Unit-7
Land Reform- Ceiling of holdings wordness, consolidation of land, cooperative farming.
The Indian National Congress appointed the Agrarian Reforms Committee under the Chairmanship of J.C. Kumarapppa, for creating an in-depth study of the agrarian relations prevailing within the country. The committee submitted its report in 1949 which had a substantial impact on the evolution of agrarian reforms policy within the post-
Independence period. The committee recommended that each one intermediaries between the state and therefore the refore the tiller should be eliminated and the land must belong to the tiller subject to certain conditions. Allow us to now examine the varied agrarian reform measures undertaken after independence. As already mentioned, the term ‘land reforms’ refers to reforms undertaken within the tenure
System.
The steps include
(i) abolition of intermediaries,
(ii) fixation of ceilings ashore holdings and
(iii) redistribution of surplus land among landless or semi-landless peasants.
Besides, any special measures adopted to stop alienation of tribal land and consolidate fragmented holdings come within the broad definition of agrarian reforms.
Abolition of Intermediaries
Following the advice of Kumarappa Committee, all the states in India enacted legislation for the abolition of intermediary tenures within the 1950s, although the character and effects of such legislation varied from state to state.
In West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir, legislation for abolishing intermediary tenures was amid simultaneous imposition of ceilings ashore holdings. In other states, intermediaries were allowed to retain possession of lands under their personal cultivation without limit being set, because the ceiling laws were passed only in the1960s. As a result, there was enough time left for the intermediaries to form legal or illegal transfers of land. Besides, in some states, the law applied only to tenant interests like sairati mahals etc. and to not agricultural holdings.
Therefore, many large intermediaries continued to exist even after formal abolition of zamindari. Nevertheless, it's been estimated that consequent upon the legal abolition of intermediaries between 1950 and 1960, nearly 20 million cultivators within the country were brought into direct contact with the govt . 3.3.2 Tenancy Reforms The Agrarian Reforms Committee recommended against any system of cultivation by tenants and maintained that leasing of land should be prohibited except within the case of widows, minors and disabled persons.
This viewpoint received further strength subsequently in various Five Year Plans. Consistent with the Second Five Year Plan, abolition of intermediary tenures and bringing the tenants into direct relations with the state would give the tiller of the soil his rightful place within the agrarian system and supply him with full incentives for increasing agricultural production. Immediately after Independence, although the main emphasis was on the abolition of intermediaries, certain amendments to the prevailing tenancy laws were made with a view to providing security to the tenants of ex-intermediaries. But these legal measures provoked the landlords to secure mass eviction of tenants, sub-tenants and sharecroppers through various legal and extra-legal devices.
The highly defective land records, the prevalence of oral leases, absence of rent receipts, non-recognition in law of share- croppers as tenants and various punitive provisions of the tenancy laws were utilized by the landlords to secure eviction of all kinds of tenants. To counteract such a bent , therefore, it became necessary on the a part of the State Governments to enact or amend the laws within the subsequent years and supply for adequate safeguards against illegal eviction and ensure security of tenure for the tenants-at-will. Broadly speaking, tenancy reforms undertaken by various states followed four distinct patterns. First, the tenancy laws of several states including Andhra Pradesh (Telengana region), Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh banned leasing out of agricultural land except by certain disabled categories of landowners, so on vest the ownership of land with the particular tillers. But concealed tenancy continued to exist altogether these states. Second, the state of Kerala banned agricultural tenancy altogether without having any exception. Third, States like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Haryana didn't ban tenancy intrinsically . But tenants after continuous possession of land surely specified years, acquired the proper of purchase of the land they cultivated. However, altogether these states, leasing out by both large and little farmers continued.
In fact, a bent towards reverse tenancy during which large farmers leased-in land from marginal farmers was set in since the arrival of revolution within the mid-sixties. Fourth, states like West Bengal , Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Andhra area of Andhra Pradesh didn't ban leasing-out of agricultural land. But share-croppers weren't recognised as tenants.
