In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Labour Productivity in Agriculture 2. Causes for Low Productivity 3. Consequences 4. Problems.
Labour Productivity in Agriculture:
Output per worker in agriculture is also low. Labour productivity is Rs.1,213, on the average for India as a whole, it being Rs. 3,195 in Punjab and Rs.409 in Nagaland.
This is indicated in the table given below:
In India’s average productivity per man per year in agriculture is the lowest as would be clear from the following data:
In other words, it may be said that India’s agricultural productivity per person engaged in agriculture, is a little more than one-thirty-fourth of that of New Zealand and West Germany, and less than one-twentieth of U.K., one twenty-fourth of U.S.A. and one- twenty-second of Japan.
Stagnation in agricultural productivity has resulted in the wake of soaring prices of agricultural produce, disapproving many theories of price production complexes or relationship; imperfect food distribution.
One significant reason for low productivity per worker is the employment of too many people in agriculture than what is actually needed. In some countries of the world, only a fifth of the population produces a diet that gives a person some 8,000 calories a day, i.e., a family adequately feeds five families; while in India one farm family cannot support itself properly and needs help of another family.
It has been estimated that in 1860, a farm worker in U.S.A. supplied only four others with farm products. In 1900, he was supplying 6. By 1961, he supplied food and fibre to 22 other fellow citizens and also to four others abroad, a total of 26. Putting it another way, in 1960, there were about 6 million people doing farm work and feeding a national population of about 31 million. Today, 7 million farm workers supply food and fibre to 188 million Americans and enables the states to be the world’s largest exporter of farm products.
When U.S.A. was discovered, 9 out of 10 lived on farms. Today, less than 1 out of 10 lives on farms. Less than 10 per cent of U.S.A workers are needed to feed them, compared with 45 per cent in U.S.S.R., 25 per cent in France, 70 per cent in India. Mechanization, fertilizer and improved breeds have made it possible for man on the U.S. farm to produce about 8 times as much per hour as a farm worker of 100 years ago.
It may be noted that all this progress either in U.S.A or U.S.S.R has not been attained through the waving of a magic wand. It has been brought by sustained application of sciences and technology to agriculture. It means better education of the farmer, carrying the results of research from laboratories to the farm, soil analysis, use of appropriate chemical fertilizer and manures on a sustained basis, introduction of improved varieties and types of crops and livestock, better feeds for poultry and livestock and use of pesticides for controlling weeds, insects and diseases. Irrigation and drainage were no less important.
In Japan, in spite of her small holding application of science and technology has been responsible for increasing agricultural production. Similar has been the case in U.S.S.R. where extensive chemicalisation has worked a veritable revolution in agricultural production. It has paved the way to an unprecedented enhancement of crop yield, livestock productivity and labour productivity.
The trebling and quadrupling of the yield in Mexico and the countries of North-West Europe was achieved with the help of mechanization, chemicalisation and universal irrigation in mere few years’ time. Unfortunately, in India, the state of affairs is yet very unsatisfactory but if agricultural inputs are properly supplied they can increase our yields manifold.
Causes for Low Productivity:
Though there has been some improvement in recent years, the conditions in agriculture have not changed much and are almost the same what they were about 2 decades ago. The rate of soil exhaustion, which takes place in the normal process of agriculture, is not being replenished through natural and artificial methods. And there has been a fall or decline from the low level of fertility or productivity where it was believed to have stabilized.
The fear of decline is greater now and is likely to be still more in future because in increasing production quickly, the possibilities are there of exploiting the land resources ignoring the ideas of natural balance and, thus, damaging or impairing its inherent productive capacity.
In the words of Dr. Chauhan, the decline takes place in many forms depending upon the location and quality (soil and topography) of the particular piece of land, climate conditions of the particular locality, and the nature and intensity of agricultural activity. It manifests itself in the form of fertile and cultivated land going out of cultivation as it is turned into uncultivable waste; development of aridity, salinity, and alkalinity, ravine formation, decline in crop yields, changes in cropping patterns, shrinkage in the extent of double cropping and the resulting decline in crop intensity, decline of water table and the vegetative cover becoming scanty and stunted, etc.
All the forms do not exhibit themselves, everywhere or at the same place at one particular time. The rate of decline also varies from place to place. The declining trends in productivity of land should be taken as the signals of slowly coming dangers.
