CHAPTER I

The Problem

•••• On the average, in the whole of India., every hundred cultivators employ 25la.bouxers, but the numberva.ries in the main provinces from 2 in Assam, 10 in the Punjab, 12 in Bengal and 16 in the United Provinces to 27 in Bunna., 33 in Bih.:'i.r and Orissa, 40 in Madras, 41 in Bombay and 59 in the Central Provinces and Bera.r. These local variations appear to be independent alike of the fertility of the soil and the density of population. It is easy to under­stanit why the num~r of field labourers should be negligible in a sparsely peopled province like Assam, where there is ample land available for all. If, however, the qUF.Lntity of land available has anything to do with the matter, one would expect to find comparatively few field labourers in the Centml Provinces and :Berar but in tha.t province the proportion of field labourers to cultivators is higher than in any other main province. It is high both in 11aclras and Bombay, which have very few points in common, while Bengal, in spite of its teeming population, has the sma:j.J,est proportion of all the main provinces except the PunjabJI

The Commissioner of the 1911 Census was apparently the first

one to observe the presence of sh.:'i.rp inter-regional differences in

the incidence of agricultural labour in India. and also point out their

rather puzzling ~ture, w~ich seemed "independent alike of the fertility

of the soil 6l;nd density of population". This regional variation in the

2

incidence of a.gricul tural labourers is in essence the concern of this

thesis. There did not seem to be an easy explanation for these patterns y .

in 1'911 nor does there seem to be one for the contemporary variations

' either. Thus, one resea:rcher trying to explain the. variations present

in the early 1970s had to admit the influence of "other ecological;

demogr.aphic and institutio~l factors".2/

Even a cursory examimtion of the present day spatial pattern will

indicate th,'tt the:z:e a:z:e sharp differences across states, :z:egi.ons ancl

districts, Table 1.1 presents two estimates of two different measures

of the incidence of agricultural labourers in ~r.al India.4/

Even if one were to disrega:ro the hill states of Assam, Himacha~

Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir or the sparsely populated .state of Rajasthan,

the magnitude of variation remains striking: 16% to 34% in the Census -and

1()% .to 3896 in the Rur.al Labour Enquiry. Furthermore, the statewise figums

do not tell the whole story. The spatial pattern across districts indicates

tha.t much of the inter-mgional variation is hidden in the mo:z:e aggregate

state estimates. Map 1.1 presents the district-wise incidence of mle

agricultural la.boumrs (MAL) in the rural work force in 1981,_with 242

districts grouped into quartiles.2/

It would appear that besides sh:'l.ring the same level of incidence of

¥.AL, the districts in each quartile have little in common. Among other

things, they out across agro-olimatio zones, have a varying density of

population and sharply differing levels of agricultural productivity.

. ).1

... ..

....

....

AaAIIAH

S E A

Range of" Incidenc.e in each Quartile

I 28% - 49% II 22% - 28%

III 14% - 22% IV 0.74%- 14%

(IN Ol A)

hat of Gntttwlch

. ... ... . n

C H I N A _ _ __c...I~N D I A l ........... \, ', ,.·.

Quartile Distribution of the Incidence of Male Agricultural Labourers in the Rural Work · Fozee (242 districts)

1981

•

I. , I .

(

IIIQuartile I (Highest Incidence), 1

·I

~Quartile II (Medium High · mlm · Incidence) ·

I II (Medium Low Incidence)~

. ·;I. (Lowest Incidence') _ ).

"" It •'

. ..

Table 1 .1 : Incidence of Agricul tuml Labourers in Rural

India, 1974/75 and 1981

I I Male Agricul tuml I Agricultural Labourer

I labourers a.s a. I Households as a. pe~ state percentage of the centage of Rural House-

Male :Rural Work holds (Rural Labour . Force (Census 1981) Enquiry 1974/75)

. 1. Andhra Pmdeeh 32 36 2. Assam NA 13 ;. :Bihar 34 33 4. Guja.rat 24 23 5· Hnryana . 20 10 6. Himachal Pradesh 4 2 1. Jammu & Kashmir NA 2 8 • Ka.xna taka 24 31 9. Keml.:'\ 27 28

10. Yadhya Pradesh 21 20 11 • Maha.rashtm 27 . 32 12. Orissa 25 30 13. Punjab· 29 21 14. Rajasthan 1 4 15. Tamil Na.du 31 38 16. Tripura 25 16 17. Uttar Pradesh 16 16 18. West Bengal 31 31

All India 24 25 -· -

~: 1. NA indicates not available. 2. Sources: (a) Census ot India, 1981 .