The State of West Bengal recognised share-croppers as tenants only with effect from 1979, with the launching of ‘Operation Barga”.
Indian Agriculture : Institutional Perspectives most State Governments provided for the regulation of rent, excepting Kerala where leasing out was completely prohibited. The regulated or fair rent ranged between 1/4th to 1/6th of the produce. But actual rent remained always above the regulated or fair rent. In many places where small and marginal farmers leased-in land from large or absentee landowners, things continued to be exploitative, thereby discouraging the particular tillers to cultivate the land efficiently. Ceilings ashore Holding The term ‘ceiling ashore holdings’ refers to the legally stipulated maximum size beyond which no individual farmer or farm household can hold any land. Like all other land reforms measures, the target of such ceiling is to market economic process with social justice. It's been duly recognised by India’s planners and policy makers that beyond some extent any large scale farming in Indian situation becomes not only uneconomic, but also unjust. Small farms tend to extend economic efficiency of resource use and improve social equity through employment creation and more equitable income distribution. Consistent with C.H. Hunumantha Rao, small farms offer more opportunities for employment compared to large farms. Hence, albeit large farms produce relatively more output per unit of area, they can't be considered more efficient during a situation of widespread unemployment and under-employment prevalent during this country. Ceilings on landholdings as imposed during 1960-1970 State Level of ceiling (hectare) Andhra Pradesh 10.93 to 131.13 Assam 20.23 Bihar 9.71 to 29.14 Gujarat 4.05 to 53.14 Haryana 12.14 to 24.38 Jammu and Kashmir 9.21 Kerala 6.07 to 15.18 Madhya Pradesh 10.12 Orissa 8.09 to 32.37 Punjab 12.14 to 24.28 Rajasthan 8.90 to 135.97 Tamil Nadu 12.14 to 48.56 Uttar Pradesh 16.19 to 32.37 West Bengal 10.12 In 1959,
Indian National Congress (Nagpur Resolution) resolved that agrarian legislation to hide restrictions on the dimensions of land holdings must be implemented altogether states by the top of 1959
Accordingly, all the State Governments excepting north-eastern region imposed ceilings ashore holdings within the 1960s. The states of West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir had already imposed ceilings ashore holdings along side the laws for abolition of intermediaries within the early 1950s. However, the Nagpur Resolution of 1959 had significant impact as various State Governments immediately took to the ratification of ceiling legislation.
The Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960; The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960; The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1969, The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceilings ashore Holdings Act, 1960; The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquition of Surplus 37 Land Act, 1961; The Karnataka Land Reforms Act1961; The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1960; The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Land) Act, 1961 and therefore the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 were a number of the results of the Nagpur Resolution ashore Reform. However, because the ceiling laws weren't ratified simultaneously with abolition of zamindari, except in West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir as stated before, several nami and benami transfer of land happened .
This reduced the potential ceiling surplus land that would be available for redistribution. Besides, several states including Andhra Pradesh , Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal followed individuals because the unit of application for ceiling, while family because the unit of application was adopted in Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu .
We present the ceiling limits fixed by various states in Table 3.1. It's going to be seen from Table 3.1 that ceilings were quite high in several states.
The subsequent categories of land were exempted from the ceiling laws:
1) Land under Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Coco and Cardamum Plantations
2) Land used for cultivation of Palm, Kesra, Bela, Chameli or rose when such land holders haven't any land for the other cultivation (U.P.)
