVP) was added to the IADP and the strategy was extended to cover the entire country. This has been called the Green Revolution. Green Revolution is one of the programmes which aim at transformation of rural economy and thereby the social setting of the people to be in tune with the encouraging trends of society. Since the mid 1960s the traditional agricultural practices are gradually being replaced by modern technology and farm practices in India and a veritable (real) revolution is taking place in India. The major achievements of the green revolution is the boost in the production of major cereals viz, wheat and rice. The production of rice increased from 35 million tons in 1960-61 to 92.8 m tons in 2006-07. The yield per hectare has also recorded an improvement from 1010 kg in 1960-61 to nearly 2000 kgs in 2004-05.

The production of wheat which at 11 million tons in 1960-61 rose to 75.53 million tons in 2006-07. The yield per hectare rose from 850 kg to 2600 kg, signifying an increase of nearly 200 percent in last 46 years.

While maize has made impressive progress, other coarse-cereals and pulses have not recorded any growth, they have registered considerable decline during this period. The green revolution did not cover pulses. The output of pulses fluctuated violently from year to year till it declined to an all time low 8 million tons in 1979-80. Even now the production of pulses is stable around 13.7 million tons (15.15 mt in 2006-7). Neither did the green revolution cover barley, ragi and minor millets which accounted for around 5 million tons in 2006 as in 1961. Thus the green revolution was confined only to HYV cereals mainly wheat, maize and jowar, while the rice output increased relatively at slower rate.

Social Complications of Green Revolution

As the green revolution went apace in wheat growing areas, some sociological

implications have come to the forefront. First, the necessary inputs are beyond the reach of small farmers. Only farmers with ten acres or more of land are able to exploit the situation. This is clearly revealed by the fact that some regions with relatively land holdings such as Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh have done better than others – such as Bihar where small farmers preponderate. It has come as a revelation that rural poverty has become deeper and has more wider ramification than though earlier.

Even in Punjab it is estimated that only 10 to 12 per cent of the farmers have become beneficiaries of the programme. The gulf between big and medium farmers on the one hand, and the small farmers on the other has widened, leading to a new kind of social stratification.

Secondly, owing to more intensive farming, the demand for labour has not fallen, but the nature of demand, however, has changed. Labourers with better experience and superior skills are preferred. This has snapped the old ties between land owners and their labourers. Transient or seasonal labour has become more important than ever before in the economic life of the affected villages. Besides, there is resentment and unrest among local workers against both land-owners and seasonal workers. This has escalated tensions between owner and local labourers, and also threat to imported labourer. Technological changes in agriculture have had adverse effects on the distribution of income in rural areas. From his study of technological changes and distribution of gains in Indian agriculture, C.H. Hanumantha Rao concluded: Technological changes have contributed to widening the disparities in income between different regions, between small and large farmers and between land owners on the one hand, landless labourer and tenants on the other. In absolute terms, however, the gains from technological changes have been shared by the rise in the real wages and employment and in incomes of small farmers in regions experiencing technological changes.

The rich farmers in Punjab, Haryana and in some pockets of western Uttar Pradesh have been spending portion of their gains due to green revolution on conspicuous

consumption. Analyzing the green revolution, we find that it has been stunted by the variety of forces. Technological change without institutional reform has been found to worsen the socioeconomic inequalities and foster, tensions. It has been found that the traditional ethos and skills of agricultural communities such as Jats of north India, are an important input for realizing the potential of new agriculture, while other farming groups cannot easily drawn into radical developments. The spread of Green Revolution has not failed, but it has not really begun in fullest sense. The task is to broaden the technological breakthrough wherever possible and to translate it into socio-economic revolution.

Changing Modes of Production in Indian Agriculture

(Capitalist Agriculture and Rural Classes in India)

The debate over the 'mode of production in Indian agriculture' grew out of a milieu where scholars plunged in classic Marxist notions of feudalism, capitalism and imperialism confronted a changing empirical reality.

By the 1960s, important economic changes in agriculture had been initiated, and the

process of destroying pre independence forms of landlordism and laying the foundations of an industrial and infrastructural development that could supply inputs to agriculture was beginning to produce real changes.

