Understanding Changes in Ecosystem of

Farmers’ Households in Select Villages of

Vidarbha Region (Mahashtra, India)

Study Report
by
Mohinder Kumar
NABARD, Mumbai

04/04/2018

1
 Contents

No. Chapter Page

Executive Summary 3-9

1 Introduction 10 - 44
2 Characteristics of Districts with Development Schemes 45 - 76
3 Ecosystem of Social Castes and Economic Classes 77 - 101
4 Ecosystem of Social Production Relations 102 - 109
5 Ecosystem of Infrastructure, Facilities and Natural Resources 110 - 139
6 Farmers’ Perspectives on Family Farming 140 - 165
7 Farmers’ Perspectives on Problems of Agriculture 166 - 251
8 Suggestions and Recommendations 252 - 268

2
 Executive Summary
This study has been conducted in the backdrop of farmers’ visible unrest, by collective
protest, in Maharashtra. The study is not about farmers’ suicides, but about “ecosystem”
defined as farmers’ “relations”. It aimed to understand relations emerging in social
processes of farm-production and market-exchange –yet appearing to farmers since
inception, not relations of bonding but “chains”: chains of over-dependence, separation,
exclusion and “alienation”. From beginning even as social production is yet to organize
and start, farmers confront several forms of “alienation” in the ecosystem of village-
society. In the existing conditions, the main objectives of the study were fixed as under:

(i) To analyze the ecosystem of social castes and economic classes in village.
(ii) To analyze the ecosystem of social production relations in village.
(iii) To analyze the ecosystem of infrastructure, facilities and natural resources.
(iv) To analyze the perception of farmers on family farming.
(v) To analyze the perception of farmers on problems of agriculture.
(Chapter-1)

The study involved collecting primary data for analysis. Field survey was conducted in
two villages (Harankhuri and Devnala) selected from agriculturally distressed districts
of Vidarbha: Wardha (Amravati Division) and Yavatmal (Nagpur Division). A sample of
38 farmer-households was selected from those two villages to collect data in structured
questionnaires. A separate questionnaire was designed to collect data on village unit as a
whole. Formats of different questionnaires are presented in Appendix-1.2.
(Chapter-1)

Secondary data on the ongoing development schemes were compiled from agencies in
Wardha and Yavatmal (through District Planning Office) in two districts. Statistical
information on district profiles was compiled from Potential Linked Credit Plan (PLP) of
Wardha and Yavatmal districts, and critically analyzed to understand macro-level
features of the study area by studying district parameters.
(Chapter-2)

District agencies faced difficulty of resource crunch for development schemes. District
Plan, Wardha, for 2016-17 sanctioned Rs.199 crore. Performance in implementing
programmes lacks optimization of efforts to achieve physical targets. Few schemes
showed good performance: ST Sub-Plan, SC Sub-Plan, Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan i.e.
Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign (started in 2015-16 to check farmers’ suicides), etc.
Many general schemes on agriculture, horticulture, organic farming, irrigation, extension
reforms, cotton development, rainfed area development, Maharashtra Agricultural
Competitiveness Project, etc. could not achieve targets. Naturally, district profiles of
Wardha and Yavatmal show dismal indicators of progress in real sector, infrastructure
and basic facilities. Resting on real sector parameters, banking sector, particularly loan-
advances and loan repayment, showed disquieting developments. However, it is
intriguing to observe impressive growth in number of bank deposit accounts and amount
of bank deposits, in Wardha and Yavatmal districts.
(Chapter-2)

3
Social-caste composition of both sample villages is different. First sample village
(Harankhuri) is mostly tribal (90% ST) as 10% households are Non-Tribal (NT). STs
belong to Gond tribe and sub-group Uike. NT group is called Waddar, comprising these
categories: Watke (stone-crushers), Bhoi (fishermen), and Beldar (masons). Currently
there is no Bhoi fishermen household in village, only two NT households of Watke and
Beldar categories. Second sample village (Devnala) is comprises mix of castes and
groups: Non-Tribal (NT) Banjara (Tanda) are 50% households; Gond (Adivasi ST) 14%;
Kolam (Podh Adivasi ST) 8%; Kunbi (OBC) 11%; Teli (OBC) 11%; Nai (OBC) 0.3%; and
Bodh (SC) 6% households. Banjara households were originally nomadic, engaged in
grazing cattle (cows and goats) in forest, and selling cattle and milk. Banjara households
owned 100-150 cattle each. After 1963, they were brought to the mainstream of settled
life to adopt farming by abandoning nomadic life style. Kolam STs were forest dwellers,
lived on hunting until few years ago, and brought and settled in Devnala by allotting land
for farming. A visible change in social caste composition has occurred in villages over
past 30 years. First sample village is today socially less differentiated and more
homogenous (tribal) than it was in the past. Gond tribe in the past comprised nomadic
Sarodi/Firasti and Dhan-gar sub-groups living in outskirts of village. Sarodi/Firasti
nomads stayed for 2-3 months at one place; their livelihood was trading buffaloes. Dhan-
gars were pastoral, grazed cows and goats, came to village for agricultural wage-work,
and got settled. Both villages were settled around 150 years ago and social-tribal-caste
composition kept changing.
(Chapter-3)

Economic-class composition of both sample villages is not much different; even within
same village economic/class differentiation is not marked; there is no visible economic
exploitation; each household works on other’s field as wage-laborer, particularly in
cotton season. Except dry-land size-class categorization, households are not
differentiated on economic parameters. Villages have division of castes and tribes but
no economic/class differences. Only landed property causes a false sense of economic
separatedness (“liberty”); universal wage-labor nullifies it. Inter-village or intra-village
economic differences are insignificant. However, in temporal sense both villages over
the past 30 years witnessed some economic changes: ownership of vehicle, pucca house,
farm machinery, tools, assets, television, dish antennae, mobilephone, etc. However,
cattle ownership declined. Land lease-sales saw little change, to remain low and limited.
Wage-labor use increased though 30 years ago it was no less significant as cotton cash
crop generated labor demand. Even 80-90 acres owning family members worked on
marginal farmers’ cotton farm due to lack of capital. Yield has increased; use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides increased; Bt cotton seeds replaced desi cotton 10 years ago; risk
replaced “idyllic” way of farm-life; electric motor replaced DG set. Borewells with pump
sets increased yet not much. Harit Kranti came in 1992 and increased cost. Indebtedness
increased; dependence on bank, moneylender and wine increased. Village Economy
upscaled over time yet spatial inter-and intra-village economic differences are not much
pronounced. Village Society kept differentiated on castes yet tribes were predominant
somewhere; despite social-caste differentiation harmony prevails; harmony hides
families’ patriarchal values and subtle coercive attitudes to preserve youths’ obsession
for land, tied to family farming.
(Chapter-3)

4
Relation of farmer’s family with farming activity is characterized by subsistence. Family’s
immediately felt needs make it strive for secured means of subsistence in “idyllic” way of
family-farming. This mental set up has not changed much over the years. A farmer’s
family-farming system is similarly subsistence-based as it used to be 30 years ago, or since
inception, in village. Intervention of state in subsistence society/food economy, that
farmers started feeling 100 years ago and continued through generations, with the
introduction of cotton cash crop for domestic and British market, has gradually increased
in subtle or explicit ways. Farming system, of farmer’s family, has currently become
“semi-subsistence” farming –imbibing both subsistence and commercial needs. Either
same crop is grown both for home consumption and market, or some crops are grown
exclusively for market and some crops are meant exclusively for home consumption.
Purposes and crops are becoming divided. Earlier 30 years ago or before, farmer grew
more number of crops, viz., cotton, toor, soyabean, chana, jowar, jawas (oilseeds),
moong, moth/urad, etc. along with 5-6 vegetables in kitchen-garden, and goats, cows and
poultry for direct subsistence. Currently vegetables are completely out as purchased from
market and number of main crops has reduced to the market crops (cotton, toor, soya),
as wheat is grown by few and far-between, with animal husbandry activities for the
family’s direct consumption-subsistence, slowly getting reduced.
(Chapter-4)

Relation of farmer with social production process is characterized by “owner-operator”

status. It is termed “social”, first because farmer’s family members including house wife
jointly work with him. Second, it is “social”, because this production process occurs in
society of village with others’ indirect cooperation, extended even to “hired” cooperation
of wage-laborers from within the village. A farmer/family is “owner-operator” of owned
farm. In some villages (as in sample village Devnala), production system also includes
“landless tenant” operators. However, in both the cases (“owner-operator” and “landless
tenant operator”), key role is played increasingly by hired agricultural “wage-laborers”.
Therefore, social production process or production system, in sample villages is
dependent on universal hiring of social cooperation of purchased labor-power in
exchange for money (wages). All farmers are “owners” or “possessors” of the land (even a
“tenant” possesses it for one year or “allottees” in Devnala too possess it by renewed
perpetuation by re-registration), but ultimately all are “wage-laborers” on each other’s
cotton farm (season of 5-6 months) and on construction sites outside village: This sort of
“laborization” of land “owners” in production process is articulated in later chapters.
(Chapter-4)
Relation of farmer with own produce is dominantly defined and decided by market:
Farmer produces increasingly more for market. Quantum of marketable “surplus” of crop
produce has increased during past 30 years in villages. Cotton and soyabean are 100%
“surplus” for market; toor is 75-90% surplus. In last 30 years, “marketable surplus” of
three crops, increased from 1083 quintals to 6373 quintals (6 times) in Harankhuri and
from 1919 quintals to 3079 quintals (1.6 times) in Devnala (it suffered crop loss of cotton
to pest in 2017). Principle of “marketable surplus” as objective condition becomes
unprincipled mechanism of “money spinner” for farmer (as explained in chapter-7)
through constant borrowings, ultimately creating indebtedness.
(Chapter-4)

5
The so-called “objective world” or “objective condition” or “external objectivity”, which
happens to be the determinant of farmer’s farm-production and market-exchange
processes, is constituted by the surrounding network of infrastructure, basic facilities and
natural resources. During past 30 years, farmers as producers in sample villages
witnessed betterment in services of electricity, telecommunication, road connectivity,
public transportation, goods transportation, spot markets, backward linkages (inputs
supply), etc. though glitches were significant and recurrent. Extension services for
agriculture did not improve much. Village shop/outlet network also did not improve/
expand. Healthcare services remained as constrained as ever in the past. Safe drinking
water supply by pipes got exacerbated, particularly in one sample village, characterized
by acute water shortage after monsoon. Irrigation facilities did not move forward. No
much positive change was observed in education facilities, particularly skill/technical
education, due to which self-employment opportunities for village youths could not
expand beyond farming (100% choosing this occupation). The condition of Common
Property Resources did not develop much during past 30 years: None of the villages has
community pond; one sample village could not complete construction of village pond
during past 25 years due to negative politics/litigation and general apathy;
degraded/denuded forests saw little afforestation; access to pastures is a problem due to
limiting size and vanishing; wild animals are coming out into fields as farmers are
entering the forests; whatever significant quantum of flowing nallahs/rain-water exists
each year (inspite of so-called “distressed” conditions of “drought”) or solar energy is
bestowed by nature –both could not be tapped beyond rhetorical development and went
wasted even as will-power of human involvement and capital-power of investment, both
were absent together; and agro-processing/household industries were marked by
absence. In such objective milieu of production by “real sector”, the banking-led “financial
sector” struggled to gain foothold in sample villages.
(Chapter-5)

In the perspective of sample farmers, family farming is still an “idyllic” world for easy
lifestyle, not agri-business of commercialized stress. Average farmer (the “head” of
household) is aged above 50 years, with 30 years farm-experience, and not much
conversant with other skills or use thereof; he is yet to give way to the youth who is
expected to think not yet beyond hereditary family farming as survival option. Entire
family drudges as helping hands on family farm; 84% families have unskilled wage-
laborers, since family farm, sized 3 acres per adult member, strangely cannot sustain
family’s burden. In over 93% sample farmers’ perception, objective of family farming is
semi-subsistence with self-employment of adult members in family work. Farmers cited
several (15-20) factors which made the survival of family farming possible over past 25
years (or since past 80 years as remembered/witnessed in family history), and who did
everything possible to save the farm’s existence in tact: an outstanding factor was the
unfailing and continuous support of village moneylender/informal lending source. This
finding substantiates Marx’s principle of “compatibility” of farming system with lending
system. Farmers managed cash for daily needs from over 20 sources, which is their
survival instinct; yet they failed just at banks’ threshold. Most (80%) of farmers felt
problems in family farming yet only minority (9%) ever thought about quitting farming
and take “exit” from agriculture –such is the farmers’ art of survival amid adversity.
(Chapter-6)

6
The perspectives of sample farmers, of different age-groups, about problems of
agriculture, revealed two opposing factors, viz., “exit” from farming and “persistence” in
farming, exerting pressure on youths. They feel external inducement to “exit” or
“persistence” both, as coercive without free choice. Farmers are experiencing a growing
conflict between semi/subsistence farming approach and commercial farming approach.
Even commercial farming (of cash crop like cotton) is done by farmer with simple mindset
of subsistence –it makes family’s physical survival possible, and not because economic
surpluses are to be generated and accumulated for reinvestment and economic progress.
Objective environment of average farmer is characterized by misery of life, without safe
drinking water for human consumption and daily household-use, without rain water
stored for irrigation (5-13% net sown area irrigated in sample villages; village pond
incomplete since 25 years), without drinking water for domestic animals, without
extension services to deal with pest attack, without remunerative price of crops, etc. as if
farmer’s physical survival happens somehow by chance in the world of a vast
“nothingness” all around. Tragic over-dependence on rain (sans stored water) and
ruthless over-dependence on minimum 61 agencies/entities/service-providers make the
farmer’s farming occupation “back-breaking” –both in proverbial and real sense. A small
pond to store bounty of rainwater cannot be provided yet institutional rhetoric of
“drought” curses nature-god unfailingly each year, to blame it for having failed! This is
“alienation” of farmer from nature, referred in first paragraph. Another form of alienation
is “social alienation”: one farmer’s “unconscious” fierce struggle (not competition) against
another farmer, for “self-fulfilment” and being “self-sufficient”. Third form of alienation
is personal or “individual alienation”: alienation from oneself when e.g. sample farmer
has no occasion to cooperate on other’s farm by sharing work, but has ample
opportunities to sell one’s “labor-power” in exchange for money-wages for laboring on
other’s cotton farm. In normal capitalism, only some do wage-labor, but in Harankhuri
and Devnala villages, almost 100% farmers/families do wage-labor; so these village
societies are far ahead of pure capitalist system by “virtue” of virtual universalization of
wage-labor by farmers, thus sort of “laborization” of entire village. That is the height of
human “alienation” achieved that ought to seek human emancipation. The question is,
whether or not landed property of “owner-operators” can help human redemption and
human emancipation of farmers from above forms of “alienation” experienced in
objective environment characterized by no services, no resources, no supplies, and no
“storages” of surplus rainwater each year, though popular/institutional discourse tires
not in expressing the need for “storage” facilities for surplus farm produce converted into
commodities to make business profit. Suicides by farmers have continued in conditions
of human “alienation” whose initial point is located in obsession with land ownership and
forced ties with hereditary farming. This study puts onus of solution on private
ownership of property in agricultural land. “Land fetishism” is the root of all problems.
(Chapter-7)

Possible solution lies: (i) in the state government’s access to sufficient finance for funding
development expenditure though economic literature/documents as yet do not suggest
what quantum/scale of finance is “sufficient” for human emancipation of farmers (e.g.
one guess/estimate may reasonably suggest that if District Plan of Wardha (2016-17) was
sized at Rs.199 crore (say, 200 crore), “sufficient” level of funding could be say, Rs.2000
crore (10 times); or (ii) in the root cause of problem itself, i.e. “alienation”, i.e. private

7
ownership of property (land), which suggests that private property should be abolished
in favor of common/community property in land. Option (i) appears humanly rational
and reasonable (considering multitude of problems/scarcities in sample villages outlined
in Chapter-7 of this study report, which substantiate the secondary data-based problems
reflected by parameters of selected districts at the macro-level in Chapter-2), but is
financially speaking, not practically feasible. Option (ii) appears logical, dialectical
(dynamic) and practical, but extreme opposition could be expected from vested political
interests in society. Therefore, the problem called private landed property/ownership
may be handled indirectly in the immediate/short-run. Society may agree on taxing the
land, i.e. nature’s free gift to all/community, but private appropriation, apportionment,
possession by way of private ownership, has created the problem –ethical and moral, for
society. It is collective immorality to divide and own nature (land) for private
gain/interest. As option of scientific solution to the above problems, this study
recommends a proposal for comprehensive and dispassionate discussion among state and
central government stakeholders and all development partners, including academia and
social scientists, on need to introduce a new policy and an Act on “Land Value Tax” (LVT)
for implementation in Maharashtra state. LVT has economic potential to successfully
replace Goods & Service Tax (GST) and all other taxes, including Income Tax. LVT (also
called “Geo-tax”) is most simple, direct, open, transparent, least-complicated and most
efficient taxation. This study shows levying LVT by local community (not state, district
authority) generates genuinely “sufficient” revenue resources, which may be spent by
community in villages for creating public goods and services for upliftment of villages,
including agriculture and all other activities. This study builds a case for comprehensive
development of villages in Vidarbha (and whole country) based on history of LVT and its
implementation in countries like Japan (its industrialization owes to LVT under the Meiji
Reforms), Singapore, Hong Kong, cities of Johanesburg in South Africa and Sydney in
Australia. The study while suggesting LVT cautions that LVT may not be confounded/
identified with “Real Estate Tax”, which is nothing but GST, proposed to be abolished in
favor of LVT system. LVT is levied on owned land area, not development/ construction/
building/ premises on that land. Human principle underlying LVT suggests that all other
taxation systems are unjustified and irrational (Income Tax penalizes individual’s hard
labor/effort; Corporate Tax/Excise Duty penalizes innovation/entrepreneurial effort;
GST penalizes consumers’ consumption/ welfare). The study makes policy
recommendation for consideration of levying LVT, as it has potential to generate
necessary and sufficient condition (i.e. revenue resource), for human emancipation of
all farmers universally, equally and sustainably.
(Chapter-8)

Other suggestions are referred in the last, as these are related to the activities, for which
funding would be required (obviously) either by way of material cost or man-power cost.
Land Value Tax (LVT) suggested above, makes it practically possible that partners and
stakeholders may take initiatives, for amelioration of problems in not only the sample
villages but also in the entire area/ region/ state/ country, by replication and as per
mandate (with flexibility). NABARD’s guiding initiatives/follow-ups are proposed in
these important action points: (i) completion of construction work on 25 years old village
pond in Devnala; (ii) watershed development under WDF, water harvesting structures,
village ponds, farm ponds; (iii) formation of Farmers’ Clubs (FCs) and FPOs of farmers

8
(with renewed focus on developing “cooperative spirit” which, as “motor”, triggers every
other initiative automatically); (iv) Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) in one sample village
where landless tenants are 45%; (v) taking promotional role of credit intervention as
strategic challenge in existing complex ecosystem of villages (by focusing on
cooperatives); and (vi) promoting/developing cooperativism and cooperative spirit of
member-farmers in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies (PACS) based on
inputs learned by farmers from Farmers Clubs –schools of educating farmers for
cooperation/association/organization, so that sense of “alienation” and separation in
“independent” farmers is vanished consciously. Action points and suggestions for the
State Government are offered as under: (i) Introducing school-level (5th to 10th Class)
basic technical education in agriculture and entrepreneurial-financial education in agri-
business; (ii) establishing 3-4 “Krishi Polytecnics” for diploma certificate or degree
education in each district (with Marathi medium of instruction); (iii) Irrigation
Department helping the farmers of Devnala village in completing the construction of
village pond (50 acres) as it has potential for sufficient irrigation; (iv) solving the problem
of acute shortage of safe drinking water of Devnala village by digging village ponds/tanks
with water purification systems, as all existing handpumps have failed, and new borewells
have little scope of success in rocky sub-surface land as water is meagerly available at 250-
300 feet; (v) a stringent “water-harvesting policy” may be introduced, which is based
on the basic premise of questioning whether civil society in village could allow all rain-
water to go wasted, by flowing/run-off through nallah each year after monsoon,
without storing all such water in ponds/water-harvesting structures/ water-bodies
within village, by local decentralized initiative of the community (e.g. Farmers’ Club, by
new mandate)/ Gram Panchayat/ Village Assembly (Gram Sabha); and (vi) introducing
genuine “farmer-centric” agricultural policy that takes into account farmers’
contradictions/ conflicts/ trade-offs, as these are felt on the ground in a system of capital
intensive commercialized production, which gives fetishized priority to money-income,
production and “profit over people”, as Noam Chomsky put it, making clear the core of
principle of capitalism.
(Chapter-8)

9
 Chapter-1
Introduction

This chapter presents, in review form, introductory features of background of this study,
viz., agricultural situation, state of farmers, change in “conceptualization” of farmers,
disquieting issues (other than farmers’ suicides) in agriculture, review of changing
objective social reality in village (“book view”, “field view”, dynamic/“dialectical” view),
need of village studies, review of philosophical perspective on “social alienation”, and
finally introduction on present study, viz., objectives, approach and methodology.

Alarming Background

Silent farmers’ distress and subduedattitude,as observed during the past 25-30 years, has
suddenly got transformed by eruption into phenomenon of farmers’
agitations/strikes/protests on the roads (June 20171) –beginning in Maharashtra and
later spreading to the other states in the country. In March 2018, once again 35000
farmers (some sources quote 16,000) made “long march” by walking 180 km in 7 days,
from Nashik to Mumbai, for rederessal of grievances and difficulties in economic2
situation. In the interregnum (between July 2017and March 2018), farmers in
Maharahtra were occupied with the task of struggling for “loan waiver” scheme and its
economics through politics of pressure and protests. These protests by farmers make it
amply clear that goal of so-called universal “human emancipation”3 is not possible or has
no meaning without basic economic emancipation of working farmers gained as “the
measure of last resort” (ultimate determinant). The act of several serial struggles waged
by farmers in daily life, for “political emancipation” and liberal “rights” (right to property,
right to land, right to “fair compensation/price for acquired land”, bank loan,

1 Farmers throwing farm produce and spilling milk on roads, boycotting supply of vegetables/farm
produce to the cities/markets, blocking transportation of fruits/vegetables, warning to strike farm
production for cities, etc. were witnessed, experienced and reported by media.
2 Term “economic” is used not in narrow “income” or “financial” sense merely, but goes beyond it (though

retaining its income perspective for immediate survival). This report understands concept of “economic”
not in isolation from genuine “freedom”. In this report, term “economic” does not stand alone or
“separated” from “political” (to make “economic” realm ‘separated” from “political”, as generally seen in
the mainstream economics. In actual practice and in reality, both “economic” and “political” aspects go
together in correspondence with each other, hand-in-hand. The term “economic” is understood in terms
of Marx’s principle of “economic base” and “ideological-philosophical superstructure” wherein both
“base” and “superstructure” go parallel, and not separated. “Political” aspect is part of “superstructure”.
Although both “economic base” and “political superstructure” move in parallel way (in deeper
essence/reason, without one determining/causing the other), ultimately or “in final analysis” it is
“economic base” which determines “political superstructure”. See, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The
German Ideology, Progress Publishers, Moscow. Also see, Mohinder Kumar (2016), “Convergence
between NRLM-led Microfinance Sector and Government Programmes for social Development and
Economic Empowerment”, The Microfinance Review, Vol.VIII(2), July-December
3 It suggests perceptible change (and not mere statistical or documentary data change) in the living

conditions of all farmers and whole/village society, overcoming social (man-man/ caste/ economic class)
contradictions, trade-offs and tugs of war. See, Allan Smith, “Karl Marx as a Philosopher of Human
Emancipation” (https://www.thur.de/philo/emanc.htm) and Charles Herr, “Marx on Suicide: New
insights on human relations”, News & Letters (Theory & Practice)
(https://kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-book-review-marx-suicide-herr.pdf)

10
remunerative price, i.e. “Minimum Support Price”/MSP support, etc.), does not make
meaningful difference to thesituation of individual farmers: They strive only for “political
emancipation”, and not “human emancipation” (freedom from “social alienation”).
Alternately, farmers/state/intelligentsia struggle for isolated “economic emancipation”
(assured income by price fixed as 150% of cost; “doubling farmers’ income”; “basic
income” for farmers on lines of UBI4, etc.). Problem persists; problem is most likely going
to stay if deeper reasons behind farmers’ agitations are not understood in the village
society and ecosystem/structure of network of relationsinthe village itself, transcending
narrow economics, cost, price, market, exchange and marketing (which are undoubtedly
important, but not beyond immediate survival). Prima facie farmers’ problem at hand yet
persisting for long (since 70 years after Independence, or ever since the British Period)
suggests thatits reasons must be located deeper where concepts “economics”, “economy”,
“economic”, etc. need to be understood differently from the mainstream economics
understanding of these terms5.