3) Sugarcane Farms
4) Co-operative Gardens, Colonies
5) Tank Fisheries
6) Area under orchard up to 4 hectares (Punjab and Haryana)
7) Land held by co-operative farming and other co-operative societies, including land mortgage bank
8) Land held by religious, charitable and academic institutions
9) Land awarded for gallantry
10) Land held by sugarcane factories
11) Land held by state or Central Government
12) Land held by a public sector or industrial or commercial undertaking
13) Land vested in Gram Sabha, Bhoodan or Gramdan Committee
14) Land situated in any area which is specified as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development under the relevant tenancy law (Gujarat)
15) Specified farms engaged in breeding , dairying or wool raising
16) Several categories of other land including those held by public sector or commercial undertakings, research farms, etc. or maybe private forests.
These exemptions as provided within the ceiling laws gave rise to problems of law evasion by manipulating the classification of land. Also the dimensions of the ceiling surplus land available for redistribution was consequently reduced. Bhoodan and Gramdan The Bhoodan movement was launched in 1951, immediately after the peasant uprising in Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh , and after some years, another movement referred to as Gramdan came into being in 1957. The target was to influence landowners and leaseholders in each concerned village to renounce their land rights, after which all the lands would become the property of a village association for the egalitarian redistribution and for purpose of joint cultivation. Vinoba Bhave hoped to eliminate private ownership of land through Bhoodan and Gramdan and maintained that the 38 Indian Agriculture : Institutional Perspectives movement would go an extended thanks to make sure the just redistribution of land, the consolidation of holding and their joint cultivation. However, the movement did not achieve its targeted objectives and therefore the degree of success in respect of both land acquisition and land distribution was very limited.
Of the entire land of about 42.6 lakh acres, received through Bhoodan, quite 17.3 lakh acres were rejected as they were found unfit for cultivation. About 11.9 lakh acres were distributed and 13.4 lakh acres remained to be distributed. In most cases, the village landlords donated only those pieces of land which were either unfit for cultivation or were at issue with tenants or government. In fact, the landlords preferred to part away with their disputed lands as a compromise formula for there was little hope under the prevailing law, of having the ability to stay this land with them. Besides, reciprocally for such land donation, the landlords also received input subsidies and other facilities, which was no less an inducement to part away with the land unfit for cultivation.
Furthermore, while it had been provided under the Gramdan movement that non-public ownership in land is to cease, only the landholders right to sell land was restricted (though not banned), leaving intact the proper of inheritance on such lands by the youngsters .
Protection of Tribal Land All the concerned states ratified laws for prevention of alienation of the tribals from land. Altogether the scheduled areas, land transfer from tribal to non-tribal population was prohibited by law. But thanks to various legal loopholes and administrative lapses, alienation of the tribals from their land continued on an outsized scale. In fact, mortgaging of land to moneylenders thanks to indebtedness, poverty and acquisition of tribal land for irrigation, dams and other public purposes were largely liable for alienation of tribal land. Since land is that the main source of livelihood for the tribal people and that they don't have much upward mobility, indiscriminate acquisition of tribal land for public purposes should be avoided.
Consolidation of Holdings The term ‘Consolidation of holdings’ refers to amalgamation and redistribution of the fragmented land with a view to bringing together all plots of land of a cultivator in one compact block. Thanks to growing pressure of population ashore and therefore the limited opportunities for add the non-agricultural sector, there's an increasing trend towards sub-division and fragmentation of land holdings. This makes the task of irrigation management, land improvement and private supervision of various plots very difficult. After independence, most states excepting Tamil Nadu , Kerala, Manipur, , Tripura and parts of Andhra Pradesh enacted laws for consolidation of holdings. But the character of legislation and therefore the degree of success achieved varied widely. While in Punjab (including Haryana) it had been made compulsory, in other states law provided for consolidation on voluntary basis, if majority of the land owners agreed.the consolidation acts provided for
(i) prohibition of fragmentation below standard area,
(ii) fixation of minimum standard area for regulating transfers,
(iii) schemes of Consolidation by exchange of holdings,
(iv) reservation of land for common areas,
(v) procedure for payment of compensation to persons allotted holdings of less market
Price in exchange,
(vi) administrative machinery for carrying consolidation schemes, and
(viii) filing of objections, appeals and penalties.