Gail Omvedt highlights the structure and characteristics of the main rural classes viz.

capitalist farmers, middle peasants and semi-marginalized poor peasants and labourers. But this is a capitalism that is developing within a post-colonial economy totally bound up with imperialism affected in specific ways by the separation between small-scale capitalism and large-scale industry characteristic of such economies and by the still potent retrogressive impact of certain semi-feudal features of Indian social organisation, including caste and oppression of women.

In 1969, two years after Naxalbari, Ashok Rudra and two colleagues published results of a survey on capitalist farming in Punjab. Their rather negative conclusions were responded to first by Daniel Thorner, a long-time observer of India's agriculture, who had concluded from his own rural tours that a new era of capitalist agriculture was beginning:

In 1971 Utsa Patnaik supported Thorner, from her own study of 1969, that a new capitalist farmer class was indeed beginning to emerge. Clearly the 'mode of production' debate was provoked by real changes occurring in Indian agriculture, expressed politically in the Naxalbari revolt, new organising of agricultural labourers and the repression of this organising by the rural elite as symbolised in the 1968 Kilvenmani massacre (Tanjore, Tamil Nadu), first of a long series of 'atrocities on Harijans'.

Most of the important economic changes in agriculture can be said to date from the 1960s, when the process of destroying the pre-independence forms of landlordism and laying the foundations of an industrial and infrastructural development that could supply inputs to agriculture was beginning to produce real changes.

In fact, much of the 'mode of production' debate centred more on the colonial period, than on analysing whether a qualitatively different process was at work in the post-colonial phase.

Ten years later, many things seemed much clearer. To begin with, not only have the patterns that could be seen in outline in 1968-69 developed much further, but there is more data available to confirm them. These include not only many more village and regional studies, but also massive all-India government material — the Census and Agricultural Census of 1971, the National Sample Survey and All-India Debt and

Investment Survey whose jointly conducted 1971 survey of 12,452 villages is perhaps the most quoted source of information, the Rural Labour Enquiry of 8,512 villages in 1974-75, to mention only the most important.

1971 was sufficient to reflect the basic pattern of the changes in Indian agriculture.

Further, data on production itself — productivity, crop patterns, irrigation, investment

and credit, use of tractors, fertilisers and improved seeds etc. — is available for much more recent years. There is, in other words, a basis now that did not exist in 1969-70 to draw more solid empirical conclusions about the agrarian economy and class structure, though there are still important gaps in our knowledge and the state of theory; Politically also the classes that observers were barely discerning in 1970 — a Kulak or capitalist farmer class, and a rural semi-proletariat of agricultural labourers and poor peasants — are now coining forward as clearly powerful rural actors, though not in forms predicted in 1970.

Capitalist farmers were the main force behind the 'farmers' agitations' during 1980s , who were dominating the rural political scene: it is no accident that these agitations were centering in the more capitalistically developed regions, that their main demand for higher crop prices itself indicates the commercialisation of the rural economy, and that in contrast to pre-independence peasant movements they are not directed against any rural exploiter but rather seek to 'unite all peasants' with any ideology that claims the 'city' is exploiting the 'countryside'. Thus they show the kulaks on the offensive against the industrial bourgeoisie and seeking to bring other sections of the rural population under their hegemony — with some success in the case of the middle peasants and even among the poor peasants especially where the left parties were there to help them. On the other hand, the increasing incidences of 'atrocities against Harijans' and caste riots, especially those in early 80s Marathwada and Gujarat which raged in both rural and urban areas, show the capitalist farmers on the offensive against the rural poor (it is again no accident that the most mass explosions and campaigns, including that centering on Kanjhawala, have been in more capitalistic areas) and using a weapon whose potency had also been hardly expected in early days of independence — the weapon of caste divisions.

It is symptomatic of the 1980s dilemma that the question, "will the green revolution turn

into a red one" is being replaced by, "will the caste war turn into a class war"? As for the rural poor themselves, agricultural labourers, poor peasants, contract labourers and migrants, whether dalits, adivaais, Muslims or caste Hindus, have also been constantly struggling and asserting their rights, sometimes as workers, sometimes for wages or land, sometimes also as oppressed castes, nationalities or women struggling for rights as human beings.