Problems of poor “economics” of cultivation, “financial unviability” of farms,“rural

indebtedness”, etc. appear mere outer symptomsof the larger problem of agrarian crisis
that is essentially social crisis. The real reasons of farmers’ growing unrest and agitation
could possibly be located deeper in a realm that goes beyond “economics of cost-benefit”
and economic dimension of “income” (though income is important): Income of farmers
is materialized and it happens in village society.

Sudden change is currently visible in the farmers’ attitudes as also in their strategy to cope
withsocial/agrarian crisis. Individual farmers’ inner agitation of mind (mental distress,
suicide, i.e. self-inflicted pain) is conjoined/balanced by external expression of their
agitation i.e. outwardly expressed. A decliningeconomy of agriculture, agitated mind of
individual farmer, collective agitation by farmers, politics of protests, etc. –all indicate
that village society is somewhere in rupture and decay; such social downfall is
triggering mental distress in individual farmers.

The observed change in vocal and expressive attitude of farmers in recent past, needs to
be explored through a systematic study, to understand their perspectives (as situation is
alarming and unpredictable). Farmers’ changing attitude to their ecosystem, including
their relation with cultivation/farming activity, deserves thorough probe.

4UBI: Universal Basic Income

5Whereas Marx saw the economy in terms of interplay of “economic base” and “political/ideological-
philosophical superstructure”, author Rajni Bakshi traced “economy” to the original/classical meaning of
this term as “household”and all its activities; see Rajni Bakshi, Bazaars, Conversations & Freedom (For a
Market Culture Beyond Greed and Fear), Penguin Books, 2009. For the mainstream economic science,
meaning of “economy” is understood in terms of divided individuals (owning some form of “property”,
even if property of abstract “labor-power”) always engaging with commodities, exchange, money, capital
and pursuit of profit/profitable ventures as “Homo-economicus” or “economic being”, in contrast with
Marx’s notion of “species being” i.e. a being (real human being) who as individual recognizes oneself as
“social power” (instead of mere “political power” or “power of property”). See Charles Herr (op cit).

11
Disquieting Situation on Induced “Exit” from Agriculture, “Move out” by
Farmers, and Future of Farmers and Farming

“Exit” from agriculture by small farmers, is suggested in economic literature and sections
of policy making/implementation, for reasons which largely overlook long-term adverse
consequences of “exit”6.

A report of National Sample Survey Office (NSSO)7 suggests that “40% farmers felt that
given a choice they would take up some other career” in place of farming. It is to be
properly understood, as a matter of critique, that traditionally farming in India cannot
not be termed “career” in modern usage of the term. The use of term “career” is not
appropriate. Since statistics-oriented NSSO/MOSPI does not have real expertise in
ground level matters related to agriculture and agrarian relations, the above finding based
on questionnaires of NSSO needed critical assessment. Agriculture is not only ancestral
but also hereditary activity, not chosen freely as “career” or ‘profession” as other activities
are chosen by youths. Agriculture in India as such is marked by continuum as inter-
generational activity. Unless exotic pressure (e.g. “agri-business” concept, still in nascent
stage) is mounted from outside ofagriculture system, notion of “taking up other career”,
and hence discarding farming activity, cannot appear in the existing ecosystem of
agriculture –such relations of hereditary activity are so strong in traditional agriculture.

Attributing “career” perspective to agriculture, from outside, would tantamount toa

misconception of agrarian relations in villages. It could mistakenly reinforce
suggestionsfor “exit” from agriculture (in the framework of Darwinian principle of natural
selection applied to agricultural economics/economy): “Decent growth in farm income
requires some cultivators moving out of agriculture”8. This suggestion is based on
paradigm of the “survival of the fittest” and the most “efficient” farms, even as it is
overlooked that relatively more“economic efficiency” of the selected (surviving
successful) farms could be due to absence of level-playing field in agriculture (i.e.
villages), which appears to be true.

One finds more such suggestions of “exit” of farmers from agriculture, which may be due
to the misconception of Indian Agriculture as “career” oriented modernist agriculture
comfortably subjected to capitalist firm’s notions of “entry” and “exit”. A study suggests:
“Farming is a skilled profession and hence, would need skilled and motivated people.
Instead of forcing [existing] people in to the profession, it may be worthwhile to create

6 “Exit” from agriculture by free choice of youths is different from market/ state/ policy suggestions,
which make such “exit” appear as compulsive, enforced and coercive (directly or indirectly) under
emerging conditions. The present study looks into this aspect of “exit” and opinions of youths in villages.
While forced “retention” by hereditary compulsion is wrong, so also forced/induced “exit” by compulsion
is wrong. Morality of any action (“retention” or “exit”) is to be judged by real “freedom” of choice
available. If there are no choices available then any inducement is nothing but force and over-dependence.
7 See report of Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers: Some Aspects of Farming, NSSO, 59th Round

(Jan-Dec.2003), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Govt. of India, 2005.
8 Doubling Farmers’ Income by 2022, Monograph, NABARD, 2016

12
lucrative avenues for those who want to leave agriculture, and incentives and skills to
those whowant to enter/continue”9.

Similarly, disquieting and arguable suggestions to “move out”of agriculture are recently
offered by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)10 as under: “India
needs a ‘move out’, move up’ approach to deal with the agriculture crisis”. It further says,
“It is important to address farmers’ problems. Most of the hungry people in the world
are farmers11. The first response is to increase productivity and production. But there is
problem there. When everyone is producing more, the prices will go down and we have
seen that in India, China and everywhere12. For India, some farmers have tomove to

9 “Doubling Farmers’ Incomes: Way Forward”, Rural Pulse, Issue XIV, NABARD, March-April 2016. The
study, however, does not suggest any such “lucrative avenues” which can keep exited farmers (who shall
quit farming) for long in sustainable professions. Beyond a mechanical uncertain/unlimited “exit” and
“entry” process, the study does not offer long-term sustainable solutions or options like complete
structural change in an ailing agriculture/society of villages WITHOUT causing mass displacement of the
existing farmers. It seeks to retain farmers through “incentives and skills”, by overlooking that these two
specific areas, viz., “incentives” (plethora of schemes) and “skills” (extension services) are, precisely
speaking, the ones where Indian agricultural policy and implementation has largely failed in the past,
leading to weakening and decay of village society/agriculture ecosystem.
10 The excerpts of interview by Director General, IFPRI, may be seen in news report, “Move out, move up

approach could ease India’s farm crisis”, The Hindu, March 21, 2018 (p.13 Business page).
11 This assertion is strong comment on the state of small agriculture across the world. One needs to

rethink and review any suggestion that directly induces “exit” from agriculture. In the absence of
alternative occupations (matching agriculture which is the largest and as old as organized since Neolithic
era i.e. 10,000 years old), it is not difficult to imagine that those farmers who shall be “exited”, “replaced”
and “displaced”, would have to be brought back and retained in agriculture itself. And, once “exit” or
“move out” took place, one shall see that the displaced farmers could be retained back (after return), not
as “independent” “autonomous” farmers (i.e. “owner-operators”) but as “wage laborers” of the new ones
who are either corporate or agri-businessmen or capitalist owners –thus paving the way for what is called,
“developed capitalism” in agriculture in place of present era’s “underdeveloped” capitalist agriculture.
Subtle calls for large-scale/full-scale capitalist agriculture may be seen in the excerpts even as suggestions
for “increase in investment in R&D”, “entrepreneurs” (instead of “multinationals”), etc. are made, so that
the “move out” of farmers is smoothly ensured and entry of big capital (albeit domestic/national) looks
acceptable, which is essential condition for the farmers’ displacement.
12 It confirms that political state/policy/regulation, has been unable to protect the marketing interests of

small farmers in markets, all over the world. A recent proposal by Ministry of Finance, Government of
India to establish thousands of “haats” to revive traditional system of “haats”, vindicates scathing
observation of IFPRI on functioning of capitalist agricultural markets/marketing paradigm and practice
under state regulation (e.g. APMC markets in India). However, from the existing situation of APMC
market system, it does not become very clear whether “market” failed or “state” or both. There is also a
concern whether concept of “e-marketing” (online National Agricultural Market) shall be able to protect
the interests of farmers completely/satisfactorily even as Rajni Bakshi insists (validly) that small farmers
(or any producers) are not very comfortable with “impersonal”/ “exotic”, “domineering”, “distant”
markets (distant also in “hodological” mental sense) which dominate on strength of “private capital” and
where “personal acquaintance” is minimum, “meeting place for conversation” is dissuaded, which are “not
social but economic” and are “for profit, self interest and maximizing individual utility” instead of
collective/ community welfare, which is visible rather in “haats”. See Rajni Bakshi (op cit). For relevance,
knowledge and information, it may be incidentally mentioned that in West Bengal state (now Bengal),
some local village “haats” are as old as 200 or 300 years old and existing/operating. See the list of “haats”
and markets in Haats and Markets of West Bengal (2 volumes), Department of Horticulture &
Marketing, Govt. of West Bengal. It appears to be country wide phenomenon.

13
cities and urban centers13. Those who stay behind will be able to increase the holding
and move to producing high value food that will create new opportunities14. That is
the ‘move out, move up’ approach”.15

Although findings of NSSO (MOSPI, Govt. of India) and NABARD’s reports (cited above)
clearly stated that small farmers (if given choice) would like to opt out of agriculture, and
researchers’ findings too suggested in clear terms that they should make exit from
farming/villages, the following assertion by IFPRI, takes differing view and opines
otherwise, on policy from outside:

“Policy makers in India do not appreciate this [‘move out, move up’ approach]
much. They want to keep people in rural areas. This is not fair to them as they
would continue to struggle. The policies should facilitate move out and move
up. India has been investing in rural and urban projects separately, but
investment in the linkage between urban and rural economy is inadequate. As
urban people get prosperous they will demand better, more nutritious food in
the future. This would encourage agriculture that is now grain focused, to shift
to vegetables, fruits, good dairy products and meat. It is a great opportunity
for small holders. Some agriculture entrepreneurs may come to rural areas
from cities and use GPS, drones, laser technology, etc. to produce healthier

13This suggestion overlooks misery of life and living conditions created by migration in the cities
(both within slums and outside slum areas). Such suggestion is made by keeping China’s
situation in view, because there such model of migration or conversion of land into urban
estates/economic zones, is being adopted in a big way by large-scale privatization (of land/
agrarian relations) in agriculture on the one hand, and “real estate” development in the cities, on
the other. China is also engaged in such agricultural land acquisitions of farm lands in other
contries/world-wide; see Carol A. Hunsberger et al "Large-Scale Land Transactions: Actors, Agency,
Interactions" (https://www.academia.edu/6846548/Large-
scale_land_transactions_Actors_agency_interactions?auto=download)
14 It ignores that “Increase in holding” and “high value food” production, etc. could be alternatively made

possible by forming the Farmers’ Producers Organizations (FPOs) or Producers’ Companies (PCs) as well.
At the same time, Indian reader is ignoring that China itself (in conext of which IFPRI made suggestions
for India) could not implement successfully its (forced) collective model of “village commune” and
“collective agriculture” (whose variant forms are now being adopted by India as FPOs and PCs) as
different variants of collectives had failed both in USSR (ruthless collectivization of agriculture) and Israel
(Kibutz failed after some years). For China’s failure in collectivization, see Frank Dikotter (2011), Mao’s
Great Famine, Bloomsbury. It proves that neither exotically forced/constrained/induced “organization”
(collectivization into commune/company) is successful or acceptable to the farmers, nor exotically
forced/induced“exit” suggestion is successful/possible/viable. Complexity of agriculture in “Asiatic Mode
of Production” (AMoP) in India, China and other South Asian/South-East Asian countries, demands
solutions based on uniqueness of these countries as characterized by the AMoP. See, Kimio Shiozwa,
“Marx's view on Asiatic society and his Asiatic mode of production”
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1966.tb00480.x)
15 The interviewee (DG, IFPRI) grew up in China and had seen the agrarian system of China under

collectivization/communes in villages. He suggests that “Chinese transformation [from failed

collectivization/commune] was based on ‘move out’ and ‘move up’ but there is more resistance to this
approach in India”. Unwittingly, it is noticeable that India is adopting what failed in China (collectives)
and China is adopting what did not succeed in India (independent owner-operatorship). The only
difference is that of scale; whatever China did/does now, is/was on large-scale of holdings; and whatever
India did/does now, is/was on relatively small sized holdings.

14
 food in more efficient ways, from relatively smaller holdings16. Indian
agricultural scientists must work hard to develop and own new technologies.
The country should own them rather than multinationals, so that your farmers
will benefit. You should invest more in this research.The spread of the internet
has led to a lot of misinformation on GMOs [Genetically Modified Organisms]
in countries like India and China17, and the governments and the researchers
have the responsibility to spread accurate information to help farmers. Anti-
globalism could be detrimental to food security and countries such as India
and China must continue to argue for free and fair trade and the free
movement of people of people around the world.”18

Reliability of “Exit” Thesis on Farmers in Agriculture

Incidentally, it is notable that ICAR/IARI representative in a national level seminar

expressed reservations on reliability of NSSO’s (2003) finding on farmers’ feelings about
adopting other “career” after getting choice of leaving agriculture19. Although NSSO did
not specify any reason for farmers adopting other “career”, it may be interpreted from its
supplementary finding (related to 27% farmers affirming they “did not like farming
because it was not profitable”) that profitability is a major issue behind farmers choosing
to leave agriculture. But, whether this (profitability induced “exit” from farming) is true
or not, requires thorough probe, as it appears that farmers are “persisting” in farming
yet quitting their “life” (dieng by committing suicide), but still not quitting farming to
“exit” from agriculture occupation in their life time.

The findings of a paper published in Rural Pulse (cited earlier) pointed to “lucrative
avenues” so as to prompt farmers to leave agriculture for reason of absence of “skill” and
“motivation” in agriculture. But the attributed trait of absence of “skill & motivation” of
the farmersin farming, is not yet widely tested, proved and established. It may be true
that farmers may not be adhereing strictly to the Standard Package of Practices (SPoPs)

16 It clearly goes beyond the issue of “farmers” and extends to lay down a case for capital-intensive
agriculture which in other words means capitalism in agriculture (GPS, laser technology, drones, etc. are
suggested for “entrepreneurs from cities”, not existing farmers). The talk is about “healthier food” (not
just food-grains) including fruits, vegetables and good dairy products. Undoubtedly, humanly
unacceptable pesticides residue has been an issue with Indian farmers’ produce in the world market, but
for such situation farmers (alone) are not responsible. Prior to ‘Green Revolution’, popularized in the
name of ‘New Technology’, introduced in 1962, farmers were producing “healthier” organic food/food-
grains only (using Farm Yard Manure). Green Revolution marked the onset of organized capitalism in
Indian agriculture (mainly Punjab, Haryana) alhough farmers were cultivating cotton as cash crop, called
“white gold” in Maharashtra, particularly black soil belt of Vidarbha, for the past over 100 years, which
was never termed as “capitalist agriculture”.
17 Both correct information and misinformation spreads, but the larger and more important issue in India,

seems to be the issue in villages of societal downfall and decay of ‘farmer—farmer’social relation. Social
alienation, not just GMOs (on seeds e.g. Bt cotton) is the main issue, as present study reveals later in this
report.
18 Director General, IFPRI, “Move out, move up approach could ease India’s farm crisis”, The Hindu,

March 21, 2018 (Business page 13).

19 Reported in the proceedings of a seminar organized by Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture

Science & Technology (SKUAST), Jammu, in 2014-15 on hill farming system under R&D Fund support
provided by NABARD, Jammu & Kashmir Regional Office, Jammu.

15
of farming (for which reasons could be lack of finance and money management to incur
right expenditure on right mix of inputs, not lack of knowledge or “skill” as such). It
betrays one’s logic, empirical evidence and practical experience if one is told that the
first ever form of organized activity and “culture” of mankind (i.e. “agriculture”) has
persisted for 10,000 years, since Neolithic age, but the farmers who carried out this
oldest activity (with set of values, culture of its own) through ancestral and hereditary
(inter-generational farming) did not possess the right “skill” and “motivation” in
agriculture. Reasons for the proposed/induced“exit” from agriculture, if any, may have
to be probed, by looking beyond the apparent lack of “skill” and “motivation” of farmers.
The existing social relations/ ecosystem/ community of farmers in villages, needs to be
probed and investigated by understanding farmers’ perspectives/attitudes.

Therefore, knowing farmers’ perspectives on “exit” deserves a deeper analytical study.

Perceptions on Farmer in Political Economy

(i) Misconceptualization of Farmer/Farmer-household Concept in

NSSO’s ‘Situation Assessment Survey’-2013

The present study had in its background the NSSO’s predominant re-conceptualization of
farmer in 2013, which had changed and distorted its old, yet more valid, concept of farmer
and farmer household (2003)20.Its critique was undertaken in NABARD study published
in Rural Pulse (2016)21. Conceptual issues on “farmer” and “farmer household”, are
problematic aspect of Situation Assessment Survey (SAS-2013) report, which renders its
concepts “reified” (with false objectivity) which is not suitable for comparison of its results
with previous SAS-2003 report. That this comparison has happened happened for the
purpose of “doubling farmers’ incomes” campaign, offers invalid (or less valid)
recommendations for policy making for the farmers.

The above paper highlights major flaws in the revised conceptual notion of “farmer” in
2013. It points out that the new term “agricultural household” (not “farmer household”),
as coined by NSSO, held that it “may or may not possess land”, which mystifies
existing/realistic/actual notion of farmerseen at the ground level. Households having
total value of produce more than Rs.3000/year, were only considered (smaller producers
are excluded) in the new concept. Revised definition consideredthe actual expenditure
(out of pocket expenditure) only incurred by “agriculturalhousehold”to run farm and non-
farm business (which is unrealistic). The above three criteria/ characteristics used by
NSSO have distorted the existing concept of “farmer”, which is not appropriate for
policy-making.

The ground reality gets distorted by invalid concept and misconceptualization of farmer.
The above critique emphasized that:

20See NSSO (op cit)

21See Mohinder Kumar, “Concept of Farmer in NSSO’s Situation Assessment Surveys of 2003 and 2013:
Incomparability Issues and Implications”, Rural Pulse, Issue XVI, July-August 2016, NABARD, Mumbai

16
 “The essence of conceptualizing farmer as cultivator, is confounded and
diluted as he makes wayfor something different: a land-disabled farmer.
Mixupin defining farmer’s concept has gained alarmingform whereby SAS-
2013 [itself] excludes landless agricultural laborers from definition of farmer22.
Divergence from SAS-2003 definition of farmer based on criterion of land
possession becomes problematic. The term “farmer (farmer-household)” of
SAS-2003is found absent throughout SAS-2013 report. NSSO’s definition
takes farmer and farming notionally awayfrom the realm of cultivation
toward general notions of “agricultural-household” and “agricultural
activities”. In the thought process of NSSO, farming [cultivation] is no longer
coreactivity. There is shift in focus from farmer and farming activity to
“agricultural activities”. For transformation into “agricultural” system,
concept of “agricultural production unit” (APU) has been devised by NSSO.
However, contours and qualitative dimensions of APU are not defined in
report. Nonetheless it is intended to dissociate notion of “household” from
“farm” so that general “agricultural” activity henceforth becomes pure
economic enterprise divested of familial connection, based on hired labor and
significant “profit” in aframework of capitalist micro economic theory of
farm firm, which is nonetheless not applicable to subsistence farming. SAS-
2013 excludes “households” which are “insignificant” and do not fit to be
eligible asproduction units”. It claims that to keep large number of households
with insignificant agricultural activities out of survey coverage, it was decided
to have a minimum value (Rs.3000) of agricultural produce for a household to
qualify as ‘agricultural production unit’. Cut-off value is arbitrary (despite 68th
round of NSSO data source) from quantitative aspect. Moreover idea of
exclusion per se is questionable from qualitative aspect. We contend that
“home grown consumption” per se may not justify as valid ground to decide
on eligibility for “agricultural production unit” (though NSSO excluded only
below threshold/cut-off level households).”

Impracticable revising of old/existingconcept of farmer (as “farmer household”) into

amorphous“agricultural household” by NSSO, was evinced byusing notion of “farmer
household” in a recent seminar whose reference unit was “small farmer households” and
farmers”, not vaguelydefined “agricultural households”.23

Therefore, what specific definition/concept is used, matters a lot in understanding the

ground reality and practical situation in the villages in better way. Such developments
at ground level reinforce a view that critique of existing concepts, literature, studies, etc.
forms a foundation for more realistic understanding of the ground reality of the farmers
and villagers. It may not be suggestible to exclude “landless agricultural wage-laborers”
from any study/survey, and yet fix a criterion suggesting that possession or no-
possession of land is not necessary to be an “agricultural househiold”; it becomes

While possessing or not possessing land, does not matter to be an “agricultural household”.
22
23“Sustainability of Small Farmer Households and enhancing Farmer’s Income”, seminar conducted by
NABARD, at College of Agriculture, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant
Nagar, March 23, 2018 https://www.nabnet.in/blog/view/post.aspx?bpid=54838

17
contradictory. Having thus defined an “agricultural household”, inclusion of “landless
agricultural wage laborers” becomes imperative and justified. Otherwise,
understanding of the ground reality in villages may get distorted. There is possibility of
double mistake –while “landless agricultural wage-laborer household” would get
excluded, wring inclusion may take place by considering pure agro-processor household
or agro-processing industrial “unit” as “agricultural household” just because it “may or
may not possess land”. If any study/survey focused on such type of incorrect sample of
“households” then there are chances of ground reality of villages getting distorted
significantly as many land-possessing farmers are also agricultural wage-laborers.
While a household dependent on pure 100% agricultural wage-labor is excluded (that
also by violating its own no-land-possession-necessity criterion) by NSSO, an almost
similar household surviving on say 80% (major) income from agricultural wage-labor
get included because he possesses land. Therefore, correct understanding of the
ground reality in villages necessarily requires that only minimum or no
restrictions, divisions, constraints, conditions, rules, “criteria”, etc. should
be imposed in “defining” or conceptualizing the “farmers” and “farmer-
households”.Otherwise “adverse selection” takes place: An agricultural wage-laborer
becomes victim of exclusion and big agro-processing industrial unit from city gets
selected just because revised concept/definition allows “agricultural production unit”
(APU) to be part of (or in parity with) “agricultural household” (though it may not
matter whether such industrial “Unit” was selected or not for study, or it could be
selected later after few years). Such “adverse selection” of landless industrial “APUs”
among landless agricultural labor “households”, could give them undue benefit of
income tax redemption simply because such industrial “Unit” comes in the purview of
definition of “agricultural household” thus defined by NSSO. If flexible definition is
devised, and agro-industrial APUs are included, then simultaneously there would
emerge the necessity of bringing such “landless” APUs in income tax net (so policy
making gets right inputs by right definition) but excluding “landless” agricultural wage-
laborer households from income tax net. Since clarity of farmer amid multitude of
definitions gets distorted (as e.g. one witnesses different definition of farmer in ‘Model
GST Law’), proper understanding of the ground reality of farmer households in village,
guided by such multitude of divergent definitions, may also get distorted.24

(ii) Different Conception on Agriculture and Agriculturist in ‘Model

GST Law’

As per Model GST Law: “Agriculture includes floriculture, horticulture, sericulture, the
raising of crops, grass or garden produce and also grazing, but does not include dairy
farming, poultry farming, stock breeding, the mere cutting of wood or grass, gathering
of fruit, raising of man-made forest or rearing of seedlings or plants. Agriculturist
means a person who cultivates land personally, for the purpose of ‘agriculture’.”25

24 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act-2017, has different definition of farmer, whose elements are opposite
to the NSSO’s definition in Situation Sssessment Survey-2013 report. See, Model GST Law (2016),
Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers, June, 2016; and The Central Goods and Services Tax
Act-2017, April 12, 2017, Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India.
25 This concept of agriculturist excludes animal husbandry activity, and is directly opposite to the concept

of NSSO 2013)

18
Therefore, in this definition by Model GST Law, “dairy farming” (which produces milk as
output) is excluded from “agriculture” activity, which means, a “dairy farmer” is not
agriculturist, but contradiction is that same GST Act exempts milk from GST because it is
produced by “agriculturist” (of course exemption is also for milk being essential food
product). In reality, milk is generally produced by agriculturists who cultivate land as well
as keep milk animals –big independent dairies are a small and scattered phenomenon.
Even NSSO’s (2013) definition of “agriculturist” includes entire animal husbandry sector
(dairy farming, animal breeding and poultry farming). However, in the Model GST Law’s
definition, poultry farming is not included in agriculture.

From the perspective of village society and rural economy, there has to be a single
comprehensive definition valid for all purposes. Varied definitions and concepts of
agriculture, agriculturist, etc. pose problem for policy making, including policy/Act on
taxation of income and on value addition from this activity.

It may be pertinent to mention that definition by NSSO unwittingly and unknowingly

would allow any person (“unit” or “household”) who is “agriculturist” to do away with
paying income tax since the person doing “agriculture” (including agro-processing “unit”)
and without possessing land, would become exempt from paying income tax on
agriculture because, by definition, he is “agriculturist”.

Therefore, compatibility, consistency and synchronization between varied definitions of

agriculture/agriculturist, is necessary; or a single comprehensive concept of
agriculturist/farmer may be devised which is suitable and applicable universally for all
policy making for farmers/villages.