However, thanks to lack of adequate political and administrative support, the progress made in terms of consolidation of holding wasn't very satisfactory, excepting in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh where the task of consolidation was 39 accomplished. But in these states, there's a requirement for reconsolidation again thanks to subsequent fragmentation of holdings under the population pressure.
Cooperative farming
It refers to an organisation in which:
1. Each member-farmer remains the owner of his land individually.
2. But farming is completed jointly.
3. Profit is distributed among the member-farmers within the ratio of land owned by them.
4. Wages distributed among the member-farmers consistent with number of days they worked.
In other words, Cooperative farming= pooling of land and practicing joint agriculture. Cooperative farming isn't a replacement concept in India. Since past , Indian farmers are giving international logistic support to every other in weeding, harvesting etc.
Examples
Benefits/advantages/potential:
1. Economies of scale:
a. Because the size of farm increases, the per hectare cost of using tube-well, tractor comes down.
b. Small farms=some land is wasted in forming the ‘boundaries’ among them. When they’re combined into an enormous cooperative farm, we will also cultivate thereon boundary land.
c. Overall, Large farms are economically more beneficial than small farms.
2. Solves the matter of sub-division and fragmentation of holdings.
3. Cooperative farm has more men-material-money resources to extend irrigation potential and land productivity. Members wouldn't are ready to roll in the hay individually on their small farm.
4. Case studies generally means that with cooperative farming, per acre production increases.
1951-1956
• Apart from Cooperative farming, it also recommended ‘Cooperative Village Management’ as a more comprehensive solution for rural development.
• Encourage small and middle farmers to make cooperative farming societies
• If majority of farmers agreed to start out cooperative farming, then decision are going to be binding on the whole village.
• But didn't mention giving enforcement powers to States.
• Result? ~2000 cooperative farming societies formed during the primary Plan period.
1956-61
• 1956: Indian delegations sent to China to review their cooperative farming.
Recommended this technique in to extend grain production.
• Develop cooperative farming as soon as possible.
• Target: Setup a minimum of one cooperative farm in every National Extension Block, or about 5000 for the entire country.
• Hoped to convert substantial proportion of Indian farms into cooperative farming by a period of ten years.
1961-66
• Observed that almost 40% of the cooperative farms aren't functioning properly.
• Advocated better implementation of community development program, credit societies, agri-marketing etc. for getting success in cooperative farming.
• ~300 pilot projects in selected district. Each project having 10 cooperative societies.
• Overall, Third Five year plan tried to place a brave face, again reaffirming the government’s faith in cooperative farming, but overall, wishful platitude not an idea of action.
1969-74
1. Observed that cooperative farming programs haven't made any substantial progress.
2. (therefore) it's not been possible to propose any additional programmes for cooperative farming during this Plan
3. Instead, we should always specialise in development of agricultural credit, marketing, processing and consumer needs.
4. In co-operative farming, funding priority just for revitalizing of the prevailing weak societies.
5. But avoid fixing new cooperative farming societies, unless they need a possible for growth. So, overall we will see that by early 70s, Planning commission’s faith/interest in cooperative farming is vanishing. 1974-79
1. Made no mention of cooperative farming.
2. It did allot some ca$H under the heading “Cooperation”, but it had been only meant for inter-farm co-operative service facilities e.g. Seed-fertilizer-water supply, use of tractors/agro-machineries etc. After this era, five year plans give more attention (and ca$H) to wasteland management, poverty removal etc. and cooperative farming loses its relevance.
Failures
1) Miscalculations and false hopes Early planners and policymakers had hoped that
1. Village panchayat and (Congress) party workers will help implementing cooperative farming, but response was lukewarm.
2. Cooperative farming = government will need to spend less money on agriculture (+less leakage in subsidies). But the scenario didn’t change.