Though their movements so far have been comparatively weak and divided — and most weak and divided precisely in the more capitalistic areas — they provide a hint of what might come once they really begin to organises. Process of Transformation of Indian Agriculture After Independence, government not only focused on the building up of a heavy industry, a public sector and infrastructure that included dams, roads and other forms of transportation, but also a series of land reforms and various village development programmes.

2 Stages of transformation

In first stage, the Zamindari Abolition Acts and Tenancy Acts were passed in various

states in the 1950s. This did not give land to the landless or land-poor; they were not

intended to. They allowed landlords to retain huge amounts of land (usually the best land) and paid generously for what was taken away; and they resulted as often in poor tenants being expelled from the land as in richer tenants getting control of the land. But they did achieve by and large the main effective slogan of the Kisan Sabha movement —that of giving land to the tenants.

They deprived big landlords to a large degree of their village power, pushed them to turn to farming through hired labour and investing in the land (here compensation money also helped), and laid a basis for the bigger tenants and rich peasant cultivators to come to power in the villages and develop as capitalist farmers.

Land concentration as such was little affected by the Acts (it should be remembered there is both feudal land concentration and capitalist land concentration, and these acts struck only at the first type). But a basis was laid for the emergence of a new class in the countryside, bigger and more broad-based than the old landlords, composed in part of some old landlords but numerically more of ex-tenants and rich peasants. This class was 'new' in its relation to the land; its members were no longer living off peasant surpluses but were hirers and exploiters of labour power. While land concentration remained as high as before, tenancy declined and effective landlessness and proletarianisation increased.

The second phase started with the Land Ceiling Acts that began to be passed from 1961 onwards, were very different from these Zamindari Abolition and Tenancy Acts. They were designed to give 'land to the landless' and were not simple anti-feudal reforms but rather challenged land property as such, whether 'capitalist' or 'feudal'.

Along with anti-feudal land reforms, came programmes to increase production. From the very beginning the Indian ruling class had seen its task of building capitalism as

including both the development of heavy industry and of fostering and transforming the small-scale sector which centred on agriculture [Shirokov, 1973|. Developments often seemed low and halting, but the government did invest, from the 1950s onwards, in irrigation, dam-building, promoting new seeds and improved breeds, long before the Ford Foundation and international agencies came along with their package programmes, selected IAVP districts, and the 'green revolution'. The spread of education, cooperative credit societies, land development banks, sugar cooperatives, agricultural universities all played a role. One of the most significant steps was the bank nationalisation of 1969, which had the effect of channelling an increased share of credit to the countryside. Perhaps more important than any specific programme or the whole 'green revolution' package was the increasing ability of the new kulak class to claim an increasing share of government resources for itself, especially after 1965

[Shetty, 1978; Mody, 1981]. Government programmes and funds played an essential role in helping the new class to increase its productive base. Finally, on the political side, the new institutions of the Panchayat raj, credit cooperatives and educational institutions, mahila mandals and similar 'village development' institutions all helped the new class maintain its hegemony in a new way over the increasingly proletarianised and restless rural majority.

All these developments took place very unevenly, for India is a vast and highly varied land, a sub-continent that has become a nation. In areas of ryotwari settlement, where strong peasant or anti-caste movements occurred, it proved easier to move against landlordism and consolidate the gains of the new kulak class. Thus south and western India and the northwest show on the whole a clearer prevalence of capitalist relations of production. (This does not necessarily mean a greater development of the productive forces: the south remains poorer even today, while Punjab and Haryana, where investment in agriculture has been high even from British times, maintain their lead in production.) In contrast, the east, northeast and central regions remain backward, with a significant amount of semi-fedual relations of production. Within these broader regions, within states, and even within districts tremendous differences remain. But on the whole a growth in agricultural production and the transformation of the agrarian relations of production, in short the development of capitalist agriculture — even though it remains a backward capitalist agriculture with tremendous hangovers of feudal relations and remnants — has characterised the Indian, countryside since independence.