(b) Rural Labour Engui;y, 1974/75.

For instance, the districts of th<! highest incidence (Quartile I) include

the densely populated areas of predominantly wet land paddy cultivation

{coastal Tamil Nadu and Andhm Pradesh, North :Bihar and west :Bengal) but

also both the moderately populated wheat growing Punjab districts and

J

areas of rainfed agriculture in peninsular India (Vidarbha, North ~rnataka

4

and TelengMa). In agricultuml productivity this hete:rogenei ty is

again there: from extremely low levels of productivity (in Vidarbha

nnd Telengana) right upto the very high productivity that obtains

in Pu.njab. A similar heterogeneity can be observed amongst the

districts in the other Quartiles.

Thus we see that the heterogeneity first observed in 1911

continues to this day. Indeed, we begin (Chapter II) by examining the

districtwise patterns since 1881, from which year organised ~~ta

covering the greater part of India becomes available. The· purpose

therein is to delienate the patterns across space as revealed .in

each Census between 1881 and 1981. We also examine the extent to which

the:te is a stability or convergence in the spatial variations over time .•

The presence of these shr.'l.rp regio11c~l variations ec1,n be seen

as revealing the uneven development of processes over time and space.

vie also have, in the first instance, two contending (though not

necessarily mutually exclusive) hypotheses as underlying 'explanations•

for this regional diversity. One hypothesis is the classical Lenin­

Kautsky model of differentiation of the peasantry following the

development of capitalist production in agricultu:re and the accomprunying

creation of a wage lc"lbour proletari.:'lt. The other hypothesis is one put

forward to understand the a.gr::t.rian structure in post-Independence India.

This reformulation of the Lenin-~"l.utsky model attempts to take explicit

cognisance of the persistence of smll peasant production even with

5

the penetration of C.:"l.pi tnlist production into agriculture. The ~l.'­

sistence of small. peasant production under conditions of rapid popu-

- lation growth and stunted industrialisation leads, in this model, to

the twin phenomena q,of a pau~rised peasantry and a €,JTOwing agricultural

labourer populatio.j( In an examination of the question of :the.::-"growth

of agricultural labour" in India, Chapter III considers the relevance

of these two contending hypotheses for post-~ndependence India.

The debate over the cruiracterisation of the mode of production

in agriculture in India has more often than not ignored. the historical

specificity of the agrarian structure in In<'lia. This has Iarticular

. relevance for studies on agricultural labour in In<'lia insofar as a class

of·agricultural labourers existed in India prior to the beginnings of

capitalist production and prior even to the entry of colonialism •

• Obviously, conditions of work and employment of these. labourers and

their place in the production process have all been ~onstantly changing

during the course of Indian history. But the excessive attention to

first, the effects of colonial rule ·and then to the ·development of

capitalist production have ignored the historical specificity of this

category of agricultural labourers in India. In Chapter IV we examine

the role of the caste structure as also the various influences of

colonialism on the incidence of agricultur;::l labour. These two sets

of processes are clearly important influences on the 1Il8.gnitude of the

agricultural labourer population in India. However, we argue thnt

they are unlikely to offer nro.ch by way of an 'explanation' foz; the

observed spatial Variations in the incidence of agricultural labour.

6

The Jmllti tude of influences, their uneven development, the . . . divers-ity of forms in which they act on' the incidenc.e of agricultural

labour axe all examined in Chapter V. We examine therein the dynamics

of land inequality, population growth, development of the non-agric.:ul­

tural sector, changes in technique and cropping pattem and migration.

We argue that while we do have a catalogue of the relevant proce~ses

and influences acting on the inciCI.enc~ of agricul tuml labour, their

:relative importance and the Illc"l.nner in which they work towards a higher/

lower incidence lW:v"e changed over time and axe also different from ::region

to region. Hence, given the multitude of historical and contemporary

processes acting in diverse forms in diffeiBnt zegions of the country

we suggest that an understanding of the spatial variations i·n. the

incidence of agricul tu:ml labour must be based on regional studies •.

FoDDnl econometric models based on the •associated' characteri~tics

of the incidence of agricultural labour - be they land inequa.l~ty, population

density or commercialisation- not only disregard the complexity of urid~~lying

processes but also ignoie the fact that rarely is theze a one to one corres-

pondence between the incidence of agricultural labour and these •associated'

characteristics. Our argument for regional s~ucUes is not an argument

against a larger theoretical understanding. We suggest insteacl that only

with a mom substantive understanding of the regional diversity of historical

and contemporary experiences can we arrive at a more meaningful broader

uri de rs tanding.