The factors responsible for the backwardness of agriculture and, therefore, for low yields are:
1. Our land resources were never taxed to such an extent as they are now because of overcrowding, and consequently the cultivated land per capita has been reduced from 1.09 acre in 1891 to 1.11 acres in 1921, 1.04 acres in 1931 and to 0.94 acre in 1941 and to 0.75 acre in 1961 and to 0.73 acre in 1971. Not much can be achieved unless this continuing pressure of population on land is reduced and used as a source of capital formation. Attempts to substitute heavy yielding crops and varieties have accelerated the stain and in the absence of any adequate manuring, the soil has lost its fertility.
2. Reckless deforestation had led to declining flora so that less humus is being added to the soil through normal process. Humus deficiency is resulting in the increasing of temperature; and it is making the pre-monsoon cropping more and more difficult. This deficiency causing reduction in the capacity of retention of moisture seem to be responsible for reducing the capacity of soils to withstand the effectiveness of some agricultural hazards and, thus, increasing the losses in output and ultimately resulting in the decline of average productivity.
3. The serious drainage problem, caused by the increased construction of roads, railways and canals, has disturbed the natural drainage system of checking the normal flow of rain water and bringing heavy floods. This results in large scale damage to kharif and considerable late sowing of rabi crops.
4. Marginal and sub-marginal lands are being brought under cultivation, due to increasing population pressure, and such lands are generally inferior and yield less, and bring about a decline in “the average productivity.”
5. Reckless deforestation had led to declining flora so that less humus is being added to the soil through normal process. Humus deficiency is resulting in the increasing of temperature; and it is making the pre-monsoon cropping more and more difficult. This deficiency causing reduction in the capacity of retention of moisture seem to be responsible for reducing the capacity of soils to withstand the effectiveness of some agricultural hazards and, thus, increasing the losses in output and ultimately resulting in the decline of average productivity.
6. The serious drainage problem, caused by the increased construction of roads, railways and canals, has disturbed the natural drainage system by checking the normal flow of rain water and bringing heavy floods. This results in large scale damage to kharif and considerable late sowing of rabi crops.
7. Marginal and sub-marginal lands are being brought under cultivation, due to increasing population pressure, and such lands are generally inferior and yields less, and bring about a decline in the average productivity.
8. As a consequence of recent land reforms, land is passing by purchase, lease or allotment to classes which have no agricultural traditions and in most of the cases they lack the necessary technical knowledge and, therefore, they are inefficient farmers. Even the agricultural labourers who take to self-cultivation, ignorance of soil conditions and of their suitability to specific crops, of the timings of land and skill for performing some operations, are bound to become inferior farmers and such lands are under-cultivated.
Besides, the tiller has to pay heavy rents for the land he cultivates and he has no security of tenure. Under these difficult situations, it is impossible to expect the tiller to increase agricultural productivity.
9. With the depletion of forest resources, fuel supply is becoming scarcer and, hence, more of cow dung is being burnt, and lesser and lesser quantity of it goes to the field. Moreover, due to a small number of superior cattle, the supply of cow dung is also declining. Thus, the most important source of manure is gradually being lost.
10. Crop-rotations and practice of fallowing are getting disturbed because of the pressure of population for more food and raw materials.
11. Soil erosion is constantly increasing and in the eroded regions the fertile and the cultivated land is going out of cultivation and is turning into a barren waste. Cropping patterns are changing in which superior crops are giving place to inferior ones, and crop yields are also dealing.
12. Rapid increase in construction work because of scarcity of cement and steel, depends upon bricks, which spoils generally the cultivated land. This is manifest mostly in the surrounding of cities where brick-kilns abound.
13. Indian agriculture is a “gamble in monsoon”. Agricultural production function in India is highly responsive to the uncertainty of rainfall. Risks arising out of natural factors such as hailstorm, unfavourable weather conditions—insufficient rains or badly distributed rainfall, frosts, diseases or insects—excessive rains, droughts, floods etc., all exert a very unfavourable influence on agriculture. Monsoons are irregular, ill-distributed and uncertain. They also set in too early or too late. The inevitable result is failure of crops.
So far, only 20 per cent of the area is irrigated. Continued absence of adequate facilities for 80 per cent of the area for irrigation have made the poor cultivator a helpless tool in the hands of his ‘fate’. It has been rightly said, “Farm production cannot be quickly expanded or contracted but may be seriously and unexpectedly reduced by bad weather, pests and diseases.”