Problems of Rural Labour

Rural labour refers to the workers in villages whose only source of income is their labour. They sell their labour to earn money. They have no control over land or capital. Rural labour includes tenants, agricultural labourers, other landless labourers, and artisans. Level of specialization being low in villages, many individuals are seen to be engaged in multiple activities for subsistence. Hence, many workers work in varied sectors.

Problems of those landless labour are multi-faceted. At the core of all this is the problem of low wage level and unemployment. It is estimated that on an average, they are totally unemployed for a period of about 100 days and selfemployed for about 50 days in a year. Various problems of rural labour can be studies as under:

1. Security of tenure

One of the major objectives of government's land reform movement was to ensure security of tenure of tenancy and provide minimum wages. However, the implementation has been unsatisfactory. Implementation has been uneven and landlords have made use of certain loopholes to escape the rules (G.R. Madan, 1990). For example, land owners have started declaring tenants as mere agricultural labourers. Implementation work has been successful wherever tenants have belonged to the numerically dominant caste. Otherwise tenants still face

exploitation and uncertainty of tenure.

2. Wages

A major problem faced by rural labour is that supply of labour in labour market is more than demand. As a result, wages are abysmally low. Government has instituted a minimum wages regulation law. However, it is not followed by landlords. Indeed, the National Commission on Labour has termed it as a 'dead letter'.

A view in many scholarly circles was that increase in productivity will lead to increased labour wages, by the 'trickle-down effect'. However, this view has been found to be incorrect. There has not been any perceptible rise in wages owing to green revolution, and resultant rise in productivity. Hence, agricultural labour till date are mired by extremely low wages, in spite of huge surplus value earned by land owners. A positive trend seen off late is the introduction of National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA now MGNREGA). Rural labourers get a minimum wage for 100 days of the year through NREGA. Hence, wherever NREGA is properly implemented, landlords are also forced to give at least as much wage as labourers get through NREGA.

3. Capitalist mode of farming

Prior to green revolution, Jajmani System was in operation in villages. By the jajmani system, the land owner had a social obligation to pay for the worker's welfare. The landlord-worker relation was regularized, and there was stability in the relation.

Green revolution introduced farm mechanization. Due to farm mechanization, the 'sponge effect' of agriculture was lost. Sponge effect refers to the ability of a farm to accommodate more labour. Secondly, green revolution exposed farmers to market economy. Landlords favourably adopted capitalist mode of production. In capitalist farming, profit is primary motive. To maximize profits, landlords cut down on labour. Also, jajmani system broke; landlords were no longer ready to provide for their traditional workers in lean season. When jajmani system broke, landlords hired and fired workers at will. According to Surinder Jodhka, all of the above factors have led to high rates of unemployment and underemployment. Green revolution and capitalist farming have led to polarization of classes (high inequality in incomes) and pauperization of rural labour.

4. Bonded Labour

The problem of bonded labour has substantially decreased in recent years, but still remains. Landlords do not let their

bonded labourers free and force them to declare themselves as casual labourers.

5. Problems of non-farm landless labour

Other than agricultural labourers, there are other labourers engaged in activities such as building of houses, digging of canals, construction of roads, and other public works. They mostly work under contractors and are paid low wages. As they work in groups - unlike agricultural labourers who work on individual basis - they can organize themselves to form unions and cooperatives for mutual help. However, for this they need extension support from local government.

6. Problems of artisans

The socio-economic situation of artisans had deteriorated a lot during British rule due to competition from British manufactured goods. With independence, tariff barriers were imposed on manufactured goods, and condition of artisans improved. Government has also reserved certain businesses for Village and Small Scale Industries (VSI); Khadi, handicrafts, handloom and powerloom to name a few. In spite of this, artisans face numerous problems. They face problems in procuring raw materials; they cannot afford new technology, and do not have institutional support to market their products. As a result, they are exploited by numerous middlemen. Their efficiency is low due to low levels of technology. Further, they are getting stiff competition from machine-made goods. Due to unavailability of credit facilities, they cannot go for modernization.