1

As an illustration of the complexity of historical forces

underlying the incidence of agricultural labour, we study the incidence

of agricultural labour in tm erstwhile province of Bemr (pmsent day

Varha.cl in eastern Ma.bantshtm) £:rom the mid 19th century onwards. Ever

since· the first all-India Census of· 1881, the inciden~ of agricultural

labour in this region has been one of the highest in the entim coun~ry. '

Be~ has also been one of the most c'Gmmercialised regions in India:

from the 1850s onwards the single largest crop grown has been cotton.

· In an investigation of the agrarian economy of Bemr from the

1860s onwards (Chapter VI) we show how different sets of factors

operating at different points of time have led first, to the evoaution

and then to the maintenance of a very high incidence of agricultural

labourers for over a centuey. We show how unequ.:'l.l access to land,

risks of market production, low and unstable productivity, the higher

working capital requirements of cotton cultivation, the demand for ''

hired labour emanating from cultivation on large holdings ·ancl the

labour mquirements of cotton cultivation all led to a very high

incidence of agricultural labour. Once the •cotton boom• petered out,

the lack of development of the non-agriculturai secto~ and the limited

opp9rtuni ties to migrate perpetuated this high incidence even if the

conditions which first led to this high incidence had disappeared.

If much of our discussion looks moxe at the processes unde~lying '

the •number• of agricultu:ral labou:rers in each xegion, Chapter VII

examines the fonns of employment of agricultu:ral labou:rers in colonial

and present d.:v Berar. We focus on two aspects. The first is the changes

8

in foms of employment as a mgion moves from agrarian expansion to

stagnation. The second is an examination of how the fo1.'!llS of employment

are entwined with the agricultural production process and how the work

place is the scenee of a constant (even if silent and muted) struggle

over the terms and conditions of work.

Finally, an overview of this thesis is presented in Chapter VIII.

9

Chapter I: Notes

1. Census of IndL~,· 1911 (Calcutta, 1913), Vol.I, p.413,

2. The Census Commissioner continued: "The conclusion seems to be th:~t the differences are due to social, rather than economic conditions, and that those provinces have most field labourers which contain the largest proportion of the depressed castes who a~ hereditary agreistic serfs". (loc •.2!.:h) While caste . has had much to do with the phenomenon of landless agricultural labourers in India, we shall see in Chapter IV that the conne­ction is not as straightforward as made out by the Commissioner of the 1911 Census.

3· Pranab Ba:t'dhan came to this conclusion after finding that besides inequality in land ownership, neither agricultural pro<'!uctivity nor investment. in agriculture ancl a couple of other variables could explain inter-regional clifferences in the extent of 'proletEJ.rianisa.tion'. See his "Regional Variations in the Rural Economy" in Economic ancl Political Weekly Vol.18, July 23, 1983, pp.1319-1320. His hypothesis is emmined in greater detail in Chapter V. ·

4• Enumeration of occupation in the Census of 1981 was basecl on the labour force disposition approach and the work criterion. The Rural Labour Enquiry clata, on the other hand, is estimatecl on the basis of the income criterion. The differences in the basis of measurement as well as in the actual parameter being measured have probably given rise to the discernible differences between the two estimates. A more detailed discussion of the· definitions and concepts underlying Census estiUk~tes is containecl in Appendix I.

5. This foms part of our analysis of the regional patterns between 1951 and 1981. In ox-Oer to ensure comparability, a set of 305. districts aggregated into 242 districtS/sub-regions h:'\s been selectecl. For the methodology of selection as well· as a. list of these 242 districts/sub-mgions see Appendix II. ·

6. The Ienin-Kautsky model as presentecl in (i) V.I. lenin, The Develofent of Ca.pitalism in Russia (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 reprint Chapter II and (ii) K. Kautsky, The .Agmrian Question, Translated SUIIIIIlc"l.ry

10

by J. Banaji in Harold Wolpe (ed) The Articulation of I-1odes of Production (Routledge, Londont 1980 ). On the persistence of small scale production see (i} N. Krishnaji, "Agrarian Relations and the 'Small' Peasant" (Anc'thra. Pmc'tesh Economic Association, ·second Annual Conference Papers, 1984) (ii) Krishna Bharac'twaj, "A No,te on Comme~ialisation" in K.N. Raj .!! & (eel). Essays on The Commercialisation of Indian "culture (Oxford, Delhi, 1985 • iii Amit Bhac'turi, Hussain Zillur Rahman and Ann-Lisbet Am "Persistence and Polarisation: A Study in the l)yn:"l.mics of Agrarian·Contrac'tiction", Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.13 No.3, 1986.