14. The poor equipment, inadequacy and obsolete nature of tools had been a contributory factor. The prices of new implements and equipment’s are unreasonably high and beyond the reach of majority of small and medium cultivators. Further, the wide variation in the prices, leads to lack of confidence and hampers the cultivators to make use of them.
15. Agriculture in India lacks in organisation and leadership. It has never offered phenomenal prosperity to anybody like an industry. The philosophy attached to it is a way of life retarded entry of the talent into its fold.
Inclemencies of weather, vagaries of monsoon, fluctuating prices, outmoded tools and implements, bad rural living conditions, harassment by village factions and petty officials etc., have made agriculture and rural living unattractive to the talented youth. The result is a heavy erosion of the resourceful talent from agriculture and this considerably reduces the capacity of the farming community to complete and progress.
16. Low output of research is also one of the causes of the failure in our agriculture. In the last 20 years, research has in many cases reached only general conclusions and very often the research results are neither in a usable form nor have reached the cultivators. Extension is confined to individual good practices and no complete pattern of farming has been advocated. It is so because the support given to agricultural and biological research has been extremely meagre so far.
Other factors responsible for low yields are:
17. Small size of a large number of holdings—about 70.0 per cent of households cultivate less than 5 acres—or a large number of uneconomic holdings of cultivable land which are also fragmented and subdivided. This makes difficult appropriate investment for modernisation of cultivation methods.
18. Land concentration in a few hands, the owners of which do not utilise it to the fullest extent and below them are large number of medium and small cultivators. Rigid and oppressive land system and high rates of rent discourage investment for permanent improvements in land.
19. Restricted storage facilities for holding the produce which depresses unduly the price in the market; and bad communications and imperfect marketing facilities prevent realisation of a fair price for the produce. This situation does not induce the cultivator to produce more.
20. Lack of adequate non-farm services like provision of cheap credit and the resultant indebtedness and poverty of the peasant and lack of marketing facilities hinder improvement in techniques of production.
21. Indian society is a faction-ridden society. The case studies reveal “a far greater role of the caste’s negative functions in terms of constant breaks in village solidarity and any spirit of cooperation, promotion of insecurity, and acts of violence against person and property, litigation, rivalry and groupism. Besides, discontent, mutual bitterness, factionalism, illiteracy ignorance, caste rivalries, group conflicts, social tensions, chronic underemployment characterise rural society. These social factors impede agricultural production.”
22. Indian farmers, generally speaking, are illiterate, ignorant, superstitious, conservative and bound by old traditions and outmoded customs and institutions. Superstition and belief in fate are the courses which keep the farmers fully satisfied with their primitive systems of cultivation. Unless the present atmosphere which supports backwardness and stagnation is changed, there is no possibility of agricultural progress.
23. In some cases, economic planning and farming research have themselves posed threats under cultivation, production and productivity in Indian agriculture. It has been found that an “improved variety of seed, sometimes, requires a longer period of maturity and, thus, stands in the way of the cultivators raising a second or third crop. Inferiority in the taste of grain or poor quality of fodder tells the price”.
24. Above all, as Dr. K.N. Raj has put it, “Raising productivity of land requires not only more inputs like labour, water and fertiliser but incentives to make these inputs worthwhile to agricultural producer”. So far, prices paid are not very remunerative to the cultivators and this leaves no incentive for increased production.
25. Per hectare low productivity of Indian farm is also due to the fact that Indian agricultural organisation has failed to exploit the vast amount of labour and other resources available locally for purposes of capital formation and agricultural implements. The system of rights in land, available till recently, and the laws of inheritance certainly depressed the opportunities for investment in agriculture. Usury, by moneylenders, reinforced the extortions of the zamindars to reduce investments capacity of the peasants.
To sum up, we may say that the traditional agricultural sector has not yet completely got over the unnerving influences of nature and it still continues to be dominated by people who are illiterate, ignorant and mostly uniformed of the latest methods and techniques of production; land holdings and majority of individual cultivators continue to be uneconomic, fragmented and subdivided; cultivation of marginal lands; poverty of cultivators and lack of service facilities have all continued to be a drag on the general, operational efficiency. It now needs to be disengaged from the banes of traditionalism and lack of organisation.
However, it should be noted that peasant farming in India depends for its successful working not only on great perseverance but also unwearied exercise of prudence, forethought and watchfulness, and the utilisation of the scientific knowledge of the means of production.