• During 2nd FYP, the National Development Council proposed that within the next five years agricultural production be increased by 25-35% via cooperative farming. But most government shied faraway from taking necessary initiatives. Bogus Farms by and enormous Cooperative farming societies fell into two categories: big farmers = bogus farms
• They’d setup bogus cooperative farms by showing agri.labourers/tenants as bogus members. But actually none of them owned the land individually.
• this was done to evade land ceiling and tenancy reform laws.
• Adding insult to the injury: government even gave them subsidies for seeds, fertilizers etc.
• At times, non-working members had been enrolled so as to fulfil the minimum requirements of registration.
• Even in legit/genuine cooperative farming societies, the rich farmers dominate the management positions.
• Sometimes societies setup with members of only one or two families to urge various subsidies/support.
Apathetic bureaucrats-Government
• State sponsored cooperative farms as a part of pilot projects under FYP.
• Government would allot land to the landless, SC/ST, Displaced persons etc.
• but they didn't get adequate support from government agencies for irrigation, electricity, seeds-fertilizer, extension services etc.
• these farms were run like government-sponsored projects instead of genuine, motivated, joint efforts of the cultivators. Result? These experiments were unsuccessful. No gain in productivity.
• Later, those farmers started cultivating land individual (though on papers, the land continued to be owned by the ‘cooperative societies’.) Epic fail in Bihar:
• Cooperative farming societies were formed on Bhoodan land- for the landless laborers.
• But later, they started individual farming, although officially the land still continues to be within the name of the societies
• It means fixing maximum size of land holding that an individual/family can own.
• Land over and above the ceiling limit, called surplus land.
• if the individual/family owns more land than the ceiling limit, the excess land is removed (with or without paying compensation to original owner)
• This surplus land is
a. Distributed among small farmers, tenants, landless labourers or
b. Handed over to village panchayat or
c. Given to cooperative farming societies.
Why Ceiling on land holdings?
1. Because DPSP Art.38 seeks to attenuate the inequalities of income, status, facilities and opportunities. Land ceiling minimize inequality within the land ownership and thus reduces inequality of income.
2. Because DPSP Art.39 wants to make sure that the operation of financial system doesn't end in the concentration of wealth. during a village, land wealth, hence land ceiling is important to stop concentration of wealth within the hands of few.
3. Because DPSP Art.39 wants to offer right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens. Land ceiling (and subsequent land redistribution) provides self-employment opportunities to landless agricultural laborers.
4. If there's no land ceiling, rich farmers will buy all the land of entire village and tehsil. But since they can't cultivate all the land by themselves- they’ll ‘lease’ it to small farmers (tenants). farmer (tenant) doesn’t have any ‘motivation’ to figure harder because he doesn’t own the land and he has got to give 30-50-70% of the produce thereto rich farmer, as “rent”= exploitation.
5. So, After abolishing Zamindari, IF State Governments had not implemented Land ceiling, then rich farmers/superior tenants would became the new de-facto/virtual Zamindars of recent India.
Although, economists who believe free market / capitalism, donot like land ceiling. We’ll see their anti-land ceiling arguments at the top of this text . except for the instant , let’s continue with the idea that land ceiling is useful .
Land Ceiling: Advantage and Anti arguments
Like I said within the middle of the article- the economists believing in free market / capitalism- they don’t like land ceiling. So let’s hear their arguments
Anti-Land Ceiling Pro Land Ceiling
• Land ceiling should be abolished. Even corporate sector should be allowed to shop for agri. Land.
• This will enable the enterprising farmer to enlarge his holding by buying or leasing lands of small farmers.
• Although landlessness will increase but these small farmers could find employment in agri. And allied sector as a results of capitalist mode of production. • Agricultural income= exempted from tax .
• So, if land ceilings are removed, the rich people will rush to shop for farm land.
• Thus land prices will soar. a replacement ‘intermediary’ group of Agri.land mafia will emerge.
• But many small and marginal farmers are going to be pushed off their land.