Indian Village in “Book View”: Need of Village Studies for “Field View”

Understanding the ecosystem of villages requires proper conception of categories/notions

about farmers and social institutions in villages. Just as farmers conceptualized in varied
sources differed, so also there has been some misunderstanding (or difference in opinion)
about Indian villages and its social institutions of pre-British era, formed by colonial
administrators in the British Period. For this mistaken view of pre-Colonial Indian village,
British Government and its “book view” was responsible to a large extent.

Although toward the end of the British Rule or soon after, several village studies were
conducted in different provinces (1930s), mainly by the colonial administrators/British
Civil servants (e.g. in Punjab26, Odisha, etc.), their initial impressions about villages in
India, were formed by somewhat partisan misreading and misinterpretation of the
available secondary sources. But nothing conclusively could be said as the reality is
always in a state of flux. This aspect has been highlighted by social anthrolopogists and
sociologists in India who have outlined the need for first hand information gathered from
villages by researchers themselves. After Independence, such village studies were first
26Malcolm L. Darling (1947), Punjab Peasantry in Prosperity and Debt, Oxford University Press,
Bombay; and, Wisdom and Waste in the Punjab Village (by same author), 1934. Also, F.G. Bailey (1958),
Caste and Economic Frontier: A Village in High Land Orissa, OUP, Bombay.

19
conducted in the first half of 1950s itself. Social anthropologists used to go to the selected
village and stayed there for up to 2 years for deeper understanding of ecosystem of the
village (from social caste, social groups, and their viewpoint on social functions, gender
and power/political relations). In his paper27 (basically well researched comprehensive
review paper), a renowned sociologist thus describes the importance of “field view”, for
“authentic native life”:

“The “book view” of rural India is that of Indologists and Orientalists,

constructed from Hindu scriptures and the historical record. In the Post-
Independence period this was gradually replaced by the “field view” of
sociologists and anthropologists, based on participant observation. Their
studies threw light on the nature of the village community, particularly in
relation to caste, gender and political faction. The traditional society was, and
remains, in a state of flux. One important result of the “field view”, however, is
that India’s villages appear to have been well integrated into the broader
economy and society for a very long period of time, rather than being isolated
communities28.

The sociologist outlines the importance of “objectivity” needed for “objective” view, by
researcher, of the village under study:

“While recognizing this important contribution [of the “field view”], the
problems of participant observation are [highlighted], notably the possibility
that the social and economic background of those engaged might itself induce
bias into the results.29 This is a fundamental issue and indeed one which has
not escaped the attention of the major writers themselves.”30

Few relevant excerpts on Indian village life (in pre-British era), from the above paper,
may be in order to set the background for the present study:

“The Indian village communities were little republics, having nearly

everything they wanted within themselves, and almost independent of foreign

27 Surinder S. Jodhka, “From “Book View” to “Field View”: Social Anthropological Constructions of the
Indian Village”, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 26, No.3, 1998, pp 311-331.
28 While social stagnation and isolation could be true to some extent about the tribal (and scheduled tribe/

nomadic) communities/villages in far flung areas in the interior or hilly areas and high mountains, other
villages have experienced increased integration with urban life gradually as time elapsed and individuals
became socially active.
29 One need not concur with this assertion (in context of village life involving conscious subjects of study)

that strangely suggests sort of complete “objectivity” of the “objectivist’s viewpoint”, which is possible only
in natural sciences. See Neil Levy (2007), Sartre, One World, Oxford. In village research, the studied
(object of study) as well as the studying person, both are most likely to influence each other (since
conscious beings) through perceptions and perspectives shared between them. It seems “objectivity” and
“exaggerated subjectivity”, both need to be avoided; “exaggerated subjectivity” leads to “irraitionality” of
“estranged mind” causing “reification” while pure “objectivity” is not possible in social science research
involving individuals, community and society. See Georg Lukacs, 1923, “Reification and the
Consciousness of the Proletariat”, History & Class Consciousness
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm)
30 Surinder S. Jodhka (op cit)

20
 relations. They seemed to last where nothing else lasted. Dynasty after dynasty
tumbled down; revolution succeeded revolution but the village community
remained the same [quoting Charles Metcalfe]. Each village was an inner
world, a traditional community, self-sufficient in its economy, patriarchal in
its governance, surrounded by an outer one of other hostile villages and
despotic governments [quoting R. inden]. When Marx and Engels wrote in The
New York Daily Tribune on the possible effects of British Rule on “stagnant
India”, they too viewed the Indian village in similar terms. It was in this context
that they thought that British rule could create conditions for a social
revolution in India. In the colonial discourse it was a self-sufficient
community, with communal ownership of land, and was marked by a
functional integration of diverse occupational groups. The social
organization of the Indian village was referred to as a classic example of a
pre-modern/traditional society.31Bremen points out that the four core
components that characterized the Asian village in the colonial discourse
were: [1] political autonomy32, [2] economic autarchy33, [3] social
homogeneity34, and [4] tenacious immutability of the closed collectivity.”

Salient Features of Methodical “Field View” on Indian Village Since 1950s

Tha above review paper35 suggests notable features of Indian village, based on the “field
view” taken after Independence (starting in 1950s), by sociologists, social anthropologists
and economists, which may form a backdrop of the present study, are presented in
Appendix-1.1:

“Dialectical” View on Village Society: Dynamic Objective Reality

Marx’s view of Indian village as stagnant, unchanging, “idyllic” society, has somehow
gained more popularily. At the same time, Marx’s general/philosophical viewon
“objective conditions”under which individuals engage in “social production, work and

31 Karl Marx termed it as “idyllic village” society of India; see Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The First
War of Independence, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
32 “Political autonomy” of Asian/Indian village may be seen in the following villageinformal

institutions/entities (which operated without interference from above of state/despot/king):Choupal,

Khap, Panchayat, Panches, Gram Sabha, etc. (for example, now controversial “Meham Choubisi” –a
Mahapanchayat of cluster of 24 (choubis) villages in Meham town (then village) of Rohtak district in
Haryana, is still functional and active in the 21st century and delivers judgements and decisions involving
ruthless punitive actions on local/mutual social matters between individuals or families (like prohibition
of intra-gotra or within-gotra marriages in Jat community) by banning entry of the accused/family in
village and disconnecting their social relation/link with village people (locally termed as “hukka pani
bund”).
33 It is also called “oriental despotism” of “hydraulic society” of the east/Asia, as despotic state over head

had absolute control over all water resources/channels, as farmers faced “ruthless overdependence” on
water, for irrigation.
34 “Homogeniety” seems to have missed the feature of caste-divided society completely, or colonial

discourse had “tribal” communities in mind, which are less differentiated and more homogeneous/
egalitarian.
35Surinder S Jodhka (op cit)

21
practice”, cannot be ignored, because these three activities of individuals are what Marx
says, the “point of departure” for understanding community/society with its individuals:

“Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of

production, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a
cleared field, etc., but the producers [farmers] change too, in that
they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production,
transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of
intercourse, new needs and new language. Production by an isolated
individual [independent farmer] outside society is as much of an absurdity
as is the development of language withoutindividuals living together and
talking to each other. Just as society itself produces man as man, so is society
produced by him.”36

Alan Smith thus says on social significance of individuals working together in society:

“The individuals, who producein society, create themselves, then, in their

social work and practice, the conditions of their cultural definiteness in which
they live.”37

Social production in [e.g. village society] initially, i.e. from beginning itself,
“unconsciously” proceeds and produces a disquieting result on exotic power conditions/
relations emerging for separate individuals participating in social production [e.g.
Producers’ Company], says Alan Smith:

“The social production of individuals proves to be the driving substance of all

history. But this production and reproduction of their living conditions
through social work and practice of individuals initially proceeds completely
unconsciously in their individually motivated actions, so that to single
individuals, the respective socially unconsciously produced form of their work
and practice do not appear as created production, and power conditions and
their ideological legitimation retroact as alien powers over acting individuals,
who actually are their producers38. This is what Marx terms alienation.”

Social Alienation of Farmers in Village Society

A study on villages in Vidarbha may not overlook the problem of farmers’ suicide.
Although this study did not have the objective of studying “farmers’ suicide” as a specific
Term of Reference (ToR), its discussion may not be skipped totally while introducing the
contours and background of the present study. The phenomenon of farmers’ suicides
alludes to the existence of “social alienation” between one farmer and the other, between
one family and the other, and between one class/group and the other or between
individuals, in village society; otherwise why should farmers commit suicide as a normal
course? There must be something wrong within village society and its social relations
36 Alan Smith (op cit)
37 Alan Smith (op cit)
38 It means crops produced as “commodities” become a burden and external power standing over farmers.

22
between individuals, who are constantly (daily in each crop-season) engaged in “social
production” (national targets) of so many crops with so much production and so different
economic activities.

Thus says Marx39 (it may be read in connection with collective-socialized production
process of capitalism or “owner-operators” or “Farmers’ Producers’ Organization”, as an
example, to understand, what happens in “social production process”):

“As much, then, as the whole of this movement [social production] appears as
a social process, and as much as the individual moments of this movement
arise from the conscious will and particular purposes of individuals, so much
does the totality of the process appear as an objective interrelation, which
arises spontaneously from nature; arises, it is true, from the mutual influence
of conscious individuals on one another, but neither located in their
consciousness, nor subsumed under themas as a whole40. Their own
collisions with one another produce an alien social power standing above
them, produce their mutual interaction as a process and power
independent41 of them. The social relation of individuals to one another as
a power over the individuals which has become autonomous, conceived as
a natural [hence eternal] force42. As chance or in whatever form, it
[autonomous objectivity] is a necessary result of the fact that the point of
departure is not the free social individual43.”

Overcoming Social Alienation in Agriculture and Industry

Thus writes Alan Smith44:

39 Alan Smith (op cit)

40 “Objectivity”, as external power or force or political coercion, stands supervising over the heads of
all single individuals (who only produced it) and causes “estrangement” in their minds!
41 This is “process” of production and creation carried together by all individuals, in history, through

which primitive communities, “gens”, tribes, families, and finally modern state evolved. See, Frederick
Engels, The Origin of Family, Private Property and State (In the Light of Researches of Lewis H.
Morgan), Progress Publishers, Moscow. Notably, Lewis H. Morgan was a renowned social anthropologist
whose research in ancient ‘gens’, tribes, historical ethnic groups, and older societies, has been widely
acclaimed, and it formed a basis of this important book by Engels.
42 “Relation” appears as “chain”; chain is autonomous; autonomous power is external and

eternal (like “nature”); farmer himself “created” this vhain during production. Individual
farmer, surrounded by whole society contemplates in isolation that his torment in chains,
shall never end. Farmer loses hope, keeps losing, and has been losing since inception.
43 Howsoever a farmer may operate as member of a Group, Cooperative or FPO or an Independent

Owner-Operator as part of village society, alienation chases him from beginning itself (because Group
was never in his MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS). Mechanical membership of Group/Cooperative/
FPO/Society ought to be transformed into CONSCIOUS participation, his being conscious that he is for
Group and Group is for him. The group out to be “located in consciousness” of the farmer. Hitherto, the
group is located outside of individual farmer’s consciousness. He lives/works in society but society is not
“located in consciousness” of farmer. In philosopher Jeal Paul Sartre’s words, farmer’s conscious “fusion”
(rather than confusion) in group, is important. We need to study locations/ distances/ relations/
connections, etc. in village society in “hodological” mind-distance perspective (of “phenomenologist”), not
“objective” measured-perspective (of objectivist/physical scientist/physicist). See, Neil Levy (op cit)
44 Alan Smith (op cit)

23
 “Such alienation and reversal [human-subject becomes chained-object and
object, he produced, becomes autonomous subject] lies at the base of all social
formations until now: from the archaic cultures via the agrarian states right
up to our present industrial societies. In all these formations of
spontaneous natural societalisation, the individuals [farmers] producing in
[village] societies cannot find self-fulfillment as producers of their living
conditions; they are, on the contrary, determined by the socially unconsciously
created conditions. But as Marx underlines, the basis for the proof of the
principle possibility of overcoming the alienation and false
conditions lies in the fact that they they [false conditions of objectivie power]
can be brought to our attention, discovered. Since the alienation is itself
a product of social practice –even if unconscious– it can also be
revolutionized, namely through the unified power of individuals who have
become conscious, decisive bearers of the societywho shape it45.

Thus wrote Marx on the possible way of solving the problem of social alienation in society,
by posing the problem of alienation in reformulated way of private property46:

“How does man come to alienate, to estrange, his labor? How is this
estrangement rooted in the nature of human development? 47 We
have already gone a long way to the solution of this problem by transforming
the question as to the origin of private property into the question as to the
relation of alienated labor to the course of humanity’s development. For
when one speaks of private property, one think of being concerned
with something external to man. When one speaks of labour, one is
directly concerned with man himself. This new formulation of the
question already contains its solution.”

Social Practice Produces Social Alienation: Summed up

“The social practice of individuals [producers including farmers] is

substantially the basis of all history, but as long as this practice runs in a
spontaneous-natural fashion, i.e. the social individuals are not conscious of
themselves as social beings or of the social responsibility of their

45 The question arises: Do farmers in Vidarbha think on those lines? Are they conscious that they can give
shape to a new village society themselves where “rural—urban gap” doesn’t exist? Are they conscious
about their own limitations according to which even formation of a small Self Help Group/Producers’
Organization/ Farmers’ Club/Farmers’ Cooperative becomes a herculean task –leave aside building “new
society”? They themselves (farmers) have to be aware and educated. But it appears that outside
educators/trainers themselves, are not educated on this aspect of real freedom (of farmers forming new
society). An AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY is difficult to be formed; what to say of NEW
VILLAGE SOCIETY? This ought to be the issue today for economists/inellectuals: How to make
individual farmers into “the unified power” in conscious way, not mere mechanical numbers.
46 Alan Smith (op cit)
47 Alienation is the feature, not only of social formation of capitalism but all societies including, what Marx

termed, “Asiatic Mode of Production” (AMoP) in India, China, whole of Asia as part of what Western
writers called “oriental despotism”.

24
 actions, what they created and create will be experienced as if it were the
consequence of a natural law, having become so by [nature’s] necessity, and
so as something which determines them and rules over them. Only when such
individuals become conscious of their alienation can they revolutionize
[completely transform] the conditions alienating them and and begin to
take the shaping of such a process of becoming conscious, to lead the
process as a bearer of social practice.”48

Present Study

The proposed study was taken up in the background of misconceptions about farmers’
concept and farmers’ traits (e.g. wish to “exit” from agriculture), which either do not
exist, since not studied by intensive probing of farmer-households, or not fully
understood by field investigators in the existing studies, as e.g. NSSO report). Overall, the
background for the study suggested that an intensive study of farmers’ perspectives is
needed to reveal, through deeper analysis, farmers’ attitude to the ecosystem, its
state/social institutions, relations, and entire network, of which farming is integral part.

Rationale for the Study

Misconceptions formed in literature about, what farmers “felt”49, imagined attributes of

“career”, and (other) “lucrative avenues” preferred over farming, etc. needed a critical
investigation so as to guide “farmer-centric” agricultural policy making.

Understanding farmers’ ecosystem and their “social relations” of production (RoP),

formed in the process of social production by individual farmers in agriculture, may help
in devising the mechanisms through which agriculture could be sustained, without
jeopardizing short-term survivability –in fact strengthening it. Any outside suggestion or
inducement to the farmers to “leave” or “quit” or “move out” from agriculture, comes
into sharp contradiction with avowed objective of checking/reducing rural-urban
migration. The conflict between the objectives of agricultural development and retention
of villagers in rural areas becomes visible if one suggested “exit” from agriculture.

Without deeper understanding of farmers’ attitudes and perspectives towards ecosystem,

a conflict emerges between desired reality of reduced rural-urban migration and
suggested rhetoric of “exit” from agriculture that could distort right kind of policy-
making. Institutions, particularly banks, NABARD and policy-making government
institutions may use study findings as reliable findings on farmers’ attitudes and changes
in their relations with ecosystem or within village society, are generated, articulated and
properly understood to portray village reality in terms of farmers’ own perspectives, for
genuine inclusive growth. An “authentic” documentation of village life in its entirety,
particularly focusing on farmers, may help in understanding them better to decide why
and how important the issue of freedom from over-dependencies, is for the farmers.

48 Alan Smith (op cit)

49 Notion of NSSO (SAS-2013/2015)

25
In studying the ecosystem of villagers and farmers, one primarily looks into their
attitudes50 formed towards state institutions, particularly bank branches, insurance
agencies, government departments, Gram Panchayat, farmers’ associations, regulated
markets, market functionaries, market committees, etc. and their business dealings or
services received in the form of credit, extension, insurance, marketing, etc. One also
studies attitudes of the “heads” of farm-households, youths, families, women, farmers,
etc. towards each other within family and towards political/ state/ village institutions
including village money lender, informal sources of lending, traders, etc.

The study may justify a case for wide reflections, pluralist thinking and more sensitive
approach to be adopted, by policy-makers/banks/institutions, which manifests genuine
needs/perspectives of farmers expressed by free thinking (instead of existing uni-
dimensional credit-centric perspective dominated by discourse of finance-fetishism and
“financialization” pressured under false need of financial expansion that loses sight of
real economic/human growth). It would have to be decided how much intervention in
the activities of villages and farmers’ daily life is desirable or within limit of tolerance
by the farmers. The issue concerns understanding freedom of farmers from “chain” of
free thinking and over-dependencies created in farm production under the overall
paradigm and process of agricultural development.

Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of the study were fixed to analyze the following aspects:

(i) To analyze the ecosystem of social castes and economic classes

(ii) To analyze the ecosystem of social production relations51
(iii) To analyze the ecosystem of infrastructure, facilities and natural resources52
(iv) To analyze the perspectives of farmers on family-farming
(v) To analyze the perspectives of farmers on problems of agriculture

The overall objective of the study is to understand emerging social (individual-individual)

and economic class relations in village, and see whether these social relations experienced
change during the past, particularly since 1990, i.e. a watermark year for liberal economic

50 Thoughtful perspectives and confounded contemplations, likes and dislikes, preference and
indifference, choice and compulsion, interest and apathy, mindfulness and overlooking, freedom and
overdependence, attention and ignorance, etc.
51 Focus is on presenting “relations of production” (network of relations) in the process of farm production.

The social “production relations” of farmers, covers these 3 aspects: (i) organizational/ associative/
inter-dependent/ interactive/ cohesive/ cooperative group networking (showing mode of formal inter-
relatedness); (ii) separation/autonomy/independence/individualization of production; and (iii)
relation with produce/produce market (family consumption, retention, market/alienation/ exchange/sale).
It aims to describe characteristics of farming, viz., farming system (whether subsistence farmers or
commercial farmers), production system (whether individualized or collectivized; owner-
operators/tenants or groups/companies), marketable surplus (of crop produce and other produce (milk,
meat, poultry, eggs, etc.). In understanding farming system, focus is on purpose/objective of farming. In
understanding production system, focus is on mode of organizing production. In understanding marketing
system, focus is on surplus/sold produce.
52 Relations with realm of nature, viz., land (private owned/leased, village common), water, forest, hill,

etc.

26
reforms policy. Transformation and stagnation/persistence in village structure/ social
relations is analyzed so that right agricultural policy prescription issues could be framed.

Scope
The study covers ‘village unit’ as a whole for point of reference of ecosystem. A village
community comprises individuals as independent farmers (owner-operators), tenants,
wage-laborers (agricultural wage laborers/ other wage laborers), allied activity holders
(animal husbandry, non-farm/household industry), artisans, craftsmen, shopkeepers,
salaried persons, etc. It also covers various types of economic organizations formed in
village, viz., groups, collectives and credit cooperatives. It also covers political entities like
Gram Panchayat to understand decentralized socio-politico-economic empowerment of
villagers. Villagers may be having interactions with various offices/ institutions of line
departments related to agriculture, rural development, industry, DRDC, DIC, etc. at block
and district levels, as also with bank branches and NGOs --the entirety of relations, which
form a part of this study.

Concepts, Issues, Approach & Method

Concepts are important to analyze data and understand the reality of villages in better
way, and present the same in this report in more srticulated manner. In this study, a
few key concepts (with their Marxian philosophical underpinning) have been outlined
which directly/indirectly may help in analysis of data and information on villages and
farmers (as producers, consumers, family members, proprietors, laborers, etc.). The
following main concepts for guidance are outlined:

 Ecosystem
 Social Relation
 Social Production
 Alienation
 Human Emancipation

Ecosystem: In Marxian framework, environment (nature) and human labor

through society (social relations in social production process), i.e. three aspects form
a “unity”. If any one of these three aspects faces a “rift” (separation), it causes “alienation”
and ecological crisis; ecosystem gets demaged. Even accumulation of land as capital
(under capitalism) through the “so-called primitive accumulation”53 curtails the access of
land to the peasantry or his displacement, hence causing rupture in the ecosystem as
farmer may not be able to work upon nature, transform/influence it, himself and social
relations. Ecosystem view of outer world detests the notion of “private property” in land
or any natural resources: “From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation,
the private property of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the
private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all
simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are

53Karl Marx, Capital, Vol.1, Progress Publishers Moscow; and John Bellamy Foster (2001), Marx’s
Ecology: Materialism and Nature, Cornerstone Pub., Kharagpur

27
simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to
succeeding generations as good heads of household.”54

The term “ecosystem” used in the study is analogous to ecosystem concept used in
biology/natural science/ecology. Ecosystem in present study has comprehensive
coverage, and it comprises the following multifarious entities/integral parts/ institutions:

(i) Physical/natural: land, pond, canal, river, ‘nallah’, drinking water, forest, hill,
wild animals, forest, pasture, rainfall/water, weather, solar heat, etc.
(ii) Communal : Community of people (castes, tribes, classes)
(iii) Social: Caste/group (SHG, JLG, FC, FPO, Cooperative, Farmers’ Club)
(iv) Cultural: Values, norms, traditions, ethics/morality, religion
(v) Economic: Infrastructure including assets and cattle resources
(vi) Political: Gram Panchayat (GP) as what Marx called “political community”
(vii) State/Institutional: District offices, VRO55, school, bank (financial), etc.
(viii) Non-Governmental: NGO, Peoples’ Institutions (PI), village institutions
(village assembly or Gram Sabha), informal moneylending sources, etc.

In the ecosystem of village, distinct classes of people living in community interact with
their physical environment in order to effect changes in themselves as also in their
physical environment and social environment in the process of production/activity. The
term “ecosystem” is similar to Marx’s concept of social “relations of production” (RoP),
which refers to multifarious relations between individuals (as producers) within
community and between individual and nature that develop in the process of
production. This study has expanded notion of linkage/relation a bit further, to include
in ecosystem other traits also e.g. social/cultural, economic, political, state-institutional,
non-governmental/voluntary organizational, etc.

Social Relation: The “social relation” between the entities of ecosystem may, according
to “historical materialist” view/method56 of understanding of individuals’ activities, take
several forms, indicated for example, as under:

(i) Relation could be independence/autonomy (e.g. private “owner-operator”)

(ii) Relation could be alienation/separation/exclusion/isolation/individualization
(iii) Relation could be social indifference/ apathy (self-sufficient/own subsistence)
(iv) Relation could be local/mutual/personal exchange (between individuals)

54 Marx, Capital vol.1 , and John Bellamy Foster (op cit)

55 VRO = Village Recordkeeping Officer (Patwari)
56 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1976): The German Ideology, Progress Publishers, Moscow. The

method of “historical materialism” (HM) is about the principles of “materialist conception of history” of
society and individuals. These principles concern “the real living people, their activity and the material
[objective] conditions under which they live, both the conditions which they find already existing and
those produced by their activity. What is underlined is the historical character of the material conditions
themselves, which are increasingly influenced by people’s activity. There are two sides to it. First,
production (people’s active relation to nature, their influence on it), and, secondly,
intercourse (people’s relations to one another in their production activity). Production and
intercourse determine each other, but the decisive side of this mutual action is
production.”