The value of the human factor is not to be overlooked in taking stock of the agricultural situation for “communities and nations have remained poor in the midst of rich surroundings, or fallen in decay or poverty in spite of the fertility of their soil and the abundance of their natural resources merely because the human factor was of poor quality or was allowed to deteriorate or run to waste.”
Now, so far as this human element is concerned, we know that the seasonal variations render agriculture as precarious occupation and the undue dependence of the cultivation on nature has engendered in him a spirit of depression, fatalism, and hopelessness unless he is assisted by the external agencies. Within the existing conditions and limitations, the resourcefulness of the Indian cultivators have been testified by experts.
“The crops in the best areas or in best farms in India are no worse than those in the best areas and in best farms in China,” says the Krishnappa Delegation Report. “But the proportion of indifferent and poor farmers is much greater in India than in China and that is the main reason why our average yield is very much lower. The main problem before us is, therefore, that of raising the level of the average farmers to that of the best farmers.”
Reorganisation/Modernisation of Agricultural Conditions:
Dr. Swaminathan has rightly observed that “During the coming years, there is no option but to strive towards a vertical growth in our agriculture, since the scope for further horizontal expansion in area under different crops is very limited. The Fifth Plan indicated a proposed annual compound growth rate in productivity of 3. 4 per cent in rice, 2.8 per cent in wheat and 2.4 per cent in jowar. On the basis of the productivity increase now projected, the average yields of rice, jowar and wheat during 1978-79 will be 1,375, 611 and 1,682 kgs per hectare respectively. In these crops, most developed and several developing countries had average yields ranging from 3,000 to 5,000kgs per hectare in 1971. Thus, productivity is bound to be even greater by 1979 and Indian agricultural products may become some of the most ineffectively produced in the world. If we are not going to pay serious attention to improving the productivity of our agriculture through better management of inputs and pre and post-harvest operations, we will only perpetuate a situation where agriculture, instead of being productively labour intensive, would be wastefully labour- extensive.”
In any plan of economic development, the first and foremost emphasis must be placed on the improvement and extension of agriculture. Economic growth imperatively calls for a balanced expansion of the diverse sectors of the economy, and if the expansion potential in some critical sector is at a low ebb or absent, the expansion potential of the other sectors cannot become effective.
The growth of critical sectors of the economy may lag behind not only on account of some basis natural scarcity which imposes an inexorable physical barrier, but also an account of the fact that the social forces leading to expansion extend, not to all sectors of the economy, but to some of them. At this point, one instinctively thinks of the critical division between industry and agriculture.
The growth of agriculture, of necessity, presumes the growth of agricultural production. It also postulates that the proportion of agricultural output which is not consumed inside the agricultural sector but is supplied to the industrial sector should become steadily large. Remarks of Dr. B. Datta, “Industrialisation is possible only when agriculture has reached a high level of prosperity so as to provide self- sufficiency in food, to create a surplus for capital formation and to increase the demand for secondary products.”
The development of industrial production needs an increase in total agricultural production because with higher real income, food consumption increases as well, though probably less than proportionately; but more important than this, it needs an increase in the proportion of output which the agricultural sector is willing to supply to the towns, i.e., marketable agricultural surplus.
In Great Britain, the so-called “Agricultural Revolution” preceded the “Industrial Revolution”. It was the resulting growth in food production and in the productivity of the labour engaged on land which provided both the food and the manpower for industrial expansion.
At a later stage, however, further progress of industrialization was made possible by the food imported from the “new countries” overseas. Therefore, for promoting manufacturing industry on a gigantic scale, a country has got to possess a highly efficient and considerably “commercialised” agriculture with both high yields per acre and high productivity per man.
In our own country, the whole agrarian system needs reorganisation according to the present day needs and conditions on improved lines. This would include an increase in the net returns, reduction of production costs, better standard of living for farmer, less arduous work for the head of the undertaking and considerable saving of labour— whether paid or supplied by the family.
Increased agricultural productivity is essential for the following three reasons:
(i) To supply any economic surplus that can be consumed or used for further production in agriculture or transferred out of agriculture to provide capital for industrial growth and to meet the expanding consumption needs of the urban population;
(ii) To make possible the release of labour and other resources for use in non-agricultural sectors; and
(iii) To increase the purchasing power of rural people, expand markets for industrial goods and help to bring about needed changes in the national income organisation.