Due to pauperization, many skilled artisans migrate to urban areas in hope of better opportunities. This trend has, in fact, harmed them and doomed them to underemployment, slum life and exploitation in hands of informal sector industries in cities.

Migration in India

Migration has been defined as crossing of the boundary of a political or administrative unit for a certain minimum period of time. It includes the movement of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people as well as economic migrants. Internal migration refers to a move from one area (a province, district or municipality) to another within one country. It can be studied in terms of permanent as well as seasonal or cyclic migration.

Migration can either depopulate or overpopulate an area depending upon the level of economic activities and is an important process of urbanization and social change. Historically, it has been a force to the democratization of society. For example, great developed nations like US and Australia are the products of the streams of migration. In the Indian context, it paved the way for the lower caste groups to free themselves from the oppression and subjugation of traditional caste system if they moved to the urban areas. Other to it, more people migrate due to lack of opportunities in their native place rather than a spirit of exploration, thus creating social problems in the region they move to.

Causes of Migration in India

Several push and pull factors exist in the country which are responsible for the large-scale migration. The most important reason for migration in India is marriage, accounting for more than half of the migrants. This type of migration does not lead to serious social consequences, but social evils like female feticide have given rise to a large number of inter-regional marriages posing serious problems of adjustment and cultural changes as well.

Employment can be considered to another major cause of migration in the country. The root of the problem is 'jobless growth' in Indian economy, that is, despite an acceleration in the growth rate in India; the pace of creation of work opportunities has not kept pace with the growing requirement in all the regions of the country. Studies have found that the interstate movement is not very high and most people remain within the same state after migration. However literate people constitute a vast majority of the migrants. Though considered by many as a natural and, at times, a beneficial process, it has led to several problems in the Indian scenario. India has high levels of regional disparity in terms of population distribution and development indicators. Most of the north Indian states are poor in infrastructure facilities and are also highly populated. Hence a large number of people from states like Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar migrate to other states in search of jobs. Low and variable agricultural production coupled with lack of local employment opportunities are the biggest cause of movement of people outside the state. According to F.G. Bailey, in states like Orissa, landlessness and marginalization of the poor people turns out to be the main cause of them moving to other more developed regions of the country in the hope of a better livelihood. Maharashtra, Gujarat, the south Indian states and other states in northern parts of the. country like Haryana, Punjab and Delhi have become attractive destinations for the migrant population.

Though factors like internal conflicts and political unrest have not become a significant cause for migration as yet, government must guard against them in the long run, particularly in the Naxalite belt. Terrorism is also a major reason of migration in border areas as is evident from large number of Kashmiri migrants. Negative Consequences of Migration in India Though the freedom to reside in any part of the country has been enshrined in the Indian constitution as a fundamental right, experience has shown that it has only created friction points within the society. The process of migration creates problems both in areas of inmigration (place to where people go) and outmigration (place from where people leave).

First let us discuss problems of areas of in-migration which mostly happen to big urban centres. Rapid urbanization and industrialization of cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Punjab, Haryana etc. have generated more employment opportunities and also created better infrastructure. People migrate to these regions perceiving them as greener pastures. However several factors make them vulnerable as they enter new territories. They create pressure on the job market and start competing with the local populate. Since migrant people are usually more willing to work on lower wages, they dent the prospects of locals in the area getting jobs. This creates a situation of social and ethnic unrest and has even lead to violence in many states in India. Migrant population from Bihar being attacked by MNS(Maharashtra Navnirman Sena),migrant wage labourers from outside Assam attacked by ULFA - these are few incidents clearly demonstrating the social consequences of migration in India. Apart from this the increasing trend of migration to urban areas creates various problems due to unplanned nature of urbanization of these urban centres. First, masses of the poor, landless, illiterate and unskilled agricultural laborers and petty farmers from backward states of such countries make quantum jumps towards big metropolises like Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, and so forth, bypassing local small towns and small cities - which fail to give them even minimum employment. Such massive rural to metropolitan migration of distressed people is a typical characteristic of migration in India, which is leading to acute urban involution, congestion and decay. Proliferation of filthy urban slums and pavement dwelling, extreme dirtiness and very poor level of living characterize such metros. This is because such metropolises have failed to provide to migrants and residents with minimum shelter and minimum subsistence employment. Overflow of urban poverty, unemployment, extreme housing shortages, and frequent breakdowns of essential urban services. Secondly, such phenomena are occurring because-metropolises have very limited employment-generating capacity under capital-intensive industrialization, and consequently, the incoming illiterate and unskilled migrants are absorbed only in very poorly paid urban informal sectors; that are characterized by low productivity, cut-throat competition, insecurity and exploitation. Although such migration helps to avoid starvation (hence desirable), it does not improve their economic condition adequately, nor permits their social mobility. Rather, it leads to a colossal waste of human resources and of national potential. So the migrants are in fact moving from rural poverty to urban poverty.