28
(v) Relation could be distant market exchange as in a supply-chain
(vi) Relation could be cooperation/association/collectivity/sharing/joint organization
(vii) Relation could be antithetical/antagonistic/exploitative/unsustainable
(viii) Relation could be patronage/welfarist/subsidy-based/feudal over-dependence

Social relations are the relations people enter into in [the process of] production, which
are the basic relations underlying everything. The prodictive forces (individuals in
production) determine the form of social relations. The “property relations” are but the
“legal expression” of the social relations evolved out of production process by single
individuals. The production of life appears as social relation –social in the sense that it
denotes the cooperation of a several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in
what manner and to what end.57

Social Production: Farmers are producers, and are engaged in the act of production.
Farmers as “single individuals” for survival and free-thinking cannot “isolate”
themselves from society/ other individuals. Free thinking and survival is possible only
if farmer is social. Therefore, “the main starting point [for any analysis] is social
production, work and practice. From the very beginning, the unity of these three basic
determinants of human survival and action must be underlined. For where these are
pulled apart, we cannot grasp the elementary contradictions of our present social reality
nor find a single possibility of overcoming it. In its most elementary sense, the concept of
social production, work and practice states that it is people themselves who
produce their relationship to nature, to other people, and who produce their
forms of thinking. Social production stands at the center of the dialectic of human
beings and nature, insofaras on the one hand human beings as a species are necessarily
a part of nature and can only retain and secure their material subsistence in a constant
struggle with nature, but on the other hand it is the production and reproduction
of our social life through which our relationship to nature is determined and changed
in the process of ongoing history.58

Alienation: “Alienation is at one and the same time the estrangement [separation] of
humanity from its own laboring activity and [estrangement] from its active role in the
transformation of nature. Such alienation estranges man from his own body, from nature
as it exists outside him, from his spiritual essence, his human essence. Moreover, this is
always a social estrangement. Every estrangement of man from himself and nature is
manifested in the relationship he sets up between other men and himself and nature. The
alienation of labor was a reflection of the fact that labor (power) had become reduced
virtually to the status of a commodity, governed by the laws of supply and demand. It is
only through labor, through agriculture, that the land exists for man. But the
relationship to the land was being rapidly transformed through, what Adam
Smith had called, “primitive accumulation”, which included the enclosure of
common lands, the rise of great estates and the displacement of the
peasantry.”59

57 Karl Marx et al (ibid)

58 Allan Smith (op cit)
59 John Bellamy Foster (2001), Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature, Cornerstone Pub., Kharagpur

29
“How does man come to alienate, to estrange, his labor? How is this estrangement rooted
in the nature of human development? We have already gone a long way to the solution
of this problem by transforming the question as to the origin of private property into the
question as to the relation of alienated labor to the course of humanity’s development.
For when one speaks of private property, one think of being concerned with something
external to man. When one speaks of labour, one is directly concerned with man himself.
This new formulation of the question already contains its solution.”60 It is of concern to
know what happens to human beings when they become commodities, mere bearers of
labor power, to be bought and used to accumulate capital, and then discarded when they
no longer service this purpose.61

Human Emancipation: “Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and

of human relationships to man himself. Human emancipation will only be complete when
the real individual man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an
individual man, in his everyday life, in his relationships, he has become a species being;
and when he has recognized and organized his own powers as social powers so that
he no longer separated his social power from himself as political power.”62

Issues

The field study and analysis was approached from the aspect of following issues:

1. United/Agitated Farmers: Individual farmers’ silence (silent protest through

suicide/self-inflicted grief) seems to be getting supplemented by growing trend of
collective expression of farmers’ agitation/protests. After spade of suicides,
individualized farmers seem to be getting transformed into a collective mass of
conscious, expressive, vocal, vibrant and unified class that intends to negate “sack of
potatoes”63 tag attached to peasantry. Class formation (farmers’ unity) may be
considered as ‘point of departure’ of understanding changed ecosystem of village.
Analysis of data and information collected from villages is made by using the principle
of “base-superstructure” relation, signified by method of “Historical Materialism”
propounded by Marx where in “base” and “superstructure” take the following form:

Producer farmers = Economic “Base”

Conscious/united farmers64 = “Superstructure”

60 Allan Smith (op cit)

61 Charles Herr (op cit)
62 Allan Smith (op cit)
63 Tony Waters quoted Theodor Shanin’s view of peasantry, in The Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture:

Life Beneath the Level of the Marketplace

(https://www.academia.edu/4791226/The_Persistence_of_Subsistence_Agriculture_Life_beneath_the_
Level_of_the_Marketplace)
64 It was deemed interesting to understand whether landless agricultural laborers/ tenans/

sharecroppers/ MNREGA laborers, also join landowning farmers in protest/agitation, to show solidarity
with landowning farmers so as to expand (or complicate) class relations. This is possible if landed farmers
own meager holdings, of no real economic consequence, to be at par with the landless. Do all of them
(land-owning farmers and landless laborers/tenants) together become “conscious” of social alienation
due to private property in land? If not, what are its consequences? Does it lead to “farmers’ suicides”?

30
2. Economic Determinant of Transformation of Farmers: Economic “base” and
“superstructure” are envisaged to move together, hand-in-hand, in parallel way. In the
ultimate analysis, transformation into united farmers (“superstructure”) may be said
to be determined by transformation (worsening) in economic position of farmers
(“base”). Nonetheless in normal, routine, long-run course, both “base” and
“superstructure” keep mutually interacting, feeding and reinforcing each other, by
being in correspondence: Poor base of the impoverished farmers normally tolerates
and gels well with the dormant/subjugated state of the farmers. Ultimately, however,
position of primacy is ascertained by “base” i.e. growth in income of farmers who have
arrived at a stage of consciousness and developed, what Marx termed, “productive
forces” to an extent that these forces (farmers) get united to decide their economic
destiny.

Districts

This study pertained to the economically backward Vidarbha region of Maharashtra

State. Vidarbha covers two administrative Divisions, viz., Amravati and Nagpur. These
two Divisions have 8 districts which were declared as “agriculturally less developed and
distressed districts” by Govt. of India (due to drought conditions). The study has covered
two districts from Vidarbha region, selecting one district each from Nagpur and Amravati
Divisions, viz., Wardha and Yavatmal, respectively. Both the selected districts have
cotton as major cash crop; Yavatmal district is known as crown of “White Gold” (popular
name of cotton) in Vidarbha, and maximum number of farmers’ suicides was reported
from this district. Wardha district has sizeable tribal population. Wardha, along with
Yavtmal district, has witnessed implementation of the “Prime Ministers’ Package for
Animal Husbandry” as a mechanism to cope with drought. A profile of the two districts
is presented in next chapter. (Table 1.1)

Table-1.1: Selection of Districts from Distressed Districts in Vidarbha Region of Maharashtra

Division Distressed District Selected District

Amravati 1. Akola* Yavatmal
2. Amravati*
3. Buldhana*
4. Wasim*
5. Yavatmal*
Nagpur 6. Gadchiroli Wardha
7. Gondia
8. Wardha*
*In six districts “Prime Minister’s Special Package for Animal Husbandry”, was implemented
Source of distressed districts list: Action Plan to Address Agrarian Distress in India, NABARD, 2008

Data

In view of the objectives of the study, main emphasis regarding data was on field survey
and collection of primary data. Two separate questionnaires were devised for collecting
primary data on: (i) village unit; and (ii) farmer-houseold. Formats of questionnaires used
are presented in Appendix-1.2.

31
Secondary data on development schemes implemented by various departmentds were
compiled from District Planning Office, and it covered mainly Agriculture Department,
Irrigation Department, Horticulture Department and Rural Development Department.

Sample

Field survey was conducted in one village selected from each of the two districts, viz.,
Harankhuri in Wardha district and Devnala in Yavatmal district. Villages were selected
in consultation with agencies of the two districts. Harankhuri village in Wardha district
was selected in consultation with NGO “Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation” (KJBF),
with main criterion of predominantly (100%) tribal and semi-hilly village. Devnala village
in Yavatmal district was selected in consultation with District Planning Office (DPO), with
main criterion of multi-caste group village, affected by farmers’ suicides, and where “CM
Research Fellow” has been appointed under the “Chief Minister Fellowship Program” for
helping the villagers in their developmental problems65. Primary data was collected by
selecting a sample of 23 farmers (all land-size classes) in Wardha district and 15 farmers
(all social caste groups) from Yavatmal district. (Table 1.2)

Table-1.2: Sample Villages and Farmer Households Selected for Field Study in Vidarbha

District Block Villages Selected Name of Village Sample Size

(no. of farmers)
Wardha Samudrapur 1 Harankhuri 23
Yavatmal Kalamb 1 Devnala 15
Total 2 38

Field Survey

Field survey was conducted for total 10 days in two sample villages, during the month of
January 2018, by study team of Department of Economic Analysis and Research (DEAR),
HO, Mumbai, having past experience in collecting primary data from individual farmer-
households, by personal interview method. Information about village as a whole was
collected from a group/mix of villagers including well informed/ experienced persons,
elederly farmers, educated youths/farmers, commercial farmers, other progressive
farmers as available and Sarpanch. Local help (of two functionaries of NGO in Wardha
district and of CM Fellow/Sarpanch/educated village youths in Yavatmal district) was
taken each day during the course of field survey, for translation of information from
Marathi language to Hindi language, to record in English language on structured
questionnaires.

Feedback on Villages Surveyed to District Agencies

On completion of field survey, study team discussed the preliminary findings of the study
(based on primary data collected) with District Planning Office in Wardha district and

65Implemented by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Planning Department, Government of

Maharashtra

32
with District Collector (DC) in Yavatmal district –a meeting was chaired by DC, Yavatmal,
inviting different departments, viz., Agriculture, Irrigation, Rural Development, etc.
where study team briefed the district agencies in the presence of DC, about major
observations on village, farmers, their problems (mainly acute shortage of safe drinking
water after monsoon season, irrigation facilities, particularly a problem of incomplete
construction of village pond for the past 25 years and trade-off between subsistence
farming and commercial farming approaches).

33
 Appendix-1.1
Main Observations from “Field View” of Village Studies66 Since 1950s

 The concept of “peasantry” found currency in the village studies conducted by the
discipline of social anthropology.
 Peasants were believed to be attached to the land through bonds of sentiments
and emotions. Agriculture, for them, was a “livelihood and a way of life, not a
business for profit.”
 The “village community” (“traditional society”67) was identified as the social
foundation of the “peasant economy” in Asia.
 “Peasantry” invariably referred to what Europe had been before the industrial
revolution, and what the Third World still was.
 A “peasant community” was “a half society” and “a half culture”, which
meant to say that the peasants had firm relations with townsmen; not only
economic, but also social and cultural, that distinguished the “peasantry” from its
counterparts, the “tribal communities”. Village has “links” with outside world and
also its internal “unity” (design, structure, shape, bonding). But emphasis on unity
did not mean absence of differences.
 “Deep seated cleavages” underlied the “apparent unity” of the village and
fragmented it into numerous groups.
 Even the so-called “village common land” was not the common property of
everyone. Far from working as a “source of village unity”, it had often been a
“source of dissension.” Rights to use the common lands were confined to the
landowning dominant castes and were “based upon the amount of private land
each Jat [zamindar private owner] held”.
 Caste and hierarchy have long been seen as distinctive and defining features of
Indian society. Equality of rank is so manifestly false when applied to caste system.
 There was a certain amount of overlap between the twin hierarchies of caste
and land.
 Six factors contributing towards “status differentiation” in village: (i) religion
and caste; (ii) landownership; (iii) wealth; (iv) position in the government service
and village organization; (v) age; and (vi) distinctive personality traits.
 Even in the farthest memory, there was no reason to believe that the village was
fully self-sufficient in the economic sphere (it depended on town).
 There was a virtual explosion of village studies in the 1960s and 1970s; social
anthropologists dominated in this field (sociologists, economists joined later).
 Method: A single village for “intensive field work” was selected for staying there
for 1-2 years for holistic account of “social and cultural life”. The key feature was
use of “participant-observation”, a method of data collection that
anthropologists in the West had developed for studies of tribal communities.
 In 1950s, state schemes had started penetrating and villagers near Delhi had
started expressing what they needed in “housing, in education, in health; land

66 Suriinder S Jodhka (op cit)

67vis-à-vis “modern society” of Europe

34
 consolidation programmes; and the newly created government sponsored
panchayats.
 Social anthropologist M N Srinivas noted (from pure “objectivist” view): A social
anthropologist “cannot lay down policy because it is a result of certain decisions
about right and wrong. From the point of view of the growth of social
anthropology, concentration on the merely useful or practical is not
altogether healthy.The need for value-neutrality and objectivity, emphasized
so strongly by the classical founders of the discipline, and “the self-regulating
notion of society” being central to the “functionalist perspective”, discouraged
sociologists and anthropoligists from being identified too closely with the [state]
project of change.
 Land: “Though the village studies pointed to the crucial role that land ownership
patterns played in village social life, and even to the fact that caste status was not
exclusively determined by the ritual practices, they did not explore the details of
agrarian social structures in different regions of the country. Their primary focus
continued to be the [social] institutions of caste, family, kinship and religion. How
LAND divided the society, was not studied.
 Family: “As an institution, family was quite strong in village society. It was
idealized as a group, working with solidarity and cooperation. The institution of
family was also supposed to work as a model for the whole community. The most
important issue for the family was its privacy, and women were invested with
the responsibility of guarding it. A woman was expected to submit to and tolerate
her husband even if he was violent. However, the ideology of family was
considerably diluted as one went down in the caste hierarchy, so much so that
among the lower castes, it was difficult to find any traces of these ideals.
 The village was not only caste conscious, it was also class and gender conscious.
 Indian villages were not only internally differentiated much more than the tribes
(tribal communities), but they also had well articulated world-views.

35
 Appendix-1.2
NABARD Study 2017-18: Understanding changes in ecosystem of farmers’ households
in select villages of Vidarbha

(i) Village Questionnaire

District: Block: Village: GS: GP:

1. Village Economy:

Characteristics Current year 30 years ago Remarks

Total area of land (acre) Price/acre:
Agricultural land (acre)
Residential land (acre)
Common ‘shamlat’ land (acre)
Irrigated land (acre)
Rain-fed land (acre)
Mode of artificial irrigation:
Total no. of households (HHs) in village:
No. of landless/tenant HHs
No. of land-owning HHs:
Marginal FHHs<2.5 acres (No.)
Small FHHs 5 acres (No.)
Big FHHs >5 acres (No.)
Main occupation of village (majority)
Subsidiary occupations of village
Main occupation of landless HHs
Subsidiary occupations of landless HHs
Crops sown in village:
Crop-1: Acre x yield
Crop-2: Acre x yield
Crop-3: Acre x yield
Crop-4: Acre x yield
Crop-5: Acre x yield
Crop-6: Acre x yield
Crop-7: Acre x yield
Area leased per year (acre)
Area sold per year (acre)
Land price (Rs./acre)
Land rent (Rs./acre)
Share tenancy: Terms & conditions
No. of tenant FHHs
Share rent (% of produce)
Private farm assetsowned in village: Value:
No. of tractors
No. of trollies
No. of iron ploughs
No. of bullocks
Accessories (harrow, tawi, leveler, etc.)
No. of threshers
No. of fodder cutters
No. of small implements& type

36
 Characteristics Current year 30 years ago Remarks
No. of livestock/cattle:
Cows/buffaloes
Ox/bullock
Goats/sheep/ poultry
Farming system:
No. of pure commercialized FHHs
No. of self-subsistence FHHs
No. of semi-commercialized FHHs
Farm productionin village (annual)
Crop-1:
Crop-2:
Crop-3:
Crop-4:
Crop-5:
Crop-6:
Crop-7:
Farm (crop/food)consumptionwithin Quantity/Value:
family:
Crop-1:
Crop-2:
Crop-3:
Crop-4:
Crop-5:
Crop-6:
Crop-7:
Marketed surplus in village (annual): Quantity/Value:
Crop-1:
Crop-2:
Crop-3:
Crop-4:
Crop-5:
Crop-6:
Crop-7:
Total milk quantity in village Quantity/Value:
(annual):
Production
Consumption
Sold
Total meat & poultry in village Quantity/Value:
(annual)
Production
Consumption
Sold
Resource supply in village: Details:
Electric power (farm)
Electric power (HHs)
Diesel/petrol pump
Supplies to manage calamity (drought/
flood)
Economic strength/ assets of village: No. & Value:
No. of pucca houses
No. of bank saving account-holder HHs
Total savings

37
 Characteristics Current year 30 years ago Remarks
Total fixed deposits
No. of 2-wheelers & value
No. of 4-wheelers & value
No. of NFS/industrial units & investment
No. of trade/shop/business units &
investment
Other assets of HHs:

2. Village Society/ Social Relations

Characteristics Current year 30 years ago Remarks

Castes:
No. of Dalit/SC HHs
No. of ST HHs
No. of OBC HHs
No. of General Caste HHs
Land owned by castes:
Dalit/SC HHs (acre)
ST HHs (acre)
OBC HHs (acre)
General Caste HHs (acre)
Farming main occupation of castes:
Dalit/SC HHs (No.)
ST HHs (No.)
OBC HHs (No.)
General Caste HHs (No.)
Govt. Service as main/subsidiary
occupation:
Dalit/SC HHs (No.)
ST HHs (No.)
OBC HHs (No.)
General Caste HHs (No.)
Gender relations in agriculture:
% women engaged in farming
% women farmers owning land title
Gender relations (economic freedom):
% women employed in service
% women self-employed in small business

3. Village Demographic & Human Resources

Characteristics Current year 30 years ago Remarks

Total population of village (no.)
Literacy (%): M & F
No. of youths (>18 years):
Male
Female
No. of graduates (& above educated):
Male
Female
No. of technical/professional educated:
Male

38
 Female
No. of youthsmigrated to city for service:
Male
Female
No. of youths took-up/continued farming:
Male
Female
No. of youths in non-farm business/trade in
city:
Male
Female
No. of youths migrated for casual labor in
city:
Male
Female

4. Village Infrastructure, Services, Basic Facilities

Characteristics Current 30 years ago Remarks

year
TELECOM: Nature of service
No. of mobile phones in village
No. of internet connections in village
Internet cafe in village
Connectivity (phone/internet) is poor/good
Mobile tower installed in/near village: Yes/no
AGRI-EXTENSION: Nature of service
KVK Center nearest location (km)
Ever read Standard Package of Practices (SPOP)?
Farmers’ Club expert talk service
Advice from pesticide dealer
Other sources to access new agri-technologies?
Repair shops/clinics (ACABC) in village (No.)

Custom-hiring service (harvester, tractor,

combine)

Veterinary health center (km)

Patwari office (to assess crop damage)
Crop insurance agent/agency (to assess crop loss)
ROAD CONNECTIVITY& TRANSPORT:
Road connecting village with nearest town
Road connecting village with Block/district HQ
Road connecting village with nearby villages
Road connecting village with district/state road
Road connecting village with agri- spot market
Internal road in village
Bridge, culvert, etc.
Bus transport system
Other passenger transport system
Goods transport system
EDUCATION, SKILLS, EMPLOYMENT: Details:
School
College

39
 Characteristics Current 30 years ago Remarks
year
Training institutes (ITI / Polytechnic)
Skill institutes (private/ govt.)
University/ professional college
Agricultural University
Graduate & above educated youths (%)
Skilled youths (%)
Types of skills developed in village:
Employments/professions in village:
unorganized/ organized
PUBLIC HEALTH& DRINKING WATER: Details:
Village dispensary
Maternity service (km)
Hospital / nursing home distance (km)
Village private clinics
Village medical shops
Safe drinking water system
Coverage of HHs with drinking water (%)
VILLAGE CONSUMER GOODS SHOPS: Details:
Grocery shops (no.)
Other goods shops (no.)

Liquor shop (no.)

PDS fair price ration shops (no.)
Village input shops
Other outlets (no.)
VILLAGE PEOPLE’S INSTITUTIONS: Details:
Gram Sabha (GS)
PACS
SHG
JLG
FC
FPO
Forest Protection Committee (FPC)
Watershed Development/Users Committee
Community Resource Persons (CRPs)-- NRLM
Volunteers
Others
COMMON NATURAL RESOURCES:
Village pond
Canal
River and spring/nallah
Hill/forest/ pasture
Watershed
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE/ Details:
FACILITIES
Weather station
Drinking water tank/piped water supply
Internal/street roads
Culverts
Drains
Community center
Flood protection works/bunds

40
 Characteristics Current 30 years ago Remarks
year
Storage/godown
APMC’s produce purchase center
Cattle trade site
Playground
Others
AGRO-PROCESSING & OTHER FACILITY Details:
No. of units in village
No. of units near village
Source of basic raw material supply
No. of other industrial/ manufacturing/ packaging
units
Employment of villagers in above units (No.)
FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE/ Details:
FACILITY/ BURDEN
No. of bank branches
No. of ATMs
No. of mobiles with internet connection
No. (%) of HHs having JDY account
No. of HHs’ credit access to bank branch
No. of village moneylenders
No. of indebted HHs (of moneylenders) & amount
No. of defaulter HHs (of banks)& amount
Total saving deposits in bank branches
Total fixed deposits in bank branches
No. of SHGs
Total SHG loans
Total SHG savings
No. of villagers committed suicide (debt induced)

5. Views of Villagers on:

Cultivation

AH/ Dairy/ Poultry units

Processing Units

Artisan/ Crafts/ Weaver/ Handloom/ Power-loom occupations

Subsistence farming vs. commercial cash-crop farming

Private entitlement/ownership of land

Independent individual vs. producers’ company/ cooperative

Bank loan

Moneylender’s loan

Surplus produce for market

Food security (subsistence farming based vs. global market based)

41
 Need for cash / money/ currency

Exit from farming

Genuine freedom & control over situation: How is it possible?

Family experiencing joy in farming?

Mental stress in farming?

How coping with mental stress?

Free access to nature’s resources

Village Institutions

Govt. Institutions/ Offices

Future of family farming

NABARD Study 2017-18: Understanding changes in ecosystem of farmers’ households

in select villages of Vidarbha
(ii) Questionnaire for Farmer

District: Village: HoH Name: Age:

I. Demographic Features:

Sr. Name Age Education Skill Job/ Since Income

No. (Y) (class) (indicate Occupation (year) (2017)
name)
HoH

II. History of Family Farming (earliest memory since year __________)

Hereditary-generational or New Comer?

Land owned (acres)
Land leased-in (acres)
Land leased-out (acres)
% area irrigated by artificial irrigation
HH women involved in on-farm works?
Types of crops grown:
Skills of cultivation learned by HoH from: (father/elders in family/outside of family)
Formal Training: Yes / No From agency: Year /days:
Learning from training: (SPoPs/ machines/ innovative methods/ others)
Usefulness of formal training?:

42
 Cultivation practices: plan/season, land prepare, tilling, seeds/sowing, irrigation, fertilizer/spray,
monitor/cutting
(Past History---------------)
Crop-1:

Crop-2:

Crop-3:

Crop-4:

Objectives of farming?: (subsistence/ semi-commercial/ employ family males/ inter-generational

compulsion)

How was farming continuity made possible?:

Allied activities done (if any)?:

Managed cash/money: (sources, amount, use, adequacy, saving/accumulation)

Problems/risks in farming: (Drought, yield/loss, cash-deficit, marketing, alternative coping

mechanisms, relief)

Thought about leaving farming occupation: (Yes / No) & Why?

Current State of Family Farming (2017-18):

Land owned (acres)

Land leased-in (acres)
Land leased-out (acres)
% area irrigated by artificial irrigation
HH women involved in on-farm works?
Types of crops grown:
Skills of cultivation learned by HoH from: (father/ elders in family/ outside of family)
Formal Training: Yes / No From agency: Year / days:
Learning from training: (SPoPs/ machines/ innovative methods/ others)

Usefulness of formal training?:

Cultivation practices: plan/season, land prepare, tilling, seeds/sowing, irrigation, fertilizer/spray,

monitor/cutting
(Current Year 2017-18)
Crop-1:

Crop-2:

Cro-3:

Crop-4:

Objectives of farming?: (subsistence/ semi-commercial/ employ family males/ inter-generational

compulsion)

How was farm continuity made possible?:

43
Allied activities done (if any)?:

Managed cash/money: (sources, amount, use, adequacy, saving/accumulation)

Problems/risks in farming: (Drought, yield/loss, cash-deficit, marketing, alternative coping

mechanisms, relief)

Thought about leaving farming occupation: (Yes / No)

Reasons (if thought of leaving farming)?:

Alternative occupation decided after leaving farming?:

44
 Chapter-2

Characteristics of Districts with Development Schemes

This chapter presents critical-analytical view on key features of two districts, selected
for the study, and performance of ongoing development schemes in these districts.

I. Critical-Analytical Features of Selected Districts

Analytical view on main features of districts is presented as under.