The basic economic conditions for improving productivity in agriculture, according to an F.A.O. publication, are:
(1) Reasonably stable prices for agricultural products at a remunerative level;
(2) Adequate marketing facilities;
(3) Satisfactory system of land tenure;
(4) Provision of credit on reasonable terms especially to small farmers, for improved methods of production;
(5) Provision of production requisites (fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds, etc.) at reasonable prices;
(6) Provision of education research and extension and agro- economic services to spread the knowledge of improved methods of farming;
(7) The development of sources, by the State, which are beyond the powers of individual farmers, such as large-scale irrigation, land reclamation or resettlement products; and
(8) Extension of land use and intensification and utilisation of land, already in use through improved and scientific methods of cultivation.
(9) Diversification of farm production, i.e., besides cultivation of crops, dairy, poultry and fishing industries should be developed.
Possibilities of Increase in Agricultural Production:
With regard to production possibilities of agricultural commodities, Dr. Burn’s observations are worth nothing. He has opined that the yield per acre can be increased 30 per cent by the increased use of organic fertilizers, from 5 to 10 per cent by the use of improved seeds and another 20 per cent by the use of methods used for prevention of diseases and damage done by insects and pests.
For individual crops the estimated increase was calculated as follows:
Besides, the productivity of land per acre/hectare can also be increased as confirmed by field experiments in different parts of the country through better land use measures, i.e., by crop rotation, improvements in fallowing, by ridge cultivation (55 to 60 per cent) and by shallow hoeing (2.5 per cent) and by double cropping where secured irrigation is available.
Pulses constitute an important ingredient in vegetarian Indian diet. Pulses are cheaper than meat. They are often referred to as ‘poor man’s meat’ in India as well as in other developing countries. The serious efforts should be made to enhance the production and productivity of pulses.
The table given below shows the potential for enhancing pulses production as there is critical yield gap in major pulse crops:
Agriculture is an industry and, being the biggest in India, it needs capital, enterprise and brains to run it. Where these have been supplied, land resources and farming efficiency have shown surprisingly increased productivity. The information provided by crop competitions in different parts of the country reveal that much scope lies in increasing crop yield.
“Yields per acre in crop competition are 6 to 7 times higher than the average yields in the respective crops for the same year and, in some cases, the multiple is 9, 10, 14 and 26. Prize competition yields are the results of artificial stimulus, but it is not unreasonable to assume that average yields are capable of being raised much higher, and yields in India, given the organisation and drive can be increased by 100 to 200 per cent within a reasonable time.”
It will be evident that highest yield achieved in case of rice varied between 5 to 11 times and of wheat between 3 and 14 times more as compared to the State average of different states under study. Even in the national demonstration plots, the highest yields were 60 per cent to 60 per cent above their own average. This shows that given proper use of agricultural technology, much improvement in yields can be achieved.
This fact is further proved by the introduction of new package programme in those districts which had the advantage of high irrigation/assured rainfall/strong infrastructures, high enterprise. Here, properly prepared farm production plans were put into practice and adequate supply of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and credit and marketing services were made available. The results were spectacular in those districts, and the above table shows increases in yield obtained.
In seven districts which had the largest tenure of the programmes, the production went up (during 1960-68) by 24 per cent in wheat, by 100 per cent in maize and by 38 per cent in rice—about the double of the all India rate.
There is no doubt that Indian land resources and farming efficiency can result in raising per hectare productivity on all farms provided all the factors of production are fully exploited.
Consequences of Low Yields:
Low yields has been the basic cause of severity of food production in the country. It has been estimated that even according to the modest estimates, about 15 million people died during the famine of 1942. Though there has been substantial increase in yields of various crops, even then, millions of countrymen still suffer all their lives from malnutrition and under nutrition. There is wide gap between the nutritional requirements and actual availability of food among the poorer section of the society.
About 30 per cent of people do not get enough food to eat even in normal times. The shortfall of food grains has been variously estimated from as low as 3 to 4 million tonnes to as high as 10 to 12 million tonnes. India had to import about 10.0 million tonnes of foodgrains in 1965-66 and 1966-67. Though India has become self- sufficient in food production still there exists nutritional deficiency in the diet of poorer section of the society.
The low level of production of cash crops means, in general, low level of purchasing power of the peasant masses.