Thirdly, such metropolises are very fast becoming the scenes of extreme social and economic inequalities wherein abundant affluence among a handful few stand hanging and over-looking abject poverty among the masses down below. These kinds of situations may create a dangerously eruptive situation - which is conducive to unleash in the near future extreme social disorder, severe class conflict, crimes, widespread violence and urban civil war. These situations urgently warrant immediate plans of action.

Apart from aforesaid problems, the areas of out-migration also face many problems mostly on account of loss of vital human resource potential which keeps these areas perpetually underdeveloped. Rural areas face shortage of skilled people because most of skilled and semiskilled people migrate to urban areas.

The demography of these areas is also altered to a large extent leaving back the women and old population at their own. It results in imbalances in Sex composition due to selective male or female migration. Large cities have unfavourable sex ratio as compared to rural areas due to high male immigration. Migration affects the women more. In the rural areas, male selective out migration leaving their wives behind puts extra physical as well mental pressure on the women which increases their vulnerability.

Remedies

There is an urgent need to formulate a planned, long-term strategy to counter the problem. Balanced regional development is the key to tackle this problem. Agriculture must be given top priority as it employs a large number of people and it is only when there is a slump in this sector that people in rural areas migrate to the cities. Dryland farming using the techniques of watershed management can cure the problem of underdevelopment in a vast portion of country.

Government must take steps to encourage private enterprise in rural and semiurban areas so that educated people do not move to bigger cities in search of jobs and suitable small and medium scale industries could be set up in the rural areas. This will also reduce pressure from the already burdened agriculture. Though the government has launched several anti-poverty and infrastructure generating schemes, most of the villages in India still do not have even the bare minimum amenities. The crux to solving this problem is to generate full-time employment opportunities in the rural areas. Further, proper implementation of Schemes like Bharat Nirman, MGNREGA, SJGSY etc. can lead to creation of vibrant village economy supported with good infrastructure to support the development of villages. Initiatives like PURA (Provision of Urban amenities in Rural Areas) must be promoted on a large scale to bridge the rural-urban divide in terms of infrastructure. Private sector too must be involved in rural infrastructure development projects by providing them incentives like taxholidays and rebates.

Further, preventive measures like planned growth and expansion of cities should be taken so that the incoming rural population can be absorbed in the cities in more efficient manner without creating any adverse effects. Schemes like JNURM, Swasthya suraksha Yojana etc. can usher in the era of cities without slums.

However, it must be noted that a decade from now, the problem that the nation will face is educational unemployment. In fact, with the expansion of rural education, 11 million children have been taken off the fields in the last decade to join the rural schooling system. The aspirations of these first-generation literates require the construction of creative strategies for mass semi-skilled employment in the near future. So, the process of "jobless growth" has to be stopped and steps has to be taken to undertake creation of employment opportunities through expansion of manufacturing and service sectors. Though it will perhaps never be possible to stop migration completely, the approach should be of managing it in such a way that no ethnic or social frictions are created across the country.

Rural areas across the country must have all the amenities to ensure that people of younger generation choose to remain in there instead of moving to the bigger cities. If they still decide to migrate to bigger cities, the choice should be dictated more by a spirit of exploration rather than compulsion to move out due to lack of opportunities.