Administrative Features

Taking care of economic welfare of only 1000 to 1800 villages per district during past
70 years after Independence, or ever since 100-150 years, when cash crop cotton (“white
gold) was introduced, may not have been a complex proposition. Did cotton as “white
gold” lead to wealth accumulation in real “golden gold”? Functional role of
administrative state, organizations and institutional framework of policy, etc. suggest
several significant questions in disquieting and unanswered form. (Table 2.1)

Table-2.1: Administrative Features of Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Geographical area (sq km) 6290 13564
Number of Blocks 8 16
Number of Villages 1004 1856
Number of Panchayats 517 1205

Rainfall and Ground Water

It may be seen and questioned, what happens to whatever rainfall or precipitation is

received by rural society as bestowed by Nature: Is it stored, saved and protected for
current/future use by villages, by constructing water-harvesting structures, water
bodies and watersheds? Even net annual draft is less than annual natural recharge.
(Table 2.2)

Table-2.2: Rainfall and Ground Water in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Normal rainfall (mm) 1057 911
Actual rainfall 2014-15 (mm) 898 670
Actual rainfall 2015-16 (mm) 1043 707
Actual rainfall 2016-17 (mm) 973 973
Actual rainfall 2017-18* NA Reported as “relatively less rain”
Availability of Ground Water:
Net annual recharge (Ham) Data not available 136801
Net annual draft (Ham) Data not available 42183 (30%)
Balance (Ham) Data not available 53139 (70%)
*Field survey in sample village Devnala

45
Soil and Climate

Black soil is held suitable for cotton crop. However, other crops like toor (pulses),
soyabean, jowar, oilseeds (now excluded) have been suitably grown in both the districts.
Semi-arid and sub-humid dry agro-climatic zone puts these two districts (wardha,
Yavatmal) in challenging conditions for “commercial farming approach” for the past 150
or at least 70 years. With no/less propensity for wealth/“capital” accumulation (beyond
gold or land buying), mere suitability of soil, may not be adequate factor for economic
development. Without “capital” and without “humidity” in dry soil, economic surpluses
are less likely to be generated. Only subsistence and physical survival” is practically
feasible in such agro-climatic region. (Table 2.3)

Table-2.3: Soil & Climate in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Agro-climatic Zone Western Plateau & Hills Region Western Plateau & Hills Region
–Plateau Zone South –Plateau Zone South
Climate Semiarid to Dry Sub-humid Semiarid to Dry Sub-humid
Soil type Medium Black, Shallow Black Medium Black, Shallow Black

Land Utilization

Actual condition of forest land on 2.03 lakh ha (Yavatmal district) may be evaluated at
the ground level, by taking stock of condition of forests, wild animals, need for fresh
plantations and land/soil/water/forest conservation. State of existence of wild animals is
coming into conflict with farm lands. Non-availability of permanent pasture land is an
area of concern, as it may not support animal husbandry (goatery, dairy). Cultivable
wasteland of 35,000 ha implies misuse of land resource. Land-use audit and rationale
of 30,000 ha “other fallow” land is necessitated for optimum land use for community
benefit. Net sown area is 9.70 lakh ha, with cropping intensity of 113% and 1.24 lakh ha
area cultivated ‘more than once”: It shows great human effort put in by farmers, tenants
and agricultural wage laborers, by hard work on land. Around 10 lakh ha net sown area
in command of 1856 villages, signifies zeal of individual farmers in creative and
aesthetic working on object of nature (land), to mold it in productive form of crop output
of several kinds. Same holds true for Wardha district farmers. (Table 2.4)

Table-2.4: Land Utilization in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Area reported (lakh ha) 6.28 13.51
Forest land (lakh ha) 0.56 2.03
Area not available for cultivation (lakh ha) 0.20 0.40
Permanent pasture & grazing land (lakh ha) 0.007 NIL
Cultivable wasteland (lakh ha) 0.28 0.35
Current fallow (lakh ha) 0.20 0.22
Other fallow (lakh ha) 0.15 0.30
Net sown area (lakh ha) 4.10 9.70
Gross cropped area (lakh ha) 4.38 10.94
Area cultivated more than once (lakh ha) 0.54 1.24
Cropping Intensity (%) 107 113

46
Irrigation Coverage

Only 5% of net sown area in Yavatmal district and 13% of Wardha district is irrigated
by artificial sources of irrigation. It shows pathetic condition of irrigation. The most
disquieting fact is, virtual absence of wells and tanks/ponds. A small irrigation potential
is created as compared to area needing irrigation; and still very small proportion of the
created potential is utilized due to various factors, the main constraint being scarcity of
private capital. Net irrigated area is negligible at around 0.50 lakh ha in each of the two
districts. (Table 2.5)

Table-2.5: Irrigation Coverage in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Total area available for irrigation (NIA + Fallow) (lakh ha) 4.46 4.15
Irrigation potential created (lakh ha) 1.81 2.05
Irrigation potential utilized (Gross Irrigated Area) (lakh ha) 0.58 0.60
Net irrigated area (lakh ha) of which: 0.55 0.46
Area irrigated by canals (lakh ha) 0.27 0.12
Area irrigated by wells (lakh ha) 0.59 0.28
Area irrigated by tanks (lakh ha) - -
Area irrigated by other sources (lakh ha) 0.10 -
Net irrigation intensity 13.4 4.7
(net irrigated area as % of net sown area) (%)

Distribution of Land Holdings

Relatively greater proportion of holdings and area lie in higher size-classes, in both the
districts, particularly in Yavatmal district. Farmers are not “small” but big in land size
(though it does not matter as irrigation is absent). In fact, bigger size of holding
compensates extreme lack of irrigation. (Table 2.6)

Table-2.6: Distribution of Land Holdings in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Holdings Area Holdings Area
No. % of Ha % of No. % of Ha % of
Total Total Total Total
Up to 1 ha 35534 18 25743 6 28640 7 15232 2
>1 to 2 ha 84413 43 120322 27 161227 39 195030 23
>2 ha 76363 39 292504 67 227535 54 640172 75
Total 196310 100 438569 100 417402 100 853434 100

Workers’ Profile

Small & marginal farmers are not predominant in number in both the districts,
particularly in Yavatmal district. Youths try to find any job and engage in different
activities/sectors, as workers’ profile shows. However, 67 to 77% of workforce, i.e.
majority in both the districts, is still absorbed by two occupations: (i) cultivators; and
(ii) agriculture wage-labor. If farming collapses, there could be a big crisis in terms of
employment. (Table 2.7)

47
 Table-2.7: Workers’ Profile in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha Yavatmal

District District
Cultivators (No.) of which: 196000 417000
Small & Marginal farmers (No.) 124000 159000
Agricultural Laborers (No.) 233000 556000
Workers engaged in Household Industries (No.) 11000 15000
Workers engaged in Allied agro-activities (No.) 160000 13000
Other Workers (No.) 42000 241000
Total Workforce 642000 1242000
Small & Marginal farmers as proportion of Cultivators (%) 63.2 38.1

Cultivators as proportion of total workforce (%) 30.6 33.6

Agricultural Laborers as proportion of total workforce (%) 36.3 44.8
Workers engaged in Household Industries as proportion of total workforce
(%) 1.7 1.2
Workers engaged in Allied agro-activities as proportion of total workforce (%) 24.9 1.0
Other Workers as proportion of total workforce (%) 6.5 19.4
Total Workforce 100.0 100.0

Households

Households are still predominantly “rural”, particularly in Yavatmal district though

Wardha district’s households are turning out from villages to towns by selling land or
leasing-out as “absentee” owners; but in Yavatmal district, migration is not an option even
as 80% households still live in villages. (Table 2.8)

Table-2.8: Households in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Total Households (No.) 310000 647000
Rural Households (No.) 211000 515000
Rural Households as proportion of Total Households (%) 67.8 80.0
BPL Households (No.) 93000 257000
BPL Households as proportion of Rural Households 44.0 49.9

Demography

Yavatmal district is twice the Wardha district in terms of population. Wardha district has
relatively greater proportion of SC than ST population while Yavatmal district is
relatively more of tribal nature. Literacy is significant in both districts, but poverty ratio
is also high. (Table 2.9)

Table-2.9: Demographhic Profile of Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District
Number (lakh) % Number (lakh) %
Total population 13.00 - 27.75 -
Scheduled Caste population 1.89 14.5 3.28 11.8
Scheduled Tribe population 1.49 11.5 5.14 18.5
Literate population 11.31 87.0 22.39 80.7
BPL population 4.01 30.8 11.76 42.4

48
Within rural population, similarly, tribal characteristics are more predominant in
Yavatmal district as compared to Wardha district. Rural Wardha is more literate as
compared to rural Yavatmal. Rural Yavatmal has high poverty rate. (Table 2.10)

Table-2.10: Rural Demography of Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Number (lakh) % Number (lakh) %
Rural population 8.77 - 21.76 -
Scheduled Caste population 1.15 13.1 2.61 12.0
Scheduled Tribe population 1.25 14.3 4.78 22.0
Literate population 7.36 83.9 16.95 77.9
BPL population Not available - 10.01 46.0

Household Amenities

Data on “household amenities” need to be analyzed for inference, with great care.
Statistics on paper and the ground reality could diverge significantly even as actual
delivery of such facilities may be marred by quantitative shortages, scarcities, quality
issues and inadequacies, e.g. 100% access to “source of drinking water” may not imply
satisfactory supply from “source”. But lack of independent toilets seems to be correctly
depicted. Any positive depiction need to be accepted with fair doubt. (Table 2.11)

Table-2.11: Household Amenities in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Lakh No. % of Total Lakh No. % of Total
Households Households
Having concrete houses (brick/stone) 1.87 60.3 NA NA
Having source of drinking water 2.16 69.7 6.47 100.0
Having access to banking services 3.00 96.8 6.47 100.0
Having electric supply 3.00 96.8 3.96 61.2
Having independent toilets 1.05 33.9 1.63 25.2
Having radio/TV sets 2.07 66.8 4.13 63.8
Total Households 3.10 6.47

Health & Sanitation Infrastructure

Health/sanitation facilities for public health at ground level may also need a critical
view in the two districts. (Table 2.12)
Table-2.12: Health & Sanitation Infrastructure in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Anganwadis (no.) 1213 2852
Primary Health Centers (no.) 27 63
Primary Health Sub-centers (no.) 181 435
Dispensaries (no.) 256 147
Hospitals (no.) 272 100
Govt. Hospitals 11 NA
Hospital beds (no.) 1578 1907

49
Village-Level Infrastructure

Having supply does not mean implicitly that supply is sufficient, adequate or fulfills
100% needs of 100% users. Any way, “potable water supply” benefits only 60% villages in
Yavatmal district, and 73% villages (slightly higher) in Wardha district. (Table 2.13)

Table-2.13: Village-Level Infrastructure in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

No. % of Total No. % of Total
Villages Villages
Villages Electrified 1290 93.3 1856 100.0
Villages having Agriculture Power Supply 1277 92.4 1856 100.0
Villages having Post Office 183 13.2 373 20.1
Villages having Banking Facilities 124 9.0 1856 100.0
Villages having Primary Schools 1187 85.9 1856 100.0
Villages having Primary Health Center 27 2.0 1856 100.0
Villages having Potable Water Supply 1005 72.7 1119 60.3
Villages Connected with Paved Approach Roads 1036 75.0 1832 98.7
Total Villages 1004 1856
(1382*)
*Uninhabited

Agriculture Infrastructure & Support Services

It becomes intriguing and weird to find that despite availability of each and every
ingredient of “Green Revoloution” (new technology) in the market, serious issues persist
in agriculture sector of the two districts of Wardha and Yavatmal. Either such
technologies are not reaching the farmers adequately due to poor delivery service
mechanisms/extension services, or they cannot afford it due to lack of capital.
Nonetheless Wardha district is ahead of Yavatmal in terms of availability of
technologies/outlets despite its agriculture sector (population, farmers, area) being half
of Yavatmal district. (Table 2.14)

Table-2.14: Agriculture Infrastructure & Support Services in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Outlets for Fertilizers/ Seeds/ Pesticides (No.) 15133 1796
Total N/P/K Consumption (lakh metric tonne) 0.73 2.55
Certified seeds supplied (lakh metric tonne) 0.17 0.17
Pesticides consumed (metric tonne) NA 356
Agriculture tractors (no.) 2001 7550
Power tillers (no.) 39000 9215
Threshers/ Cutters (no.) 117000 4450
Agriculture pumpsets (lakh no.) 0.59 0.96
Pumpsets Energized (no.) 0.40 0.59
Pumpsets Energized (%) 81.6 61.4
Agro-Service Centers (no.) 2433 13
Soil Testing Centers (no.) 45 5
Plantation Nurseries (no.) 163 13
Farmers Clubs (no.) 187 302
Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK ) (no.) 1 1

50
Storage, Transport & Marketing Infrastructure

It is also intriguing and weird to observe that reasonable structure of post-harvest

management facilities and services is available as depicted in the two selected districts,
particularly in Wardha district, but still agrarian/agricultural crises enveloped these
districts. Either infrastructure is insufficient (e.g only 198 haats in Wardha and 42 in
Yavatmal districts, or 4 cold storages and one cold storage, respectively, in the above
districts), or its services are inadequate/ not qualitative/ not satisfactory. (Table 2.15)

Table-2.15: Storage, Transport & Marketing Infrastructure in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Rural/Urban “Mandi”/”Haat” 198 42
Length of pucca road (km) 5295 7886
Length of railway line (km) 397 149
Public transport vehicles (no.) 187000 15325
Goods transport vehicle (no.) 18270 20950
Wholsale market (no.) 8 17
Godown (no.) 229 575
Godown capacity (metric tonne) 179243 184500
Cold storage (no.) 4 1
Cold storage capacity (metric tonne) 40000 100

Agro-Processing Units

With 5-13% irrigation intensity, sugarcane cultivation and sugar mills in the two districts
may not be the desired expectation. Agro-processing units’ expansion would depend upon
marketable surplus of cash crops and commercial agriculture in crops, viz., cotton,
soyabean and toor, or to some extent chana. Business approach is needed to integrate
farming with industrialization to witness agro-processing grow. (Table 2.16)

Table-2.16: Agro-Processing Units in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

No. of Capacity No.of Capacity
units (Metric Tonne) units (Metric Tonne)
Food (Rice, Flour, Dal, Oil) 569 NA 155 16260
Sugarcane (Gur, Khandsari, Sugar) 2 2750 4 10000
Fruit (Pulp, Juice, Fruit Drink) 98 NA NIL NIL
Spices (Masala Powders Pastes) 93 NA 79 8450
Dry Fruit (Cashgew, Almond, Raisins) NA NA 2 12
Cotton (Ginning, Spinning, Weaving) 95 NA 84 6500
Milk (Chilling, Cooling, Processing) 2 10000 6 51
Meat (Chicken, Mutton, Pork, Dry Fish) NA 950 NIL NIL
Animal Feed (Cattle, Poultry, Fishmeal) NA NA 5 350

Animal Population

There is sizeable animal population in both the selected districts, but it is yet to be seen
and systematically analyzed through studies, whether farmers/villagers do animal

51
husbabdry for commercial purpose/semi-commercial purpose or pure household
subsistence use. (Table 2.17)

Table-2.17: Animal Population in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Cattle –Cross bred 57000 21840
Cattle -Indigenous 405000 698000
Buffaloes 56000 96220
Sheep –Cross bred 3000 NA
Sheep –Indigenous NA 24490
Goat 191000 299000
Pig –Cross bred 3000
Pig -Indigenous NA 3390
Horse, Donkey, Camel NA 1180
Poultry –Cross bred 141000 194000
Poultry -Indigenous 154000 445000
As per Census-2012

Infrastructure for Development of Allied Activities

A commercial and business approach to animal husbandry could only induce sufficient
infrastructure for the development of agri-allied activities (dairy, poultry, goatery)
including animal selling in the market (particularly cow, bullock, goats and poultry)
even as demand of animals exists (for agriculture, e.g. bullocks for plowing, and for
consumption, e.g. poultry, goat, fish, etc. as sizeable population of villagers is non-
vegetarian). Fishermen cooperative societies, is an encouraging sign. Proactive support
to allied activities may uplift agriculture sector in the two selected districts. (Table 2.18)

Table-2.18: Infrastructure for Development of Allied Activities in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha District Yavatmal District

Veterinary Hospitals/Dispensaries (no.) 28 202
Diseases Diagnostic Centers (no.) 77 5
Artificial Insemination Centers (no.) 105 259
Animal Breeding Farms (no.) 1 0
Animal Husbandry Training Centers (no.) 0 2
Dairy Cooperative Societies (no.) 119 712
Improved Fodder Farms (no.) 165 0
Animals Markets (no.) 6 6
Milk Collection Centers (no.) 80 24
Fishermen Societies (no.) 42 181
Fish Seed Farms (no.) 1 2
Fish Markets (no.) 22 16
Poultries Hatcheries (no.) 3 0
Slaughter Houses (Abettors) (no.) 6 30

Bank Network & Outreach

Almost all major public sector commercial banks are operating in the two districts even
as Regional Rural Bank and District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB) also exist (DCCB

52
of Wardha district is clased now). It is disquieting fact that Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Societies could not expand theirmembership of farmers; each PACS
has 3 villages (thousands of farmers) to service them but it is yet to be seen whether
all/most of the farmers are their members. Branch expansion of commercial banks has
also a great scope to service financial needs of farmers if agriculture is financially
viable. (Table 2.19)

Table-2.19: Bank Network & Outreach in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha Yavatmal

District District
Commercial Banks (No.) 17 20
Regional Rural Banks (RRB) (No.) 1 1
District Central Cooperative Banks (DCCB) (No.) 1* 1
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) (No.) 329* 595
Villages Per PACS 3 3
Total Branches (No.) 155 265
Rural Branches (No.) 97 165
Semi-urban Branches (No.) 58 100
Micro-finance Institutions (mFIs/mFOs) (No.) 23 5
Self-Help Groups (SHGs)/Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) (No.) 7017 32965
Banking Correspondents (BCs)/ Banking Facilitators (BFs) (No.) 102 132
Villages Per Bank Branch (No.) 10 7
Households Per Branch (No.) 2475 2442
*Closed

Deposits Outstanding

A decent growth (12 to 29%) in deposit accounts in banks is observed. Around 15 lakh
accounts in Wardha and 34 lakh deposit accounts in Yavatmal district against 3.10
households in Wardha and 6.47 lakh households in Yavatmal district is intriguing
(number of deposit accounts is 5-6 times the number of households) even if Jan Dhan
Yojna (JDY) scheme is taken into account under which each household was to be
provided a bank account facility. Disaggregated data on urban and rural branch/rural
household bank deposit accounts is not readily available as that would show the extent
to which farmers have deposit accounts. However, 37% deposit accounts in DCCB
(cooperative bank) branches, shows some sizeable number of accounts could be from
rural areas as cooperative bank/branches largely cater to the rural households.
Cooperative bank/branches have 27% share in total deposits of Rs.9680 crore as on 31
March 2017. That means farmers and other rural people do use (cooperative) bank
branches for saving deposits, or even commercial bank branches may have saving
deposits of farmers/ rural households, which may be encouraging sign of growing
agriculture in certain way (though loan repayment is a concomitant issue). Commercial
banks have 56% share in number of deposit accounts and 67% share in amount iof
deposits by all households, including uncertain number of rural households. (Table 2.20)

53
 Table-2.20: Deposits Outstanding in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha Yavatmal

District District
No. of Accounts as on 31.3.1016 13,65,674 30,04,533
No. of Accounts as on 31.3.1017 14,64,880 34,45,361
Growth in No. of Accounts as on 31.3.2017 (%) 11.7 29.0
Share of Banks in Deposit Accounts (as on 31.3.2017)
(i) Commercial Banks (%) 66.8 56.0
(ii) Cooperative Banks (%) 33.0 37.0
(iii) RRBs (%) 0.2 7.0
Amount of Deposits as on 31.3.1016 (Rs.crore) 4993 7089
Amount of Deposits as on 31.3.1017 (Rs.crore) 6373 9680
Growth in Amount of Deposits as on 31.3.2017 (%) 35.0 39.0
Share of Banks in Amount of Deposits (as on 31.3.2017):
(i) Commercial Banks (%) 98.0 67.0
(ii) Cooperative Banks (%) 2.0 27.0
(iii) RRBs (%) 0.0 6.0

Loans & Advances Outstanding and C-D Ratio

Number of loan accounts (2.25 lakh in Wardha district and 5.73 lakh in Yavatmal
district), is disproportionate with number of deposit accounts (considerably higher).
However, number of loan accounts appear to be in tune with number of households (3.10
lakh households in Wardha and 6.47 lakh households in Yavatmal district), i.e. 72.5%
households in Wardha and 88.5% households in Yavatmal district have at least one loan
account, which is encouraging for banks. This encouraging finding may not appear so
if it is explored that uncertain number of households may have multiple number of loan
accounts. As on 31.03.17, DCCB Wardha had no loan accounts (as bank closed) and
commercial banks cornered 73% of institutional credit market (monopolized). Previous
year commercial banks had 50% share in loan accounts. Amount of loans advanced in
both districts shows weird pattern in 2016-17: it has declined in Yavatmal district but very
high growth in Wardha district. (Table 2.21)

Table-2.21: Loans & Advances Outstanding in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha Yavatmal

District District
No. of Accounts as on 31.3.1016 1,43,803 5,49,283
No. of Accounts as on 31.3.1017 2,25,893 5,73,298
Growth in No. of Accounts as on 31.3.2017 (%) 56.0 12.0
Share of Banks in Loan Accounts (as on 31.3.2017)
(i) Commercial Banks (%) 97.0 50.0
(ii) Cooperative Banks (%) 0.0 43.0
(iii) RRBs (%) 1.0 7.0
(iv) Private Banks 2.0 0.0
Amount of Loans as on 31.3.1016 (Rs.crore) 1396 6995
Amount of Loans as on 31.3.1017 (Rs.crore) 3786 6714
Growth in Amount of Loans as on 31.3.2017 (%) 171.2 -4.01
Share of Banks in Amount of Loans (as on 31.3.2017):
(i) Commercial Banks (%) 97.0 65.0
(ii) Cooperative Banks (%) 0.0 29.0

54
 Feature Wardha Yavatmal
District District
(iii) RRBs (%) 0.4 5.0
(iv) Private banks 2.1 0.0
C-D Ratio:
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2015 (all agencies) 68 80
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2016 (all agencies) 63 99
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2017 (all agencies) 64 77
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2017 Commercial Banks 58 73
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2017 RRBs 29 79
C-D Ratio as on 31.3.2017 Cooperative Banks NA 88
C-D: Credit-Deposit; NA: Data Not Available

Performance to Fulfill National Goals

Loans are being advanced to agriculture secror (80% of priority sector advances in
Wardha and 61.8% in Yavatmal district), to weaker sections and to women by all the
banks. It looks as if without agriculture, bank loans may not find any other significant
lending (under priority sector) in both the districts. It could be true even for total credit
for whole district concerned even as agriculture is the mainstay, major livelihood and
employment generating activity, in Wardha and Yavatmal districts; if agriculture in crisis
collapses, it could spell doom for human survival, leave aside economic progress. That
is the reason for agriculture being part of “national goal”/priority. (Table 2.22)

Table-2.22: Performance to Fulfill National Goals in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

(Amount Rs.crore)
Feature (as on 31.03.2017) Wardha Yavatmal
District District
Priority Sector Loans 1324 6066
Loans to Agriculture Sector 1060 3751
Loans to Weaker Sections 183 588
Loans to Women 60 857
Loans to Agriculture Sector as proportion to Priority Sector (%) 80.0 61.8

Annual Credit Plans and Recovery Position

Wardha district showed better performance in terms of achievement of annual credit

plan targets (with 101% qchievement) as compared to Yavatmal district where it
declined to 65%. Assuming that realistic (low) targets are fixed by banks, low
achievement of target shows both apathy of lenders and indifference of borrowers
towards bank credit or some other functional/operational issues in banks could depress
the achievement rate, hence inducing next year’s targets. (Earlier, it was seen that loan
advances in Yavatmal district had negative growth. Wardha district registered very
high growth of 171% in loan advances (2016-17), but DCCB had to be closed due to losses,
as field survey revealed). Therefore, achievement rate has been problematic area in the
two districts, which puts banking/lending in jeopardy. Loan recovery rate of average
31-35% during last 3 years, is evidence of poor state of bank credit. (Table 2.23)

55
 Table-2.23: Annual Credit Plans and Recovery Position in Selected Districts in Vidarbha

Feature Wardha Yavatmal

(as on 31.03.2017) District District
Achievement of targets under priority sectors (2014-15) 83 78
Achievement of targets under priority sectors (2015-16) 98 88
Achievement of targets under priority sectors (2016-17) 101 65
Achievement of targets under priority sectors (average 3 years) - 77
Loan Recovery(2014-15) 30 38
Loan Recovery (2015-16) 32 35
Loan Recovery (2016-17) 37 33
Loan Recovery (average 3 years) 31 35

II. Performance under Development Schemes

1. Wardha District

District Plan (All Schemes) 2016-17

District agencies incurred an expenditure of Rs.199 crore (99.7% of allocation), for the
implementation of various development schemes (for general, SC, ST segments), during
2016-17, under the following broad heads of expenditure:

 Agriculture & Allied activities

 Rural Development Schemes
 Irrigation Development
 Electricity Development
 Industries and mining
 Vehicle & transport
 General economic service
Social and community service (Table 2.24)

Table 2.24: Details on Sanctions and Incurred Expenditure in 2016-17 in Wardha District

(Rs.lakh)
Particulars Allocated Expenditure Incurred Achievement (%)
General Scheme 14306.05 14293.33 99.91
SC sub-plan scheme 3400.39 3398.85 99.95
ST sub-plan scheme (outer area) 2223.72 2190.20 98.49
Total 19930.16 19882.38 99.76

Scheduled Tribe (ST) Sub-Plan

Details of activities, projects, schemes implemented under ST Sub-Plan (2016-17) are

presented in Appendix 2.1. A few salient features are presented as under:

 Scheduled Tribe (Sub Plan) envisaged an allocation of Rs.22.23 crore.

 Achievement in actual expenditure incurred was Rs.21.90 crore (98.4%).