This, in turn, produces several severe consequences:
(i) The home market for industrial goods shrinks;
(ii) Industrial decay produces unemployment for the workers and the middle class people; and
(iii) The burden of rent, interest and taxes grows to such an extent that rural economy cracks up, domination of the money lender grows over the peasantry, the peasants are forced to sell their land and it gets concentrated in the hands of the parasitic class. This, in turn, reduces the productivity of the soil.
Problems of Low Yields of Production:
India leads all other countries in the production of groundnuts and tea and enjoys a monopoly in the production of lac. She is the second largest producer of rice, raw jute, sugar, rape-seed, sesamum, cotton and castor seed, and it ranks third in the production of millets.
Though India compares favourable with other countries of the world in agricultural production, her position is not very satisfactory in so far as the yield of crops per hectare is concerned. It is this low yield which made Dr. Clouston to remark, about 50 years ago that “India has depressed classes, she too has depressed industries and, unfortunately, agriculture is one of them.” This remark still holds true.
Yields per hectare in India are comparatively low and these, too, are reduced to nothing in the periods of drought. The Ford Foundation Team has reported that, “the best in Indian agriculture is comparable to the best in other countries but the average is unduly low. The task before the country is to develop ways of raising the low average to higher levels which many cultivators have achieved.”
Average yield of various crops is very low in India. Average yield of cereals is low in India in comparison to the average yield of cereals of USA, Canada, China, Korea, Brazil and Japan. It is very low in comparison to world average also. The agriculture of developed countries is highly nourished. Their yields of per hectare of major crops are about two and a half times those of agriculture yield of India. It also reflects that there is still very high scope of increase in agricultural production by raising yield per hectare.
The table given below shows the average yield per hectare of various crops in U.S.A and India:
The table shows that yield of various crops such as Paddy, Wheat, Maize, Sugarcane and Tobacco is low in India in comparison to world average.
Analysis of comparative yield data brings out two important features. First, that agricultural productivity (i.e., per hectare) is miserably low in India as compared to other countries, in nearly all crops. Second, over the last few years, average productivity per acre has been increasing, due to increasing use of hybrid, high yielding varieties of seeds, greater application of chemical fertilizers, launching of land improvement programmes and increasing availability of irrigation facilities, followed by scientific methods of farming and cultivation.
Land productivity shows marked regional variations. The average works out to be Rs.1,037 per hectare of the country as a whole. It ranges between as high as Rs.2,716 in Kerala to as low as Rs.461 in Rajasthan. This low productivity may be contributed to differences in soil fertility, availability of water supply, supply of infra-structure facilities and governments’ plans to improve agricultural inputs.
The table below shows the trends of food grain production and yield per hectare:
The table shows that food grains production was only 50.82 million tonnes in 1950-51. It increased to about 199.4 million tonnes in 1996-97. But agricultural production declined in 1997-98. Area under food grains increased till 1980-81, then it became constant and since 1990-91 area under food grains is declining.
Even then, the agricultural production is increasing and this is because of increase in agricultural productivity. Per hectare yield of food grains was 522 kg. per hectare in 1950-51. It was increased to 1,551 kg per hectare in 1997-98. As there is no scope of increase in area under crops, the increase in food grains production depends upon increase in yields only.
It has been estimated that food grains account for about 63 per cent of the agricultural output and, hence, a marginal decline in food grains production has a ripple effect on rest of the economy. Production of food grains was highest in 1996-97. It declined by over 7 million tonnes in 1997-98 in comparison to agricultural production of 1996-97. This was mainly due to decrease in production of wheat, bajra and pulses. Food grain production was near stagnation during Eleventh Plan, but it reached 241.6 million tonnes in 2010-11.
What Requires to be Done?
The problem of agricultural production is a problem of bringing about proper combination of soil, water, plants and people for production. The agricultural problem is not of maintaining, but of developing soil productivity to the highest practicable level and of maintaining at that level. What is to be sought in agriculture is not any kind of natural balance, but the highest level of cultural balance that modern technology and social organisation make possible.
The physical resources of soil, water and climate are sufficient to yield at least double, perhaps more than double the current production with full use of machines, chemicals, sufficient water supply and a combination of other good management practices. Mechanisation refers to application of mechanical power to agricultural operation from sowing to harvesting stage through bulldozers, graders, tractors, seed drills, cultivators, rollers, fertilizer distributors, combine harvesters and other light farm machinery.