• Hence, the time isn't yet ripe to cause such drastic reforms (of removing land ceilings).
• Capitalist mode of agriculture=>more surplus income=> invested back to the agriculture economic growth.
• if corporate sector is allowed to enter in agriculture=> Agri. Exports will increase more exchange incoming Current Account deficit gone, rupee will strengthen. • Capitalist mode of agriculture uses more machines, less laborersunemployment increased.
• Yes, economic process are going to be achieved but at the value of unemployment and subsequent fall in human development.
• small farms aren't productive because they hinder mechanised farming
• Small farmers have limited capital to take a position in improving agro. Production. • large farms tend to prefer monoculture (single crop), because they will be easily managed with heavy machinery. More vulnerable to pest attacks, not good from soil fertility point of view.
• Small farmers usually have mixed crops (intercropping), they combine and rotate crops and livestock, with manure => soil fertility improves.
• Land ceiling and distribution => poverty and disguised unemployment continues.
• Some people got to be shifted from agricultural sector to manufacturing/service sector. there's no got to give land to every and each landless person. • Villagers should be kept self-employed, albeit on small and marginal farms.
• This fits with Gandhian ideas of village republics.
Land Ceilings: Benefits/Advantages/Positive Points
With political Will
States with political will in favour of land ceiling=showed great progress.
Example
1. Jammu and Kashmir, Land ceiling laws fully implemented and by the center of 1955 about 230,000 acres of surplus land had been handed over to tenants and landless labourers, that too without having to pay any compensation.
2. West Bengal had but 3% of total cultivate land in India. Yet quite 25% of the entire surplus land that was distributed throughout India, belonged to WB.
Production increased
1. Earlier large tracts of wasteland belonging to big zamindars/farmers remain uncultivated. Now this given to landless laborers= increases area under cultivation=food security.
2. More Production: Equal distribution of land will encourage intensive cultivation leading to increased agricultural production.
3. Some Farm management studies conducted in India testified that tiny farms yielded more production per hectare. it's so because relations themselves cultivate small farms.
4. Even one hectare of land is additionally an economic holding lately on account of improvement in agricultural technique. Hence, small size of holding thanks to ceiling won't have any adverse effect on agricultural production.
5. Atleast a number of the Land owners shifted to direct ‘efficient’ farming so as to urge ‘exemption’ from land ceiling.
1. Land consolidation has always been considered an instrument or entry point for rural development. Early concepts of rural development were virtually an equivalent as agricultural development due to the predominant role of agriculture in rural areas at the time. Improving the agrarian structure was viewed as being just like maintaining the social viability in rural areas; what was good for the farmers was good for rural areas. An overall objective of early projects was thus to extend internet income from land holdings by increasing the quantity of production and decreasing its costs. With this specialise in agricultural development, these projects served to consolidate parcels and enlarge holdings and included provisions like irrigation and drainage infrastructure to enhance water management, construction of rural roads, land levelling, soil improvement measures and changes to land use like converting agriculturally inferior land into forest land or wetlands.
2. Such agricultural improvements are still essential but rural space is now not considered one among agricultural production alone. Concepts of rural development became much broader and have expanded to incorporate increased environmental awareness and a good range of nonagricultural applications. the stress of land consolidation projects has shifted from attention on restructuring agriculture to at least one of achieving more efficient multiple use of rural space by balancing the interests of agriculture, landscape, nature conservation, recreation and transportation, especially when land is required for the development of major roads.
3. Environmental conditions are being given increasing priority. Roads are being constructed to suit the landscape. Water bodies are being restored, often with buffer zones. Land consolidation projects also are used for the protection of wetlands and to vary land use patterns especially in areas endangered by frequent floods or erosion .
4. Land consolidation now encompasses activities of village renewal. Projects include providing adequate land for brand spanking new houses and workplaces to enhance living and dealing conditions. along side the changing rural economy, buildings previously used for agriculture are renovated and converted to other social and commercial uses.
