Structural constraints in Indian agriculture
Historical Scenario In India, the possibilities of capitalist industrialization arising out of increasing productivity in the pre-capitalist agricultural system were ended under colonial rule. The rigid land revenue system and commercialization of agriculture in line with imperial interests destroyed the production base of the present different economy. Large sections of the peasants were made penniless and the landless were made landless.
In the year 1931, 32 percent of rural workers were classified as landless. On the other hand, the land and the resulting occupancy remained confined to a few hands. This division was neither used to increase agricultural productivity nor to induce growth in construction. Due to the limited size of the domestic market, both the processes were stalled. India as a colony provided not only raw materials to British industries but also markets to British manufacturers. The limited development of the construction industry replaced the craftsmen. But it could not generate enough number of jobs for the poor farmer. The uprooted farmers were forced to find opportunities to earn their livelihood in agriculture.
A market for leased land at very high rents and a labor market for wages below subsistence rates arose. The landless and poor farmers took land on lease to attain the level of producer and the landlord could get more profit by taking consumer loans as a supplement to their income, giving land on lease and usury. He had little motivation to invest in productive entrepreneurship. They produced produce in their lands by employing agricultural labourers. The specialty of these farms was the use of low cost and low level of technology. Agricultural labor was tied to these farms by lack of opportunities elsewhere, oppressive caste relations and debt bondage. As Utsa Patnaik has clearly stated that it was not capitalist farming. (See Utsa Patnaik (1990), Agrarian Relation and Accumulation, Delhi: Oxford University Press). With the reinvestment of the occupancy capitalist farming was confined to the plantations. These were very small foreign-owned export oriented sites. In short, the agricultural structure that we inherited from the colonial rulers was characterized by extremely unequal distribution of land and other resources. The growth of agriculture was stunted by the decline in per capita grain availability and production. The potential for growth of wealth through rents and usury hindered the investment of the occupiers in productive entrepreneurship. This historical scenario is very helpful in understanding the development of production conditions and production relations in the post-independence period. It also points out the similarity between the neo-liberal system of today and the colonial rule of that time.
failed land reforms
, ‘Land Reform’ was an important part of the economic program of ‘National Freedom Movement’. An elaborate law was drawn up after independence with the aim of achieving equitable distribution of land and other resources in rural India by providing agricultural land and ending oppression and exploitative feudal relations. In general, all are unanimous that the ‘Land Reform Programme’ has completely failed to achieve its objectives. Despite the abolition of indirect zamindari and middlemen, the wealthy upper caste zamindars maintained feudal dominance through political, administrative and judicial systems. Wherever some progress was made in reducing the domination of feudal interests, the wealthy peasants very quickly accomplished it by increasing their dominance at the political and economic level. Tenancy laws in the states only failed to take the tenancy underground. The imposition of land restrictions and redistribution of land have had negligible consequences. Only a very small part of the land was redistributed and it was mostly barren and low grade land. There is a vast difference between law making and its implementation at the state level. Thus, economic feudalism remained safe in Bihar but Marxist governments in West Bengal and Kerala succeeded in transforming the rural production bases. The consolidation of land in Punjab was done effectively, which was important for the introduction of modern technology and mechanization, thus it is necessary that a proper decision should be taken in this regard at the all India level. In fact, the difference here is so great that according to some scholars it is futile to take the same decision all over India. A decade later, the ‘Green Revolution’ came to the fore, pushing back the issue of land reform.