56
 Almost all the aspects of development, viz., agriculture, allied activities, crop
development, stock breeding, irrigation, healthcare, education, social sector/women
& child development, roads, drinking water, etc. have been covered, with high
achievement of activities. The question arises, why tribals / tribal farmers are still in
distress.
 Critical disquieting features of ST sub-plan achievement are indicated as under:

 Oilseed production is not covered as money was not allocated for this purpose.
 Soil reclamation related land development scheme had ‘nil’ achievement.
 Money was not allocated for: (i) clusters/ groups of goats; (ii) feed supply for milk
cattle; (iii) Integrated poultry development scheme; (iv) cluster of milk animals;
and (v) distribution of hybrid cows.
 Allocation was not made under tap water supply (special measure) though
drinking water is regular need in villages and shortages are not uncommon.
 For some schemes/activities, data on physical targets and/or physical
achievements are not available (though allocation has been made and/or
expenditure incurred or not incurred), which doesn’t help in evaluating the
performance against allocation made, for example in activities, such as: Soil
reclamation related land development scheme; Commercial poultry business;
Local area small check dam irrigation; EE-PWD roads; National Malaria
Eradication Scheme (testing blood samples); NRHM –Additional Subsidy to state
healthcare institutions; Ashramshala Group (construction) under tribal
welfare; ‘Swarna Jayanti’ Hostel scheme for hostel for pre-secondary school
tribal students; ‘Thakarbappa’ residential improvement scheme; Supply of HDPI
pipes for tribal “farmers”; Stipend to ST students admission in professional
colleges; Central budget; Organize sports competitions in Ashramshalas; and
Implement various schemes for development of ‘Pardhis’ (a tribal group).

Scheduled Caste (SC) Sub-Plan

Details of activities, projects, schemes implemented under SC Sub-Plan (2016-17) are

presented in Appendix 2.2. A few salient features are presented as under:

 Scheduled Caste (Sub Plan) envisaged an allocation of Rs.34.00 crore.

 Achievement in actual expenditure incurred was Rs.33.98 crore (99.9%).
 Data on physical targets and physical achievents under SC Sub-Plan (Appendix-2.2)
are available to a greater extent and more satisfactory, as compared to data under ST
Sub-Plan (Appendix-2.1). In fact, physical allocation and achievements data were
available for all activities under Sc Sub-plan, which is appreciable.
 Allocation was not made in SC sub-plan for these activites: Training course for skill
based technical education to 12th class passed youths under National Education
Mission; enhance facilities for technical/professional education in senior secondary
schools; Supply of tap water in rural Dalit bastis/ communities; and Grant for house
construction (in Dalit bastis by NGOs).

57
 2. Yavatmal District

Rain-fed Area Development (RAD) under National Sustainable Agriculture

(NSA) Scheme

Yavatmal is rain-fed farming district. Rain-fed Area Development (RAD) component of

the National Sustainable Agriculture (NSA) Scheme of Govt. of India is implemented in
this district. However, during first 3 quarters of 2015-16 (as on 31 December 2016),
physical achievement of targets under various activities was only 48% and that of
financial targets less than 40%. Considering existing performance under different
activities, it is least likely that all targets were satisfactorily achieved on completion of
financial year 2015-16. Data for next year 2016-17 were not yet finalized/ available.
Achievement was reported as “nil” for “fruits and vegetables based farming system”
activity under Integrated Agriculture Systems sub-component, and “personal farm
pond” and shed net house” activities under Value Addition sub-component. Despite
district being rain-fed dry zone, no targets were fixed for “Common farm pond” and
“Check dam” activities. (Table 2.25)

Table 2.25: Rain-fed Area Development (RAD) Component under National Sustainable Agriculture (NSA)
in Yavatmal District 2015-16: Progress as on December 2016
(Rs.lakh)
Items Physical Financial
T A A (%) No. of T A A
Integrated beneficiaries (%)
Agriculture Systems:
Fruits and vegetables- 25 ha 0 ha 0.0 0 0.12 0.00 0.0
based farming system
Milk animals-based 165 ha 76 ha 46.1 147 66.40 17.00 25.6
farming system
Other livestock (goatery/ 230 ha 47 ha 20.4 184 61.00 12.00 19.7
poultry)- based farming
system
Value Addition &
Agri. Development:
Honey bee rearing 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00
Moor grass unit 7 no. 5 no. 71.4 7 8.75 6.25 71.4
Green house tubular type 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0
(1000 sq m)
Plastic tunnel polyhouse 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0
Personal farm pond 6 no. 0 no. 0.0 6 4.50 0.00 0.0
Shed net house 2 no. 0 no. 0.0 2 8.46 0.00 0.0
Common farm pond 0 no. 0 no. 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0
Check dam 0 no. 0 no. 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0
Sprinkler irrigation tools 189 no. 77 no. 40.7 131 19.61 11.27 57.5
Piped water supply 155 ha 137 ha 88.4 134 22.85 17.82 78.0
Small reservoir 0 no. 0 no. 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0
repair
Vermi compost unit 8 no. 5 no. 62.5 7 4.00 2.50 62.5
Farmers’ training 16 no. 16 no. 100.0 320 1.60 1.60 100.0
Farmers’ study tour 8 no. 8 no. 100.0 400 1.60 1.60 100.0
Total 48.1 1383 214.14 84.85 39.6
T: Target; A: Achievement

58
Integrated Horticulture Development Programme (IHDP)

For horticulture development in Yavatmal district under Integrated Horticulture

Development Programme (IHDP), state government had allocated Rs.1.87 crore for 2016-
17, against which achievement in terms of incurred expenditure was less than 20%.
Achievement of physical targets was less than 25%. The following 21 items/ projects were
involved under different activities for development of horticulture in Yavarmal district
under IHDP, which met with poor achievement of targets:

1. Banana (2nd year management)

2. Papaya (2nd year management)
3. Orange cultivation
4. Cut flowers by marginal farmers
5. Cut flowers by other farmers
6. Loose flowers by marginal farmers
7. Loose flowers by other farmers
8. Spices crop (turmeric)
9. Spices crop (ginger)
10. Orange rejuvenation
11. New group farming
12. Existing group farming
13. Plastic mulching
14. Shed net house
15. Jarbera planting under poly house/shednet house
16. Rose planting under poly house/shednet house
17. 20-horse power tractors (buying)
18. Pack-house for onion
19. Primary Processing Center (onion)
20. Onion chaal
21. Human Resource Development (training, state level exhibition) (Table 2.26)

Table 2.26: Integrated Horticulture Development Programme (IHDP) in Yavatmal District:

Details of Allocation and Incurred Expenditure 2016-17 (As on 31 March 2017)

(Rs.lakh)
Activities Allocation Incurred Expenditure Achievement (%)
Physical Financial Physical Financial Physical Financial
Area development (ha) 175.56 20.76 30.16 2.62 17.2 12.6
Orange rejuvenation (ha) 27 5.40 0 0.00 0.0 0.0
Integrated community/ 1 1.67 1 1.67 100.0 100.0
group farming (ha)
Integrated controlled 9.40 92.70 0 0.00 0.0 0.0
conditions farming (ha)
Horticulture Mechanization 14 14.00 0 0.00 0.0 0.0
(HM)– 20-HP tractor (No.)
Integrated Onion Management 32 49.78 15 29.37 46.9 59.0
(ha)
Human Resource Development 60 3.00 20 1.00 33.3 33.3
(HRD)–state training (No.)
Human Resource Development 0 0.00 0 2.59* 0.0 *
(HRD)–organize campaigns
(state exhibition)
Total - 187.31 - 37.25 24.6 19.9
*District data shows expenditure incurred yet physical achievement showed ‘nil’

59
Paramparagat Krushi Vikas Yojana (Organic Farming): Traditional
Agriculture Development Scheme

District agencies at various levels could incur an expenditure of Rs.93.71 lakh against
allocation of Rs.1.62 crore, with achievement rate of less than 58% under Paramparagat
Krushi Vikas Yojana (Organic Farming) or Traditional Agriculture Development Scheme,
during 2016-17, in Yavatmal district. (Table 2.27)

Table 2.27: Paramparagat Krushi Vikas Yojana (Organic Farming):

Traditional Agriculture Development Scheme in Yavatmal District (1st Year 2016-17)

(Rs.lakh)
Items Target Physical Target Achievement Ach
(subsidy No. of No. of Area Incurred (%)
allocated) Groups Farmers (ha) Expenditure
A. Formation of
Farmers’ Groups:
(i) To organize meetings and 3.80 38 1480 760 2.69 70.7
discussion sessions of
farmers to organize Organic
Farming Groups to do
organic farming by PGS
method
(ii) Successful organic 3.80 38 1480 760 2.56 67.3
farming –Farmers’ study
tour
(iii) Group training on 17.10 38 1480 760 13.77 80.5
organic farming to members
of Farmers’ Groups
Total A 24.70 19.02 77.0
B. Certification by PGS
Method:
(i) Two-days training on 0.15 38 0.07 46.7
“Certification by PGS
Method”
Target No. of samples Incurred A
(subsidy Target Ach. A (%) Expenditure (%)
allocated)
(ii) To collect soil samples 1.52 798 1.52 100.0
and testing
Target Target Incurred A
(subsidy Certifie No. of No. of Expenditure (%)
allocated) d area Groups farmers
(ha)
(iii) Prepare necessary 1.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.0
documents for PGS, use of
organic fertilizers, change in
crop method, certification of
farming by organic fertilizer-
use
Inspection of Farmers’
Farms through Group
Guide:

60
 Target No. of Farmers Incurred A
(subsidy T A A (%) Expenditure (%)
allocated)
Inspection of farmers’ farms 0.46 1200 0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Administrative expenses on 9.13 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0
certification
Total B 13.95 1.59 11.3
I. Conceptualizing
Organic Farming:
Target No. of No. of Area Incurred A
(subsidy Groups Farmers (ha) Expenditure (%)
allocated)
To transform ordinary 19.00 38 1480 760 17.77 93.5
farming into organic farming
Buy organic seeds, prepare 9.50 0 0 0 0.00 0.0
organic seeds nursery
To prepare organic fertilizer 28.50 22 625 257.40 9.61 33.7
(bijamraut, jiwamrut,
biodynamic, CPP compost,
bio-insecticide preparation)
Crop cultivation for 19.00 38 1480 760 15.12 79.5
stabilization of nitrogen (Giri
Pushp, Sysbenia)
Botanical extract: Extract in 19.00 38 1480 18.72 98.5
organic condition/ Insect
resistant biodynamic liquid/
Set up a unit to prepare
Dushparni Powder (Neem
cake, Neem oil)
Total I 95.00 61.20 64.4
II. Integrated
Organic Fertilizer
Management:
Buying certified organic 9.50 38 760 - 7.60 80.0
liquid (as per government
certified grade of liquid)
Phosphatic organic fertilizer: 19.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.0
(as provided under Fertilizer
Control Order 1985)
Construction of
Biodynamic CPP Unit:
Construct bio compost units 0.00 8 86 4.18 -
on hard surface of 10x10 feet
and 7 x 3 x 1 feet with brick
shed (35 kenchua shed/unit)
To construct biodynamic CPP 0.00 1 14 0.07 -
unit (50 CPP units/project)
Total 0.00 4.26 -
Total II 28.50 11.86 41.6
Total Economic Activity 162.16 93.70 57.7
Expenses
Contingency Expenses 0.50 0.00 0.00
Gross Total 162.65 93.71 57.7

PGS: Participant Guarantee System; A: Achievement

61
National Food Security Mission (NFSM):

Performance under National Food Security Mission (NFSM) was impressive as

Agriculture Department incurred expenditure of Rs.15.18 crore against allocation of
Rs.15.97 crore, with achievement of 95% in financial targets during 2016-17 in Yavatmal
district. Impressive achievement was ensured as activities involved general training,
demonstration, purchase and distribution of inputs/ instruments/ equipment (unlike
Organic Farming programme wherein intensive labor inputs are required). (Table 2.28)

Table 2.28: National Food Security Mission (NFSM): Progress (2016-17) in Yavatmal District

(Rs.lakh)
Particulars Target Achievement A (%)
Physical Financial Physical Financial Physical Financial
Group Demonstration 3500 ha 235.81 3465 ha 234.63 99.0 99.5
Demonstrating gap between 8400 ha 432.34 8265 ha 426.84 98.4 98.7
two crops
Production and distribution 17470 qtl 436.75 17620 qtl 440.52 100.9 100.9
of high yield seeds
Programme
Seed Development 5753 qtl 143.82 2373 qtl 59.34 41.2 41.3
Programme
Integrated Foodgrain 14890 ha 52.18 14890 ha 51.51 100.0 98.7
Management
Integrated Pest 34323 ha 171.60 53112 ha 269.59 154.7 157.1
Management
Improved Agricultural 752 No. 123.08 110 No. 36.50 14.6 29.7
Implements
Cultivators under Farm 20 No. 2.00 0 o.oo 0.0 0.0
Mechanization Programme
Total 1597.58 1518.93 95.0

Maharashtra Agricultural Competitiveness Project (MACP)

Under the Maharashtra Agricultural Competitiveness Project (MACP), Agriculture

Department incurred an expenditure of Rs.61 lakh against budget allocation of Rs.1.14
crore, with achievement rate of 53%, during 2016-16 in Yavatmal district. Financial
achievement under “investment costs” was less than 47% and financial achievement
under “staff salary”for contractual staff was 99.7%. The project aims at strengthening of
Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) for its activities so that agriculture
could be made adapted to the increasing competition. (Table 2.29)

62
 Table 2.29: Maharashtra Agricultural Competitiveness Project (MACP) in Yavatmal District:
Budget and Expenditure (2016-17)

(Rs.lakh)
Item Budget Expenditure A (%)
I. Investment Costs:
Strengthening of ATMA
1) Equipment and IT support 0.00 0.00 0.0
2) Strengthening of Farmer Information and Advisory Center 0.00 0.00 0.0
3) Sensitization Workshop for Officers 0.00 0.00 0.0
A) Preparation of Marketing Strategy and Supplement 0.00 0.00 0.0
(MSS)
B) Implementation of MSS & SREP 0.00 0.00 0.0
a) Training Related to Market Improved Activities:
 APMC Markets 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Rural Haats 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Livestock Markets 0.00 0.00 0.0
 CIGS of S.R. Markets 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Goat Demonstration Unit 0.00 0.00 0.0
 FCSC (grains) 0.00 0.00 0.0
 FCSC (horticulture) 0.00 0.00 0.0
Total Training 0.00 0.00 0.0
b) Other trainings:
Specialized Trainings for Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.0
Exposure Visits:
 Outside States (for farmers) 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Crop 1.60 1.01 63.1
 Livestock 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Goat Demonstration Unit 0.00 0.00 0.0
Total Exposure Visits 1.60 1.01 63.1
a) Crop Demonstration:
 Cereals 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Pulses 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Oilseeds 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Fruit crops 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Vegetable crops 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Flower crops 0.00 0.00 0.0
b) Demonstration on Organic:
 Cereals 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Pulses 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Vegetable crops 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Fruit crops 0.00 0.00 0.0
Total Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.0
INM / IPM:
 Demonstration on Post-harvest Management Technology 4.00 2.91 72.7
 Demonstration on Livestock Management Practices 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Fodder Production Technology Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Buyer-Seller Meets: District Level Meets 0.75 0.67 89.3
 Strengthening of Growers’ Associations / 0.00 0.00 0.0
 Farmers’ Organizations
 Innovative Pilots 10.00 0.00 0.0

63
 Item Budget Expenditure A (%)
 (Entrepreneurship Development Programme)
A) FCSC Investment Cost:
 FCSC (grains) 81.00 41.00 0.50
 FCSC (horticulture) 0.00 0.00 0.0
CIGS/ FIGs:
1) CIGs/ FIGs Procurements Goods & Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.0
2) FCSC Procurements Goods & Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.0
Total Investment Costs 97.35 45.60 46.8
I. ATMA Staff Salary (Contractual):
 Agricultural Marketing Expert 5.04 5.02 99.6
 Accountant 3.45 3.44 99.7
 Computer Operator 2.46 2.45 99.5
Total Staff Salary 10.95 10.92 99.7
A) Operating Costs 6.00 4.19 69.8
B) Documentation CDS/ Videos 0.27 0.27 100.0
Total ATMA 114.57 61.00 53.2
A: Achievement; ATMA: Agriculture Technology Management Agency

State Extension Programme for Extension Reforms (SEPER)

Under the State Extension Programme for Extension Reforms (SEPER), against
allocation of Rs.3.86 crore, Agriculture Department incurred actual expenditure of
Rs.1.69 crore, thus registering achievement in financial target of less than 44%; achievent
in physical target was less than 58%. Under this programme, emphasis is given on
demonstration of technology, dissemination of information, encouraging innovations at
various levels (district, state) and arranging functionary specialist support. (Table 2.30)

Table 2.30: State Extension Programme for Extension Reforms: Progress (2016-17) in Yavatmal District

(Rs.lakh)
Particulars Physical Financial
Target Achievement A Target Achievement A
(%) (%)
1. District Level Activity 5443 11446 210.3 87.88 64.62 73.5

2. Farm Information 7 2 28.6 6.91 1.07 15.5

Dissemination
3. Agricultural Technology 46 18 39.1 4.40 2.66 60.5
Refinement, Validation
Adoption
4. Administrative/ capital 148 64 43.2 31.12 17.15 55.1
Expenses
Innovative Activity:
5. Innovative Activity State 3 0 0.0 0.75 0.00 0.0
Level
6. Innovative District 918 917 99.9 56.02 0.25 0.4
Activities
7. Other Innovative Activity 8 0 0.0 3.99 0.00 0.0
8. Innovative Technology 340 8 2.4 30.46 0.80 2.6
Dissemination
Component
Total innovative activity 5-8) 1269 925 72.9 91.22 1.05 1.2

64
 Particulars Physical Financial
Target Achievement A Target Achievement A
(%) (%)
9. Specialist and Functionary 36 24 66.7 165.12 82.52 50.0
Support
10. Total Innovative, 1305 949 72.7 256.34 83.57 32.6
Specialist and Functionary
Support
Grand Total Extension 57.8 386.65 169.09 43.7
A: Achievement

National Mission for Micro Irrigation Programme (NMMIP)

Yavatmal district being irrigation-deficit district, there is significant need for adopting
micro irrigation technology by the farmers. National Mission for Micro Irrigation
Programme (NMMIP) is implemented in the district and it has two components: Drip
irrigation system and sprinkler irrigation system. District agencies incurred an
expenditure of Rs.16.63 crore under NMMIP during 2016-17, benefitting over 8900
beneficiaries (farmers) with total area of 6800 hectares and area benefitted per
beneficiary as 0.76 hectares. (Table 2.31)

Table 2.31: National Mission for Micro Irrigation Programme:

Achievement (2016-17) in Yavatmal District

Minor Irrigation Beneficiaries Total Area Area per Expenditure Incurred

(No.) (ha) beneficiary (ha) (Rs. lakh)
Drip 1435 1825 1.27 752.56

Sprinkler 7493 4974 0.66 910.65

Total 8928 6799 0.76 1663.21

Cotton Development Programme (Commercial Crops)

Under the Cotton Development Programme (Commercial Crops), Agriculture

Department, during 2016-17, in Yavatmal district fixed a target of covering 1070 ha area
for two activities, namely: (i) frontline demonstration (intercropping); and (ii)
demonstration of high density planting of local cotton. However, achievement of physical
targets was dismal at 65 ha (6%). Achievement of financial target was Rs.1.38 lakh
(1.5%) against target of Rs.90.10 lakh during the year. A dismal performance under the
programme is unexpected even as cotton production sector has been reeling under
different problems, from poor yield, adoption of Bt cotton, pink ball worm disease,
pesticides sprays causing health and death problems, etc. in the region, particularly
Yavatmal district. (Table 2.32)

65
Table 2.32: Cotton Development Programme (Commercial Crops) under National Food Security Mission:
Progress (2016-17) in Yavatmal District

(Rs.lakh)
Particulars Target Achievement A (%)
Physical Financial Physical Financial Phy. Fin.
Frontline Demonstration 310 ha 21.70 0 ha 0.00 0.0 0.0
(Intercropping)
Demonstration of High Density 760 ha 68.40 65 ha 1.38 8.5 2.0
Planting of Local Cotton
Total 1070 ha 90.10 65 ha 1.38 6.0 1.5

Crop Pest Survey and Consultation Programme

Agriculture Department achieved financial target of 100% by crop pests survey and
consultation during 2016-17 in Yavatmal district by incurring an expenditure of Rs.38.46
lakh. However, data do not reveal details of physical activities (of surveys and
consultations) undertaken and the outcomes thereof, particularly on the eve of ‘pink ball
worm’ (bondani) disease/pest that attacked cotton crop next year in 2017 in Yavatmal
district. (Table 2.33)

Table 2.33: Crop Pest Survey and Consultation Programme in Yavatmal District (2016-17):
Progress As on 31 March 2017

Particulars Allocation Incurred expenditure Achievement

(Rs.lakh) (Rs.lakh) (%)
Crop Pest Survey and Consultation 38.46 38.46 100.0
Total 38.46 38.46 100.0

Hybrid Toor Production Programme (HTPP)

Agriculture Department performed well in Hybrid Toor Production Programme (HTPP)

implemented under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna during 2016-17 in Yavatmal district.
Achievement of physical target was 100% even as it could distribute hybrid toor seeds
benefitting 1800 hectare area and incurring expenditure of Rs.32.40 lakh during the year,
with 100% achievement of financial target. (Table 2.34)

Table 2.34: Hybrid Toor Production Programme under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna
Progress (2016-17) in Yavatmal District

(Rs.lakh)
Particulars Target Achievement A (%)
Physical Financial Physical Financial Phy. Fin.
Seed Distribution 1800 ha 32.40 1800 ha 32.40 100.0 100.0
(@5 kg/hctare)
Total 1800 ha 32.40 1800 ha 32.40 100.0 100.0
A: Achievement

66
Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan (Sensitisation Campaign on Farmers’ Suicides)

Taking into account drought, hailstorms, unseasonal rains/monsoon, etc. in the state for
the last 2-3 years and the suicide by farmers in these affected areas, Revenue and
Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra has taken a decision in July 2015, to form
committees at district and village level, to conduct Farmers’ Sensitisation
Campaign, establishment of special cells to deal with work related to farmers’ suicide,
with a mission to bring out farmers from depression and bring back self-confidence68
in them. For taking various measures under the pilot project, Yavatmal and Usmanabad
districts were selected by the State Government under this campaign. Under pilot project
in Yavatmal district, various programmes are being conducted to uphold the morale of
distressed farmers, to bring them out of depression, and to rebuild their confidence in
living life.

The project implementing committees are as under:

1) District Level Committee

2) Village Level Committee
3) Farmers’ Sensitisation Campaign Committee

Expenditure Incurred During 2015-16

Expenditure incurred during 2015-16 under Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign (Baliraja

Chetna Abhiyan) against suicides in Yavatmal District, was Rs.18.49 crore. This may
be one of the most efficient programmes implemented in the district even as funds were
released between 22.09.2015 and 06.01.2016. Within 3½ months (or during next 2
months up to 31.3.2016), agencies concerned could disburse the entire amount of
Rs.18.49 crore; for example, an amount of Rs.1.03 crore for bhajans, kirtans and
pravachans (preaching and sermonizing), and so on, for similar purposes. (Table 2.35)

Table 2.35: Expenditure Incurred under Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign

(Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan) against Suicides in Yavatmal District in 2015-16

Sr. Name of Office Item of Expenditure Fund Expenditure

No. Incurring Disbursed Incurred
Expenditure (Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Chief Executive To disburse to village level 15,0360,000/ 15,0360,000/-
Officer, committees -
ZillaParishad
2 District Honororium to the Resource persons 30,00,000/- 22,23,963/-
Superintendent holding programmes for inculcating
Agriculture positive attitude among farmers and to
Officer, Agriculture experts
Yavatmal
3 District To disseminate information about 51,50,000/- 50,11,199/-
Information agriculture related schemes to farmers
through jingles on radio, on side

68Waning “self-confidence” of farmers, is affirmation of the fact that there is problem of

“self-alienation” and “social alienation” in villages of Yavatmal district.