5. In line with other changes within the concept of rural development, land consolidation now places increasing importance on gender inclusion, participatory approaches and therefore the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in resolving conflicts.
6. Land consolidation projects have also served to modernise tenure arrangements by eliminating outdated rights of use, including some rights of access, grazing, hay-making, timber-felling, fishing and boating, and therefore the extraction of peat, clay and sand.
7. In early consolidation projects the resettlement of farmers was often considered important. Family farmsteads, originally placed in old established villages, were resettled at the external perimeter of the consolidation project area. As access to automobiles became more widely available, travelling from village to field was easier and modern villages became viewed as more suitable for retaining the agricultural population than isolated farmsteads. In some cases, farming families were moved from congested areas to more distant zones, often with considerable reluctance. Such resettlements are less likely to be a feature of land consolidation in transition countries since rural areas aren't overly congested and, in contrast, their populations are declining. However, there could also be occasions where farmers spend longer travelling between fields than working the land and resettlement could also be an answer if families are willing to relocate.
Approaches to land consolidation
8. the foremost effective consolidation instrument of rural development is comprehensive land consolidation but sometimes other approaches like simplified consolidation, voluntary group consolidation, and individual consolidation initiatives can bring benefits. This section provides an summary of those different approaches.
9. Comprehensive land consolidation includes the re-allocation of parcels along side a broad range of other measures to market rural development. samples of such activities include village renewal, support to community-based agro-processing, construction of rural roads, construction and rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems, erosion control measures, environmental protection and enhancements including the designation of nature reserves, and therefore the creation of social infrastructure including sports grounds and other public facilities.
10. Procedures for land consolidation projects vary from one country to a different but they typically involve the initiation of the project, design of the project, inventory of existing land rights and land values, elaboration of the detailed consolidation plan showing the new parcel layout, implementation of the plan, and eventually a concluding introduce which final records are produced.
Argument in Favour of Co-Operative Farming are:
1. Economies of Scale:
The most important point to be said in favour of co-operative farming is that it prevents subdivision and fragmentation of land which obstructs various schemes of agricultural development in India.
The consolidation of land in large and compact blocks will permit more land to be brought under cultivation. This, in its turn, will make many sorts of investment profitable.
Such investments can't be undertaken on the tiny and scattered plots. it's possible, for instance , to use costly agricultural equipment like pump-sets, tractors, threshers, etc. only the world of operation is sufficiently large. Similarly, irrigation schemes would be useless on fragmented plots because an outsized quality of irrigation water (which may be a costly input) would go waste.
In other words, large irrigation projects, if undertaken, will bear fruit only the water are often properly utilised on an outsized area of land. Only through enlargement of the world of operation is it possible to boost both land productivity (yield per hectare) and labour productivity (yield per worker) substantially.
Critics often argue that the yield per hectare are often raised by adopting other methods as well—such as more intensive cultivation of every individual plot. But the very fact remains that for raising yield per worker (specially, per man-hour) it's absolutely essential to extend the world under agricultural operation. In short, economies of scale related to large-scale farming are often derived only by pooling land of various small farmers.
2. Release of Workers for Non-Agricultural Operations:
Higher productivity per worker in agriculture is that the first precondition of economic progress. As Prof. D. Bhattacharya has rightly commented: “It helps to release workers for non-agricultural work whose scope greatly expands with economic progress. At an equivalent time supply of agricultural products are often maintained to satisfy the wants of workers working outside agriculture. the method of industrialization in India depends to a really large extent on the increased productivity of the workers in agriculture.”
3. Marketable Surplus:
Thirdly, co-operative farming is probably going to steer to a rise within the quantum of marketable surplus by making the collection of surpluses easier than under individual farming. The quantum of marketable surplus generated from the agricultural sector is a crucial determinant of a country’s material progress. But planners and policy-makers in India have often did not note of this fact.