Chemicalisation means the application of chemical fertilizers. Under rationalisation are included the application of science to different phases of agricultural production, viz. seed selection, or use of disease-resistant, high yielding varieties of seeds, use of insecticides and pesticides, erosion control etc. Irrigation gives a larger yield per acre and an irrigated crop shows a larger response to each unit of fertilizer applied to it than an unirrigated crop. Besides, availability of irrigation makes it possible to grow more crops when only one crop could be grown depending on rainfall.
It may be pointed out that no one’s practice is good over a wide range of soils. Nor can we usually expect the adoption of any single practice, by itself, to give an economic result. The big harvest comes from combinations of practices adopted to the particular situation. “Easy way” of emphasizing someone or two practices above all others in a “campaign” should be avoided because the results are bound to be low for the effort.
For example, bunds alone, fertilizer alone, improved tillage alone, or improved seeds of potentially high yielding varieties alone, may each give a small uneconomic increase on good soil under dry culture; but the combination commonly gives a three-to-six-fold increase in the harvest.
Since, in India, the basic problem is that of under-production, enhancement of all types of farm production is urgently needed. The basic approach, therefore, should be for increasing the output of all crops. The formulation of incentives for being effective, must suit the particular farms, the farmers, and the crops.
For formulating proper incentives, the increase in output should be classified according to the methods such as improvements in yield per hectare, expansion of area, increase in double-cropping, improvement in quality and diversification. The nature and character of the method is significant for suitability and effectiveness or otherwise of any specific incentive.
For better quantitative production, provision of irrigation, high yielding varieties, manures, fertilizers, and implements at concessional rate, should prove effective.
For better quality production, attractive prices, based on quality differentials accompanied by better seeds, should prove helpful.
For food crops and for subsistence farmers, provision of cost subsidies should be made.
For crops grown for the market and for bigger farmers, price guarantees may bring better responses.
In case of competing cash crops, measures aimed at higher income at low cost may prove more beneficial; and
Lastly, programme formulation and target fixation should be done, in view of the local situation, at the village level and mainly by local initiative and should be tailor-made to suit local conditions.
Incentives must be formulated in view of the individual circumstances and they should be supplemented by persuasion which is necessary to convince the producer for taking up any programme.
Most of the people are there not because they prefer to be there but because they find it difficult, if not impossible, to be elsewhere and so for them it is more a living than a business proposition. In fact, Indian agriculture has been and become a deficit economy and to a very extent, the Indian cultivator labours, not for profit nor for a net return but for subsistence.
The overcrowding of the people on land, the lack of alternative mean of securing a living, the difficulty of finding any avenue of escape and the early stage at which man is burdened with the dependents combine to force the cultivator to grow food wherever he can and on whatever terms he can. The ordinary cultivator on his tiny plot is still a man of small resource, with small means for meeting his small needs. He, therefore, requires all the help which science can afford, and which the organisation, education and training can bring within his reach.
A variety of factors are responsible for this state of affairs, most important being natural, technical, economic, social, structural, institutional and administrative obstacles in the way of optimal utilization of our land resources. It has rightly said that “the fundamental problem of agriculture is to transform this occupation from a mode of living into a business proposition for the benefit of the cultivating classes.”
If technology, currently known to India, could be applied to Indian agriculture, it would be easy to increase production substantially. However, it should be borne in mind that technology will be of no avail in improving agriculture unless institutional changes (in the form of land reforms) first provide the necessary economic basis for more efficient agriculture.
Gradual worsening of debt situation, violent price fluctuations, the middlemen’s exorbitant share and exploitation and the landlord’s apathy are some of the factors which discourage the farmer to adopt new methods or techniques whose failure could ruin him and whose success benefits everyone else than him.
Therefore, the measures to trigger individual incentives are:
(i) Security of tenure;
(ii) Security to minimise the risk and uncertainties in agricultural production through price supports;
{iii) Elimination of middle traders;
(iv) Provision of marketing facilities, and credit institutions;
(v) Strengthening of extension services;
(vii) Putting farming on a sound economic footing through establishment and improvement in co-operative organisations;
(vii) Better motivation of farmers;
(viii) Improvement in physical supplies of superior inputs; and
(ix) Inculcation of administrative integrity.
Unless the disabilities and hindrances in the way of agriculture are reduced, it seems inevitable that much of the teachings of the farm advisory services will fall upon stony ground.