67
 Sr. Name of Office Item of Expenditure Fund Expenditure
No. Incurring Disbursed Incurred
Expenditure (Rs.) (Rs.)
Officer, and back panels of buses,
Yavatmal pamphlets to enhance morale of
farmers
4 Women and Collective weddings of daughters 20,00,000/- 84,45,000/-
Child of farmers 80,05,000/-
Development
Officer,
Yavatmal
5 All Tehsildars Rs. 5 lakh per Tehsil for arranging road 80,00,000/- 1,03,82,197/-
plays, artists, rangoli artists, Agri.
Fests, kitrtan, pravachan,
farmer’s gatherings, rallies in 16
blocks
Rs 1.00 lakh per tehsil to open special 16,00,000/-
cell in Tahsiloffice in 16 blocks
Prizes for innovations in 20,00,000/-
agriculture, Bhajan groups and
Kirtan artists
6 District office 1.Prize for individuals/ organizations Data not Data not
participating in Farmers’ Sensitisation available available
Campaign at district and block level
2. Wages to staff (contract basis)
3. Expenditure on programmes/
ventures under Farmers’ Sensitisation
Campaign
4. Miscellaneous expenditure on
setting up of Farmer Special Cell,
etc.
Total 18,01,15000 18,49,85,551/-*
(17,64,22,359)
#

*As per data provided by District Planning Office (DPO), Yavatmal

#Actutal total
Source: District Planning Office (DPO), Yavatmal

Expenditure Incurred During 2016-17

Expenditure incurred during 2016-17 under Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign (Baliraja

Chetna Abhiyan) against suicides in Yavatmal District, was Rs.4.47 crore. Total
amount of Rs.11.25 crore was received from State Govt during the year 2016-17 for
implementation of the campaign, out of which, in terms of Govt. decision dated
2/6/2016, District Level Committee has received grant of Rs.5.00 crore from
Contingency Fund; expenditure incurred from it, is presented as under. However, data
on details of expenditure from funds received of Rs.11.25 crore, are not available.
(Table 2.36)

68
 Table 2.36: Expenditure Incurred under Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign
(Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan) against Suicides in Yavatmal District in 2016-17

Sr. Name of Items of expenditure Expenditure

No. Office incurred (Rs.)
Incurring
Expenditure
1 Chief To complete 100% sowing in Kharif season of 2016 by the 4,00,00,000/-
Executive farmers in the district and to disburse fund of Rs.30,000/- per
Officer, Zilla village on priority basis to those village level committees
Parishad, which could not get financial help due to non
Yavatmal availability of grant during the financial year 2015-16, and
also for village committees to distribute this fund to the
farmers who are in financial difficulty and to make enable
them to complete sowing in kharif 2016, and for those
villages which could not get grant during the year 2015-
16 after distributing Rs 30,000/- per village to such
villages remaining fund may be transferred
@Rs.30,000/- per village to the villages with larger
population

2 Sub To arrange camps for issuing various certificates to farmers 1,38,019/-

Divisional and farm labourers under Farmers’ Sensitisation Campaign
Officer,
Yavatmal/
Ralegaon/
Darvha
3 Tahsildar, Expenditure incurred on study tour of delegation to Israel 2,00,000/-
Babhulgaon
4 Tahsildar, To organize guidance camps for gainful farming through 2,50,000/-
Yavatmal proper balance between organic and non-organic (chemical)
farming

5 District To implement scheme for Collective weddings of daughters of 39,90,000/-

Women and farmers
Child
Development
Officer,
Yavatmal
6 District 1.To meet the expenditure incurred on assemblage/ 1,78,724/-
office, gathering for monetary help/ loan
Yavatmal 2. Payment of expenditure incurred on various schemes
under Farmers’ Sensitisation Campaign
3. Office expenses, etc.

Total 4,47,56,743/-

As per Govt. decision dated 06 March 2016, total amount of Rs.6.25 crore received by
Yavatmal district from the fund, was spent during 2016-17 as indicated in Table 2.37:

69
 Table 2.37: Expenditure Incurred under Farmers’ Sensitization Campaign
(Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan) against Suicides in Yavatmal District in 2016-17

Sr. Office Incurring Items of expenditure Expenditure

No. Expenditure incurred (Rs.)
1 Chief Executive Officer To disburse funds to those village committees 3,93,25,000/-
, ZillaParishad, who did not receive it last year. To disburse
Yavatmal grants to those villages on priority basis who
did not receive grants before. After
disbursing equal funds to all villages the
remaining balance to be distributed to the
villages having larger population @
Rs.30,000/- per village (for sowing)
2 District Women and To implement scheme for Collective 73,60,000/-
Child Development weddings of daughters of farmers
Officer, Yavatmal
3 The Dean, Shri V N M Expenditure on Health Camp 2,77,024/-
V V Hospital, Yavatmal
4 Assistant Expenditure incurred on the programme for 1,05,543/-
Commissioner, Animal distributing cows and goats through RCF
Husbandry, Yavatmal
5 Tahsildars (All) (Except Expenditure incurred on all programmes and 14,11,531/-
Kalamb and Vani) schemes under Farmers’ Sensitisation Campaign
6 Zilla Office, Yavatmal 1) To meet expenses incurred on reprinting 1,40,16,528/-
and distribution of information collected
from 1848 village committees formed under
Farmers’ Sensitisation Campaign in the form of
100 books related to agriculture.
2) Wages to staff on contract basis
3) Payments for all ventures under Farmers’
Sensitisation Campaign
4) Office expenses, etc
Total 624,95,626/-

Physical achievements since the inception of the scheme

Due to various programmes like Agri. Fest, Radio Jingles, financial help (distributed
money), etc. being implemented under Farmer’s Sesitisation Campaign vide Govt’s
decision dated 24.07.2015, State Government observed in its data that “the number of
suicides among the farmers has reduced during the last 3 years, that is [calendar year]
2015, 2016 and 2017. There is decrese in suicide cases due to implementation of various
programmes under Farmer’s Sesitisation Campaign.” (Table 2.38)

Table 2.38: Physical achievements since inception of Farmer’s Sesitisation Campaign scheme

Sr. Year Farmer suicide cases Increase/decrease in suicide cases

No.
1 2015 386 -
2 2016 272 114 (decrease)
3 2017 245 27 (decrease)

70
 Appendix 2.1
Wardha District Annual Plan 2016-17: “Scheduled Tribe” (ST) Outer Area Sub-Plan

Details of Allocation and Expenditure as on 31 March 2017

(Rs.lakh)
Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Dev.
Special assistance for 55.75 55.75 100.0 Irrigation well; bullock cart; Old well 253 250 98.8
upliftment of families of ST re-digging; Bullock pairs; Pipeline;
farmers above poverty line Bore-well; Agri. implements
Oilseed production 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0
2. Integrated Crop Development
Soil reclamation related land 3.00 0.00 0.0 NA NA NA NA
development scheme
Cattle Breeding & Development Goat groups/ clusters, cattle, milk 245 245 100.0
cattle clusters, person beneficiaries
Supply for clusters/ groups of 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
goats
Feed supply for milk cattle 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
Integrated poultry 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
development scheme
Supply for cluster of milk 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
animals
Distribution of hybrid cows 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
Commercial poultry business 23.35 23.35 100.0 NA NA NA
Integrated Cattle Breed Development -Forest
Nursery development for forest 65.12 65.12 100.0 No. of nurseries 345 345 100.0
tree plantation for industrial
traders
Integrated Agriculture and Allied Services
Indira AwasYojna (IAY) 5.00 5.00 100.0 No. of houses 5 5 100.0
3. Irrigation – check dam Not available
Kolhapur method of check dam 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
irrigation
Local area small check dam 1.00 0.00 0.0 NA NA NA
irrigation

71
 Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Dev.
4. District Roads
Executive Engineer PWD roads 100.00 100.00 100.0 Roads NA NA NA
Minimum Needs Programme: Healthcare
National Malaria Eradication 12.00 9.65 80.41 Blood testing of samples NA NA NA
Scheme
Strengthening of PHCs 4.00 4.00 100.0 PHCs 10 10 100.0
Repair and maintenance of 0.00 0.00 0.0 Fixed/construction work 0.00 0.00 0.0
PHCs
Provide healthcare in sensitive 5.00 5.00 10.00 Special health care 10 & 31 10 & 100.0
tribal areas 31
Establishment, safety/security 0.00 0.00 0.0 Fixed/construction work 0 0 0.0
and construction of Healthcare
Institutions
Enhancement of medicine 10.00 10.00 100.0 Purchase medicine 10 & 31 10 & 100.0
subsidy to PHCs and sub- 31
centers
Rajiv Gandhi Jiwansathi 10.00 10.00 100.0 District/ rural/ sub-district 10 10 100.0
Health Yojna
NRHM – Additional Subsidy to 1.00 1.00 100.0 NA NA NA NA
state healthcare institutions
Total 42.00 39.65 94.40
Water supply and
Sanitation:
Tap water supply 0.00 0.00 0.0 Tap water supply NA NA NA
(Special Measure)
Tribal Welfare:
Education fee and examination 2.00 2.00 100.0 Students 3400 3400 100.0
fee of Scheduled Tribe (ST)
students
Assistance toward additional 124.50 122.52 97.4 School class 7 7 100.0
subsidy for Block and Ashram
Schools run by NGOs for tribal
students
Setting up/starting Ashrama 269.77 269.42 99.97 Salary of college and students’ grant 2 2 100.0
Kanishtha College (salary) run
by NGOs

72
 Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Dev.
Education fee and examination 1.90 1.72 95.79 Students 35 33 94.2
fee for tribal students
Supply of engine oil for tribal 19.85 19.85 100.0 Beneficiaries 69 69 100.0
people
Ashramshala Group 104.13 96.71 92.87 Institution 4 4 100.0
(Parirakshan)
Ashramshala Group 0.00 0.00 0.0 Construction NA NA NA
(construction)
Public expenses for hostel and 207.45 109.21 91.69 Hostel 12 12 100.0
its maintenance for ST boys
and girls
Construction of public guest 0.00 0.00 0.0 Construction 0 0 0.0
house
Monthly scholarship (Rs.500) 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
and transport stipend (Rs.100)
for tribal students in 8th to 12th
class
Swarna Jayanti Hostel scheme 142.87 142.87 100.0 Students NA NA NA
for hostel for pre-secondary
school tribal students
Thakarbappa residential 300.00 300.00 100.0 Improvement work NA NA NA
improvement scheme
Computer training to students 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
and teachers
Supply of HDPI pipes for tribal 10.00 9.90 99.00 Beneficiaries NA NA NA
“farmers”
Stipend to ST students 1.00 0.00 0.0 NA 0 0 0.0
admission in professional
colleges
Central budget 100.00 99.94 99.94 Beneficiaries NA NA NA
Kanyadan Scheme 6.00 6.00 100.0 Couples 90 90 100.0
Govt. of India Shishyavrati 350.00 349.87 99.96 Beneficiaries 3000 2126 70.8
(scholarship)
Medical and materials: 37.00 34.31 92.73 Beneficiaries 60 50 83.3
Scholarship to ST students in
colleges (such education)

73
 Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Dev.
Supply of milk giving cows to 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
ST people
Organize sports competitions 3.00 2.96 98.67 NA NA NA NA
in Ashramshalas
Supply LPG gas connections to 0.00 0.00 0.0 Nil 0 0 0.0
tribal people
Implement various schemes for 10.00 10.00 100.0 Farm households 10 NA NA
development of ‘Pardhis’
Economic support to tribal 0.20 0.20 100.0 Beneficiaries 1 1 100.0
people to buy land
Total Tribal Welfare 1689.67 1658.58 98.16
Social Welfare:
Women and child welfare 3.00 3.00 100.0 Beneficiaries 87 87 100.0
committee
Gross Total 2223.72 2190.20 98.49

NA: Data Not Available

74
 Appendix 2.2
Wardha District Annual Plan 2016-17: “Scheduled Caste” (SC) Sub-Plan
Details of Allocation and Expenditure as on 31 March 2017
(Rs.lakh)
Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Development
Crop Production
Special assistance for uplifting backward class/ 597.14 597.14 100.0 Borewell, bullocks, 2148 1988 92.55
neo-Bodh families –crop production old borewell,
pipeline, pumpsets
Integrated crop production
Integrated watershed development: fruit 25.33 25.33 100.0 Check dam on nallah 46 28 60.87
production for soil conservation (ha)
Animal Husbandry
Supply of milk animals 45.00 45.00 100.0 Animals 141 141 100.00
Supply of cattle feed for milk animals 5.00 5.00 100.0 Animals covered 100 100 100.00
Training in animal husbandry for SCs 2.00 2.00 100.0 Training 200 200 100.00
Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh interest 45.00 45.00 100.0 Institution/sabhasad 2500 2390 95.60
schemesubsidy
Rural Development Schemes
Indira Awas Yojna 0.00 0.00 0.0
Free electricity connection 42.20 42.20 100.0 beneficiaries 20 36 180.00
Electric connection to owned tubewells 157.80 157.80 100.0 beneficiaries 150 114 76.00
Rural Small Industries:
Entrepreneurship training programme 12.00 12.00 100.0 beneficiaries 400 238 59.50
District Industries Center Loan Scheme 2.00 2.00 100.0 beneficiaries 5 6 120.00
Seed capital for educated unemployeds 4.00 4.00 100.0 beneficiaries 7 7 100.00
Social & Community Development:
Attendance stipend for SC girls for school 4.32 4.32 100.0 Students 1870 1962 104.92
attendance
Sports & Youth Welfare
Playground development grant, gymnasium dev. 0.00 0.00 0.0 Playgrounds, 93 93 100.00
Organizing social service camps, economic gymnesiums, camps,
assistance to rural/urban self help mandals mandal
Integrated Technical Education

75
 Scheme Financial Physical
Allocation Incurred Ach. Heads Target Ach. Ach.
expenditure (%) (%)
1. Agriculture & allied services: Crop Development
Training course for skill based technical 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
education to 12th class passed youths under
National Education Mission
Increase facilities for technical/professional 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
education in senior secondary schools
Drinking Water & Sanitation:
Supply of tap water in rural Dalit bastis/ 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
communities
Dalit basti improvement scheme 600.00 600.00 100.0 Dalit bastis 10 10 100.00
Information & Broadcasting/ Extension
Information Cell in tribal areas (janjati areas) 26.00 24.46 94.08 Lok Rajya 2000 2000 100.00
Weaker Section’s Welfare:
Book bank on medical and technical/ 1.68 1.68 100.0 Students 125 75 60.00
engineering books for SCs
SSS education fee and examination fee 9.00 9.00 100.0 students 13000 11000 84.62
Scholarship to trainees in industrial training 0.50 0.50 100.0 students 1100 250 22.73
Scholarship for backward class students in SSS 10.00 10.00 100.0 students 1600 1300 81.25
Grant for backward class trainees in hostel 15.00 15.00 100.0 students 4 4 100.00
Stipend for students in hostels 0.00 0.00 0.0
Education and examination fee for matriculate 168.09 168.09 100.0 students 800 757 94.63
students
Dalit basti improvement scheme 1500.00 1500.00 100.0 Dalit basti 310 500 161.29
Inter-caste Marriage encouragement 16.03 16.03 100.0 Couples 60 32 53.33
Scholarship for wards in secondary education of 0.30 0.30 100.0 Students 900 16 1.78
parents engaged in unhygienic job
Scholarship for students in 5-8th class in weaker 13.00 13.00 100.0 students 3000 2166 72.20
section
Scholarship girls of weaker sections 8-10th class 20.00 20.00 100.0 students 2000 2000 100.00
Grant for house construction by NGOs 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0
Total Weaker Section’s Welfare 1753.60 1753.60 100.0
Labor Welfare:
Expenditure for wear & tear of equipment in 0.00 0.00 100.0 Institution 8 0 0
Industrial Training Institutes
Social Welfare:
Women & Child Welfare Committee 12.00 12.00 100.0 Equipment and books 300 300 100
Gross Total 3400.00 3398.85 99.95

76
 Chapter-3
Ecosystem of Social Castes and Economic Classes

This chapter analyzes composition of village by social castes and classes, and interaction
in terms of groups’ socio-economic status/power exertion in two sample villages.

I. Social Caste Division

1. Social Castes/Groups

Harankhuri Village

Harankhuri village in 2017-18 is predominantly tribal populated. Villagers responded to

the social caste question by categorizing population in terms of what they said “ST” and
“NT” groups, denoted as“Scheduled Tribe” and “Non Tribal” households, respectively. Of
the total 50 households in village, 90% are “ST’ and 10% “NT” households. Though term
“tribe” is distinguished from notion of “caste” (socially and historically), villagers are
nonetheless accustomed to using term “sub-caste” to specify and respond to their “tribal”
(ST) status who, they say belong to “Gond” tribe with sub-caste”“Uike”, (pronounced as
“Vike”). Their main livelihood is farming. The “NT” (non-tribal) group in village is called
“Waddar” even as it comprises these main categories: Watke (stone crushers), Bhoi
(fishermen), Beldar (mason laborers), etc. Currently there are no fishermen households
(Bhoi) in the village, but two households presently living in village belong to theWatke
and Beldar categories. Harankhurivillage does not have “Other Backward Class” (OBC)
households though common OBC categories in Vidarbha, are: Teli, Kunbi (farmers),
Khair-Kunbi, Tirili-Kunbi, Wandekar, Dhanuj, etc. Village is socially less differentiated
and more homogenous today than it was in the past. (Table 3.1)

Table 3.1: Social caste composition (caste wise population) of Harankhuri village

Caste Number of HHs (2017-18) % of Total

Scheduled Tribe (ST) 45 90.0
Non-Tribal (NT)* 5 10.0
Total number of Households (HHs) 50 100.0
* Other Backward Class (OBC)

Harankhuri village 40 years ago had different social characteristics. Today’s “Gond” tribe
people doing farming are comprised of erstwhile nomadic (Sarodi/Firasti) tribal group
and Dhan-gar group who lived on the outskirts of village. Sarodi/Firasti nomads used to
stay for 2-3 months at a place and move; their main livelihood was buying and selling
buffaloes (including old “bhakar” buffaloes). Dhangar tribal group was pastoral and used
to be engaged in grazing cows and goats which was their “dhan” (cattle wealth) –hence
their name Dhan-gar. Dhangar tribal group also used to come to the village for hired
work, including cultivation of land. One Sahukar/Brahman caste household owned
substantial agricultural land in Harnkhuri though he lived in nearby village. A “Karigar”
(carpenter) used to come to Harankhuri village from nearby village to make agricultural

77
implements for farmers. The carpenter’s payment for his work was average 10-20 kg
Jowar grains contributed from each farm household (it could be Wheat if rains were
good) depending on number of pairs of oxen owned by household –all farm households
collected the payment-in-kind and gave it to the carpenter.The village had a “Nai”
(barber) household and a “Teli” household (both OBCs), for haircut and oil extraction
service, respectively, even as their payment was in terms of grains. Their mutual social
relations are reported as harmonious.

Devnala Village

Devnala village in 2017-18 has 350 households and is comprised of seven caste groups,
viz., Non Tribal (NT) Banjara (also called Tanda) 50% households, Gond (Adivasi ST)
14%, Kolam (Podh Adivasi ST) 8%, Kunbi (OBC) 11%, Teli (OBC) 11%, Nai (OBC) 0.3%,
and Bodh (SC) around 6% households. Therefore, NT (Non Tribal) households are
maximum 50%, followed by ST (villagers call them Adivasi) households at 22%. The OBC
group has 22% households. SC households are around 6%. It was reported that there was
social equality in the village without feeling of hierarchy. All groups treated each other as
equals; social cooperation existed among them. Gonds are organized under Birsa Munda
Sena. Bodh SCs have installed statues of Lord Buddha and Dr.BR Ambedkar as mark of
pride and solidarity for social equality. All villagers celebrate functions of Independence
Day and Republic Day collectively by hoisting national flag at Gram Panchayat (GP)
office in Devnala. Banjara social group has also installed their symbol of unity and
solidarity in the village (separately behind GP office). Villagers’ feeling of unity in
diversity, particularly amid adversity and scarcity (of resources like drinking/irrigation
water), is quite strong. ‘Kolam’ Adivasi ST households “prefer” to live in the outskirts and
periphery of Devnala village in separate “Podh”/Basti (locality), located around 800
meters or 1 km from village center, near forest foothill. Physical distance differentiates
Kolam Adivasis from the rest of the groups in the village. (Table 3.2)

Table 3.2: Social caste composition (caste wise population) of Devnala village

Caste No. of HHs (2017-18) % of Total

Banjara (NT) 175 50.0
Gond (ST) 50 14.3
Kolam (ST) 28 8.0
Kunbi (OBC) 38 10.9
Teli (OBC) 38 10.9
Nai (OBC) 1 0.3
Bodh (SC) 20 5.7
Total number of Households (HHs) 350 100.0

Around 30-40 years ago, the present social composition in Devnala village began to take
initiate shape and structure. Adivasi Kolams’ way of living was like forest people (Pardi);
they wore bare minimum clothes and depended on hunting in nearby forest on hill top
which had thousands of wild animals (pig, neel gai, deer, etc.). Shyama Kolam bandit is
famous for social banditry even as he used to loot the resourceful and distribute booty
among the Adivasi poor. It was reported that a book and a film is produced based on the
life of the bandit. Kolam Adivasis are yet to be integrated fully with the mainstream of

78
village life. After coming out of forest, they started doing farming and agricultural labor.
Around 30 years ago, they started working for one Mandokar (Kunbi OBC farmer) at his
farmland who himself had been allotted agricultural land for cultivation by “Ruikar
Trust”. Initially 3-4 households of Kolam Adivasis were set up even as their number
gradually increased on 2 acres of land provided by the farmers to set up a colony outside
the village. Now some of them have been allotted land from Ruikar Trust and they
cultivate it independently. Kolam Adivasis speak ‘Kolam language’ (it doesn’t have
writing script) though they (especially youths) can also speak Marathi and Hindi fluently.
They are of short height, black complexion, frail and innocent though short-tempered,
which appears to be due to social exclusion and little sense of exclusion from other groups
in the village/mainstream. Illicit consumption of indigenous Mahua liquor is common
among Kolam Adivasis and it contributes to their keeping away from hard work in farm
operations as also compensates for their sense of social exclusion.

A part of their land is kept vacant from cultivation since they are not very keen and
interested cultivators and yet to be absorbed fully into the new culture of agri-‘culture’
after coming out from forests. Teens and youths have started wearing jeans and T-shirt
and studying in school/senior secondary classes. Social change in Kolam Adivasis is
happening though slowly. Their source of annoyance is to own private agricultural land
instead of being dependent on allotted land (from Ruikar Trust at nominal annual
allotment ‘registration’ fee). A sense of private ownership of land has taken roots in psyche
of Kolam Adivasis. Besides farming and idleness they do agricultural wage labor as well
(like Gond Adivasis of village).

The largest social group of Banjara “NT” (Non-Tribal) households in Devnala village was
originally nomadic in traits and way of life. They used to wander in forests and engaged
in grazing cattle (cows and goats). They sold cattle and milk. Each Banjara household
owned 100-150 cattle of cows and goats. Villagers informed that after 1963 (when
Mr.Vasantrao Naik became Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra), they were brought
into the mainstream of village settled life by adopting farming and abandoning age-old
nomadic life style. Banjaras speak Marathi language. Besides doing farming, they are
engaged inseasonal agricultural wage labor. Another social group of Kunbi OBC
households and Bodh SCs also do farming and agricultural wage labor. Teli OBC
households, besides being engaged in farming and agricultural wage labor, are quite
entrepreneurial, skillful and innovative even as they are engaged in small business, trade,
service (government, private) and leasing-out owned land so that they can adopt new
trades. A lone ‘Nai’ social caste OBC household (landless) is engaged in traditional haircut
occupation for survival.

2. Land Ownership by Social Castes

Harankhuri Village

In Harankhuri village, during 2017-18, a majority of the land owning households were
Scheduled Tribe (ST) i.e. 86%, followed by Non Tribal (NT) households i.e. 8%. Only 6%
households were such who did not own land (it included both ST and NT groups). There
is great sense of private ownership of land by both social caste groups (ST and NT). Private

79
land ownership is not only the need but obsession also –no farmer in Harankhuri is
willing to undertake joint farming or start producers’ company by pooling private land to
be a member of this company even as each of them thinks the other one shall appropriate
fruits of labor of someone else or himself. Mental set up of farmers is strongly inclined
towards private entitlement of land despite the fact that farming is perceived as loss-
making proposition –perhaps family subsistence requirement induces farmers to
consider land title as surety for survival amid adversity. Around 50-60 years ago, only few
people in village owned agricultural land while the majority of them were landless and
worked as agricultural laborers/ ‘saladar’ (farm servant)/ sharecroppers for the landlord.
One Brahmin caste landlord owned 300 acres; he owned 15 pairs of bullocks; enclosure
for cattle was situated where now stand huts and semi-pucca houses on top of the
hill/mound at village center. (Table 3.3)

Around 60 years ago (during 1960s) all such big landlords sold their land for fear of
popularity of Bhoodan Movement started by Vinoba Bhave and government’s land
reforms; land was sold @Rs.1000 per acre; many landless tribal and small sharecroppers
(also tribal) purchased land from landlords that was excess of ceiling (56 acres per family).
Some cultivating tribals got land allotted under ceiling laws and now they are land owners
by virtue of being original cultivators. However, no tribal farmer can sell land to a non-
tribal. Land selling is permissible among owner-farmers within the ST (tribal) class.
(Table 3.3)

Table 3.3: Private land owned by social castes in Harankhuri village

Households (HHs) 2017-18 % of total

Scheduled Tribe (ST) land owners 43 86.0
Non-Tribal (NT) land owners 4 8.0
Landless (ST and NT) 3 6.0
Total number of HHs 50 100.0

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, farmers cultivate land that is held by them in two distinct forms: (i)
under private ownership; and (ii) under “allotment” by “Ruikar Trust”69. Land ownership
records/data (caste wise) were not very clear/available, to enable comprehensive socio-
economic analysis, which is based on somewhat complicated and nuanced form of facts
gathered. However, still these facts reveal a dialectical state of land question that is subject
to inevitable gaps in information for wider public view at the level of Patwari (Village
Record-keeper Office) even as villagers (including knowledgeable elders and educated
youths) and GP functionaries were also largely unable to convey precise or broad
information regarding which caste group owned how much agricultural land in Devnala.
They could only tell with certainty that almost all 350 households in each caste group were
engaged in farming (on owned/allotted land) as well as seasonal agricultural wage labor
(on others’ lands). Which farm household owned how much private land and how much
allotted land –such information could be available only by personal interview of each
household, which is not possible to gather in limited timeframe of field survey. Repeated

69Details of “Ruikar Trust” are presented later in this chapter.