4. Administrative Convenience:
Fourthly, such farming is advantageous to the govt also. it's anybody’s guess that the smaller the amount of agricultural farms the better it's for the govt to gather taxes, distribute subsidies and, generally, introduce better agricultural practices (i.e., modern method of cultivation supported sophisticated technology).
5. Creditworthiness:
Finally, large farms also are more creditworthy than small cultivating units and may attract a sufficiently great deal of finance for agricultural improvement. Without sufficient credit it's impossible to derive the benefits of large-scale commercialised farming.
The above five arguments are put forward in India during the plan period to make an enthusiasm for co-operative farming societies for little and medium cultivators as a matter of prime importance.
Arguments Against the Co-Operative Farming:
However, various arguments are suggests against co-operative farming in India.
The following points could also be noted during this context:
1. Unemployment Problem:
Prima facie, in India the working population is so hooked in to agriculture, and alternative employment opportunities outside agriculture are so limited that it'll not be judicious to introduce co-operative farming for mechanising agriculture.
Agricultural mechanisation thanks to large-scale introduction of co-operative farming is probably going to form more workers redundant within the rural areas than are often absorbed within the industrial centres. In fact, the problem of unemployment has already reached serious proportions. So introduction of co-operative farming practices is probably going to aggravate the matter of both rural and concrete unemployment during a labour- surplus country.
2. Availability of higher Alternatives:
It is also argued that there are other methods of raising agricultural productivity like the availability of high yielding sorts of seeds, fertilisers and implements to the farmer. Service co-operatives could also be formed to beat the problem of organising such supplies to an outsized number of small farms.
Such co-operatives serve limited but useful purpose of enabling farmers to get supplies of inputs and distributing these among themselves and, thus, enable each farmer to reap the advantages of huge scale organisation. it's felt that service cooperatives enable the farmers to realize the simplest of both the worlds: improving his methods of working by merging his plot of land with those of others.
3. Loss of Independence:
Another argument against co-operative farming is that it's also difficult to line up a co-operative farm and hold its members together. Land isn't only the foremost important income-earning asset but is additionally a standing symbol for farmers. This explains why peasants have a deep sense of attachment for his or her individual plots and are always wanting to work independently of others.
As Prof. D. Bhattacharya has put it “Individual farming is important for genuine independence and co-operative farming involves a minimum of some restriction on freedom”. albeit joint farms are setup, various difficulties are likely to arise in future. Such difficulties may relate to the valuation of land, the acceptable reward for appropriate effort put by members and therefore the joint sharing of profits.
4. Managerial Difficulties:
Finally, it'll be difficult to seek out qualified persons for farm management. In most rural areas it's impossible to seek out managers who can affect an outsized area of land and enormous number of men for both political and other reasons.
An Overall Assessment:
For of these difficulties the movement for co-operative farming is yet to realize momentum in India. there's a sense among some folks that it's not very difficult to organise co-operative farming. But it's considered undesirable due to its political implications. during this context Prof. D. Bhattacharya comments: “The chances of genuine co-operation among India’s peasantry, however, are so small at the present that large-scale expansion of co-operative farming is unlikely to require place within the near future.”
But there's the necessity to impart proper training to farmers in co-operative methods whenever the gains from such co-operatives are likely to be substantial. To conclude with Prof. Bhattacharya: “Co-operative farming, within the proper sense of the term, must necessarily entail some separate existing patterns of ownership and work. during a democracy such disturbances to established practice are likely to be accepted only there involves be established a particular preference for the new system within the public mind. All available indications means that there's so far no such marked preference for the system of co-operative farming among the Indian people.”
In this situation the task of the govt would be to teach the agricultural people and clearly demonstrate the superiority of the co-operative system of farming over this small-scale peasant farming practices.
BOOKS
1. Indian Economy – Rudra Dutt & Sundarram