80
attempts at gathering information on caste-wise agricultural land ownership (and
allotment) were failed by inconsistent and conflicting versions of data. It is imperative to
understand some aspects of records of land holdings. “Class-1” land (“Bhoo-gat”-1) covers
“land ownership” category of farmers and “class-2” land (“bhoogat”-2) covers “Trust
land” that is “not in ownership” of the cultivators. Each land plot hasa survey record called
“7-12” Extract (“Seven-Twelve Extract”) which is based on Land Register prepared under
the “Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966” and “Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of
Rights and Registers (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules 1971”. It uses land
information gathered in “Form-7” (land ownership) and “Form-12” (other information).
However, social caste wise data is either not compiled or not readily available for whole
village based on such records. (Table 3.4)

Table 3.4: Private land (Class-1) owned by social castes in Devnala village

Number of Households (HHs) 2017-18

Banjara (NT) Caste wise land data not available
Gond (ST) Caste wise land data not available
Kolam (ST) Caste wise land data not available
Kunbi (OBC) Caste wise land data not available
Teli (OBC) Caste wise land data not available
Nai (OBC) Caste wise land data not available
Bodh (SC) Caste wise land data not available
Total number of HHs 350*
*350 HHs cultivated 404 ha agricultural land

However, information on land “allotted” from Ruikar Trust among different social castes
of Devnala village, was readily available from VRO (Patwari) office. Total 83 households
out of 350 households in village were “allotted” agricultural land for cultivation. Total
area allotted was 177 ha. This area of land allocation (position as in 2017-18) is continuing
since past 40-50 years and has undergone partitioning within farm households. Total
number of farm households which were allocated agricultural land from “Ruikar Trust”
is as under: Non-Tribal (NT) ‘Banjara’ farmers (31); Kunbi and Teli OBC farmers (26
households); Bodh SC farmers (9 households); Gond and Kolam Adivasi ST farmers (7
households); and “open” category farmers (10 households).

On an average each farm household was “allotted” 2.10 ha land. Since this land is not in
private ownership of farmers but “allotted”, these farmers (in all social caste groups) are
not issued “7-12 extract” and no such land record of private ownership exists in ‘Land
Register’ of the village. Nonetheless these 83 farmers were reported to have wished for
a long time that they may be conferred private ownership rights over these “allotted”
lands. Particularly, Kolam Adivasi HHs felt agitated over private “ownership” rights of
allotted land not conferred over them as they felt “deprived” of “private” entitlements.
Tribals are aware of ceiling laws under land reforms Act and demanded distribution of
surplus land of “Ruikar Trust” to them as they cultivated it for many years. Households
in all social castes were allotted agricultural land including “open category” (General
Caste) although village population data collected from villagers does not indicate “open
category” General Castehouseholds living in Devnala. Such marginal inconsistencies in

81
information on population, social castes, land owned, land allotted, etc. may be normal
feature of the village data. (Table 3.5)

Table 3.5: Land“allotted” (Class-2) to social castes from “Ruikar Trust” in Devnala village

Households (HHs) Number of HHsallotted (2017-18) Land allotted (ha)

Banjara (NT) 31 Not available
Kunbi, Teli (OBC) 26 Not available
Bodh (SC) 9 Not available
Gond, Kolam (ST) 7 Not available
“Open” category 10 Not available
Total number of HHs 83 177
Average land allotted per HH (ha) 2.10

3. Occupational Status of Social Castes

Harankhuri Village

All households (100%) in the ST and NT social groups have main occupation of farming
(to which they have allied the seasonal agricultural wage-labor operations as subsidiary
occupation). Tribal and non-tribal farm households both find it difficult to make their
livelihood from full time farming on owned farm alone. Therefore, during part of the year
they have allied activity of wage labor; sometimes wage-labor also covers construction site
labor, labor in mining (blast mines) for about 6 months of the year. Although each social
group household rears a pair of cows, chicken/hen and a few goats but these animals are
only for family subsistence purpose, not commercial occupation of selling milk/meat
produce.Adult male and female members of each social caste farm household work on
other’s family farm at the time of sowing, weeding, pesticide spraying,
harvesting/plucking cotton, etc. Cotton is the most labor-intensive crop; therefore all
farm households, irrespective of social group (ST/NT) supply family labor on wage basis
to all the needy farm households. Farming along with wage labor is the source of main
livelihood of farm households of all social groups alike. (Table 3.6)

Table 3.6: Farming & wage-labor as main occupation of caste groups in Harankhuri village

Caste Group No. of households (HH) in 2017-18

Total in village Farming & wage labor as main occupation % of Total
Scheduled Tribe (ST) 45 45 100.0
Non Tribals (NT) 5 5 100.0
Total 50 50 100.0
Only 2.2% of the tribal farmers have any member in the family engaged in service
(government or private service). One tribal farm household has a youth employed as
serviceman on the post of Fourth Class worker in the Electricity Department for the past
3 years (since 2014). No household reported employed in private service. (Table 3.7)

82
 Table 3.7: Service job as main or subsidiary occupation of caste groupsin Harankhuri village

Caste Group No. of households (HH) in 2017-18

Total in village Service as main/subsidiary occupation % of Total
Scheduled Tribe (ST) 45 1 2.2
Non Tribals (NT) 5 0 0.0
Total 50 0 0.0

Devnala Village

Almost all the farm households (99.7%) across different social caste groups in Devnala
village had farming with wage labor as their main occupation. All of them depended on
farming as primary occupation, to which they had allied the activity of wage-labor on
other neighbors’ farms and wage labor in nearby village for survival. There was no
discrimination of any caste group (especially Bodh SC group) farm households in access
to wage labor opportunity. (Table 3.8)

Table 3.8: Farming & wage-labor as main occupation of caste groups in Devnala village

Caste Group No. of households (HH) in 2017-18

Total in village Farming & wage labor as main occupation % of Total
Banjara (NT) 175 175 100.0
Gond (ST) 50 50 100.0
Kolam (ST) 28 28 100.0
Kunbi (OBC) 38 38 100.0
Teli (OBC) 38 38 100.0
Nai (OBC) 1 0 0.0
Bodh (SC) 20 20 100.0
Total 350 349 99.7

None of the social caste groups had access to government or private service as their main
or subsidiary occupation even as no person from Devnala village was employed in service.
(Table 3.9)

Table 3.9: Service job as main or subsidiary occupation of caste groups in Devnala village

Caste Group No. of households (HH) in 2017-18

Total in village Service as main/subsidiary occupation % of Total
Banjara (NT) 175 0 0.0
Gond (ST) 50 0 0.0
Kolam (ST) 28 0 0.0
Kunbi (OBC) 38 0 0.0
Teli (OBC) 38 0 0.0
Nai (OBC) 1 0 0.0
Bodh (SC) 20 0 0.0
Total 350 0 0.0

83
 4. Gender Relations & Women Empowerment

Harankhuri Village

During 2017-18, all women in family were engaged in farming and allied activities related
to the agriculture in respect of 100% farm households in Harankhuri village. The same
situation existed 30 years ago even as all women worked in family-farm. Not only they
performed on-farm activities but also worked as wage-laborers (within village and going
to neighboring village) during particular seasons of sowing or harvest besides taking up
household jobs and tendering animals –thus working 15-16 hours per day. Since 2016, all
(100%) women farmers in village have been made joint owners (along with husband) of
family’s private agricultural land. Villagers opined that this has been possible due to the
State Government’s initiatives for women empowerment. At least 60% households in
Harnkhuri village had one woman from family self-employed in small business through
Self Help Group (SHG) supported micro enterprise. However, none of the women were
employed in service (government or private sector). Women’s economic condition was
same (disempowered) 30 years ago, except that they were expected to work on farm
without access to money or economic freedom (Table 3.10)

Table 3.10: Gender relations in Harankhuri Village

Mainstreaming gender in agriculture: 2017-18 30 years ago

(i) % women engaged in farming 100.0 100.0
(ii) % women farmers owning land title 100.0 0.0
Gender relations (economic freedom):
(i) % women employed in service 0.0 0.0
(ii) % women self-employed in small business 60.0 0.0

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, all (100%) women in the family were engaged in farm operations, right
from sowing up to harvesting, and doing wage-labor. They also did house jobs and reared
cattle (cows, goats, poultry, etc.) for subsistence purpose. However, none of the women
were made sole/joint owners of private agricultural land of the household. Although
villagers wanted, but were unable, to make joint ownership of agriculture land in the
name of women because legal registration of deed cost Rs.25,000 which they reportedly
could not spare or arrange. Women were not employed in service (government or private
sector) or doing own business/trade. Their current state of poor empowerment did not
change during the past 30 years: Economic liberalization policy did not bring any
economic empowerment to the village women in Devnala. (Table 3.11)

Table 3.11: Gender relations in Devnala Village

Mainstreaming gender in agriculture: 2017-18 30 years ago

(i) % women engaged in farming 100.0 100.0
(ii) % women farmers owning land title 0.0 0.0
Gender relations (economic freedom):
(i) % women employed in service 0.0 0.0
(ii) % women self-employed in small business 0.0 0.0

84
 5. Demographic Details

Harankhuri Village

Harankhuri is a small village. Its total population is 350 inhabitants. The village has 80
youths, of which 40 are males and 40 females.Around 30 years ago, village population
was 250 persons with 50 youths (25 males and 25 females). Each household had one or
two youths as family members. Average size of family has remained same at 7 persons per
household over the past 30 years since apportionment and partitioning is not very much
the practice or families kept larger size of family as greater size of land holding allowed
them to expand family size. (Table 3.12)

Table 3.12: Demographic composition of Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Total population of village (no.) 350 250
Average size of family 7 7
No. of youths (>18 years age) (total) 80 50
No. of youths (Male) 40 25
No. of youths (Female) 40 25

Devnala Village

Devnala is relatively bigger village, with population of 1066 inhabitants, of which 500 are
youths (250 males and 250 females). Thirty years ago, village population was 750 persons,
withyouth population of 350 of which 175 were males and 175 females. Average size of
family has declined from 5 persons (30 years ago) to 3 persons (in 2017-18) due to
apportionment and partitioning of farm households. Youths get married early and
partitioned from parents; in some cases old parents lived alone or with the eldest son even
as joint family system had virtually collapsed due to sons going-out/migrating to city or
neighboring village for wage employment and getting settled separately. Smaller family
appeared to be the changing norm in Devnala village. (Table 3.13)

Table 3.13: Demographic details of Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Total population of village (no.) 1066 750
Average size of family 3 5
No. of youths (>18 years age) (total) 500 350
No. of youths (Male) 250 175
No. of youths (Female) 250 175

6. Human Resource Potential and Employment Relations

Harankhuri Village

Literacy rate in Harankhuri village is currently 71% as compared to 40% reported 30

years ago. Out of total 80 youths, only one youth is graduate and one youth technical
educated (ITI course) while one youth had migrated to city for service. Thirty years ago,

85
the village did not have any youth educated up to graduation, ITI passed or having
migrated to the city for service. All (100%) youths were keen to take up family farming as
their livelihood (in absence of other opportunities) –both 30 years ago as also currently.
However, none of the youths are engaged in non-farm sector (NFS) activity (business or
trade) within the village or in city.None of the youths had migrated to the city for casual
wage labor even as employment opportunities dried up. Wage/salaried employment and
self-employment in Non-Farm activities did not become better in 2017 as compared to
the situation prevailing 30 years ago. (Table 3.14)

Table 3.14: Human Resource Development and Utilization in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Literacy rate (%) 71.4 40.0
No. of graduates & above 1* 0
No. of technical/professional educated 1* 0
No. of youths migrated to city for service 1* 0
% of youths taking up/continuing family farming 100.0 100.0
No. of youths openedNon-Farm business/trade in city or village 0 0
No. of youths migrated to cityfor casual wage labor 0 0
*Male

Devnala village

Devnala village is better placed as compared to the other village in sample.Literacy rate
is 90% in 2017 while it was low at 45% some 30 years ago. Village has 50 youths educated
as graduates or above (30 males and 20 females). Village has one person who is
engineering stream professionally educated and 30 youths are ITI trained, of which 26
are males and 4 females (in different trades). Nursing course educated females are 7 in
the village, of which 3 are employed in private hospitals/ nursing homesand 4 are
unemployed. Recently, Primary Health Center of Devnala village had experienced
shortage of nursing staff (one posted) which went on long leave; villagers opined that
services of unemployed nurse from within Devnala could be used but it was not possible
due to rigidities and constraints of procedures to utilize such local human resource
potential for medical or similar other services in the public sector. Unemployment of
nursing qualified resources in village appears weird in view of felt urgency of their services
for medical and health care. Five youths had migrated to the city (Yavatmal) currently
(2017) and in recent past for service (government and private sector), e.g. ginning mill in
industrial growth center of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) @
salary of Rs.12,000 per month, Maharashtra State PWD, other departments, etc. One
person had opened sugarcane juice shop in Yavatmal city. At least 40 youths have
migrated to city (Yavatmal) for mason work (Mistri)for house construction jobs. Many
farmers go to other villages (nearby) for agricultural wage-labor, e.g. Pimplekuti, Nanja,
Jormoha, Barbori, etc. @Rs.170/- per day. Rest of them worked as agricultural wage
laborers within the village (mainly plucking/harvesting cotton). However, employment
opportunities for village youths were not as opened, liberalized and diversified 30 years
ago as these are accessible currently, mainly due to awareness. (Table 3.15)

86
 Table 3.15: Human Resource Development and Utilization in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Literacy rate (%) 90.0 45.0
No. of graduates & above 50 0
No. of professional educated 1 0
No. of technical (ITI) educated 30 0
No. of medical nursing educated 7 0
No. of youths migrated to city for service 5 0
% of youths taking up/continuing family farming 100.0 100.0
No. of youths opened Non-Farm business/trade in city or village 1 0
No. of youths migrated to cityor villagefor casual wage labor 40 0

II. Economic Class Division and Economy

1. Village Land Distribution

Harankhuri Village

Total village land of Harnkhuri is 500 hectares (ha). Its composition and distribution did
not undergo any change over the past 30 years. Of this, 298 ha (59.6%) is private
agricultural land owned by individual farm households; 200 ha (40%) is forest land
owned and possessed by Forest Department of State Government; and 2 ha (0.4%) is
residential area where villagers have constructed houses. All villagers are allowed to have
access to the Forest Land for grazing animals (cows, goats); however, only a small
proportion, say 5-10% area of Forest Land is accessible without fee (“Gairan”) to the
villagers as grazing pasture for animals; on the rest, Forest Department restricts villagers’
entry for grazing. Common village land (shamlat) of Harnkhuri village is ‘nil’ even as such
customary possession of common land as normally found in North Indian states, and
allocated to the individual farmers for individual/common use, by Gram Sabha/ Gram
Panchayatis absent in Maharashtra villages (including Harankhuri). Therefore, a
potential source of economic survival of farm households during adversity, is absent in
Maharashtra (Harankhuri village). (Table 3.16)

Table 3.16: Village land distribution in Harankhuri village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Land: (ha) (ha)
Total area of village, of which: 500 500
(i) Private agricultural land 298 298
(ii) Forest land 200 200
(iii) Residential 2 2
(iv) Village common ‘shamlat’ 0 0
Irrigation:
Artificially irrigated land 149 0
Exclusively rain-fed land 149 298
Mode of artificial irrigation Tube well with electric NA
motor and/or DG set.

87
Around 50% of the agricultural land (149 ha) has artificial irrigation facility by the
installation of pump set (run with electric motor and/or diesel generated set) by
individual farmers. Remaining 50% agricultural land (149 ha) is exclusively dependent
on rainfall. Around 30 years ago, entire agricultural land of 298 ha (100%) was exclusively
dependent on rainfall. During past 10-15 years gradually farmers have started installing
pump sets for irrigation even as 50% of them are yet to adopt this technology. Depth of
water table for pump set is 15 to 20 feet. However, problem of “black stone” often inflicts
many farmers’ land for extraction of water through pump set. Village houses are located
at undulating hilly terrain while 50% of agricultural land is plain and 50%
undulating/hilly. (Table 3.16)

Devnala Village

Total area of Devnala village is 752 ha, whose distribution pattern is same for the past 30
years. Of this agricultural land is 404 ha and forest land 309 ha. Grazing pasture reserved
for villagers by the Forest Department is 11 ha (“gairan” without fee). Area of 22 ha is
earmarked in records for village pond though actually no pond exists. Of the total 404 ha
agricultural land, 227 ha (56%) is owned by the individual farmers as private land and 177
ha (44%) is under “Ruikar Trust”allocated to the farmers. Entire agricultural land (100%)
is dependent on rainfall for irrigation; since 2009 about 50 individual farmers (out of 350
total) have installed dug well structures in their farms; in rainy season that lasts 2 months,
water gets accumulated in dug well that is utilized by farmers in their respective fields by
using lift irrigation (electric motor or DG set) at the most for one time irrigation (for single
crop) after rainy season has ended. After that, second irrigation is not possible by dug well
which does not have underground water facility. Agricultural land of the village comprises
both plain-terrain (50%) as well as undulating/hilly (50%), with rocky/stones 3-4 feet
beneath land surface. (Table 3.17)

Table 3.17: Village land distribution in Devnala village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Land Characteristics: (ha) (ha)
Total village area, of which: 752 752
(i) Agricultural land, of which: 404 404
a. Private owned by farmers 227 227
b. “Ruikar Trust” 177 177
(ii) Forest land* 309 309
(iii) Grazing pasture “Gairan” 11 11
(iv) Pond (1) 22 22
(v) Residential “Gaonthan” (“locality”) 4 4
(vi) CremationShamshan (“Mokhshdham”) 0.31 0.31
(vii) Street pathways (“Rasta”) 1.79 1.79
(viii) Village common ‘shamlat’ 0 0
Irrigation:
Artificially irrigated 0 0
Exclusively rain-fed 404 404
Mode of artificial irrigation (since 2009) Dug wells (50 no.) each 18-20 feet deep, Nil
accumulate rainwater, lifted by pump
setfor single irrigationafter rainy season
adequate for one crop omly.
*Forest land is actually 353 ha (309 ha in Beat-1 and 44 ha in Beat-2) for Devnala Panchayat (3 villages)

88
 2. Agricultural Land distribution

Harankhuri Village

In Harankhuri village, 94% households are currently land owning households and only
6% are landless; 30 years ago all (100%) households in the village had owned land. In
2017-18, average size of owned land holding is 6.34 ha while it was higher at 8.51 ha per
household 30 years ago. Nevertheless average owned holding is considerably higher than
the national average size of holding. Around 30 years ago, all (100%) households were big
land owners; currently 64% are big owners, 30% are small, and only 6% are marginal land
owners. Therefore, access to land itself or marginal size of holding is not a problem of
farmers in Harankhuri village. With two-third of farmers being big land owners, it may
not be automatically assumed that their economic condition would be comfortable or
wealthy irrespective of whether they generated economic surplus from their fields or not.
Land ownership size being big, by itself, may not imply that such farmers were
commercialized or capitalist (if they owned-operated) or feudal (if they leased-out their
surplus land, if any). (Table 3.18)

Table 3.18: Agricultural land distribution in Harankhuri village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

No. % of total No. % of total
Total Households (HHs) 50 100.0 35 100.0
(i) Landless 3 6.0 0 0.0
(ii) Land Owning 47 94.0 35 100.0
Of which:
(i) Marginal farmers (<1 ha) 3 6.4 0 0.0
(ii) Small farmers (1-2 ha) 14 29.8 0 0.0
(iii) Big farmers (> 2 ha) 30 63.8 35 100.0
Average size of owned holding 6.34 ha 8.51 ha

In Devnala village, land was a major issue even as only 55% of the households owned
agricultural land and remaining 45% were landless. Those households, who were
landless (45%), either leased-in some plot of land for subsistence cultivation from fellow
farmers or worked as wage laborers on others’ farms or even in neighboring village.
Although 90% of land owners were in the category of big farmers, their average size of
owned holding was 2.10 ha per family (which is lesser as compared to 6.34 ha in other
sample village). Information on agricultural land distribution 30 years ago was not readily
available from villagers. (Table 3.19)

89
 Table 3.19: Agricultural land distribution in Devnala village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

No. % of total No. % of total
Total Households (HHs) 350 100.0 150 100.0
(i) Landless 158 45.1 NA NA
(ii) Land Owning 192 54.9 100 NA
Of which:
(i) Marginal farmers (<1 ha) 0 0.0 NA NA
(ii) Small farmers (1-2 ha) 20 10.4 NA NA
(iii) Big farmers (> 2 ha) 172 89.6 NA NA
Average size of owned holding* 2.10 ha 4.04 ha
*Owned+allotted
NA: Not Available

3. Tenancy and Land Market Relations

Harankhuri Village

During 2017-18, total 6 farmers leased-in land from others for cultivation (3 landless and
3 land owning farmers) in Harankhuri village. Each of them leased-in average 5 acres;
total land leased-in during the year was 30 acres. Average land rent (2017-18) varied
between Rs.2000 – 3000 per acre even for irrigated land (land rent in village is very low
as compared to rental value of land in Punjab or Haryana). Currently share cropping is
not practiced, but 30 years ago it was in vogue even as share rent was 50%: Share cropper
would contribute these costs: (i) bullocks; (ii) family labor; (iii) seeds; and (iii) 50%
produce as rent, while lessor (owner) contributed only land, and Nature contributed rain
water for irrigation. Share cropping is perceived less risky as compared to cash rent by
farmers as production risk gets shared. Thirty years ago, a Brahmin land owner had lot
of surplus/vacant land who used to lease-out to the needy share croppers in the village on
50:50 share basis. Land market activity (buying/ selling) is not very common. However,
average sale price of agricultural land was reported as Rs.1.00 lakh (unirrigated) 30 years
ago which increased to Rs.4.00 lakh per acre (irrigated). Some 60 years ago, land price
was Rs.1000 per acre. No ST farmer can sell farm land to any non-ST buyer. At current
price, total value of agricultural land of Harankhuri village is Rs.2980 lakh (29.80
crore). (Table 3.20)
Table 3.20: Land leasing, share cropping, land rent and land price in Harankhuri village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Land lease market:
No. of tenant households* 6 0
Area leased/year (acre) 30 0
Land rent (Rs./acre) 2500 NA
Share rent (% of produce) NA 50.0
Land sale market:
Area sold/year (acre) Not available Not available
Land price (Rs./acre) 400,000 100,000
*of which 3 are landless tenants and 3 are land-owning tenants
NA: Not Applicable

90
In Devnala village, total 10 tenants leased-in 156 acres agricultural land for cultivation
during 2017-18. Average size of leased-in holding was 15 acres per farmer. Average land
rent was Rs.15000 per acre (irrigated land). Rain-fed, unirrigated, “barren”
agricultural land commanded rent of Rs.1000 to 5000 per acre.70 Thirty years ago, lease
market (share cropping/ land renting) was not as brisk as in 2017-18 but information on
share rent is available i.e. 50%.Briskness of land-lease market activity could be gauged
from the fact that during 2017-18, around 27% of owned agricultural land was leased-in.
Many farmers are willing to lease-out their land due to low rainfall/ poor irrigation and
high risk, to the landless cultivators. Even a portion of “allotted” land of farmers is leased-
out as a number of lessees are ready to lease-in land for family subsistence and cash crop
of cotton cultivation. However, there are not many buyers of agricultural land in Devnala
village due to lack of irrigation facility and dependence on rain-fed farming. Whatever
small area was sold/bought, land price was Rs.5.00 lakh per acre (irrigated with dug well)
in 2017-18 though it was very low at Rs. 60,000 to 70,000 per acre, 30 years ago. Selling
agricultural land by ST seller to non-Adivasi (non-ST) buyer is prohibited. At current
price, total value of agricultural land of Harankhuri village is Rs.5050 lakh (Rs.50.50
crore). (Table 3.21)

Table 3.21: Land leasing, share cropping, land rent and land price in Devnala village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Land lease market:
No. of tenant households 10 Not available
Area leased/year (acre)* 156 Not available
Land rent (Rs./acre) 15000 Not applicable
Share rent (% of produce) NA 50.0
Land sale market:
Area sold/year (acre) 0 0
Land price (Rs./acre) 500,000 60-70,000
*It is 27% of owned agricultural land of 227 ha (567 acre) in the village
NA: Not Applicable

4. Occupational Division

Harankhuri Village

Main occupation of Harankhuri village has been farming ever since the village came into
being 150 years ago. Although average size of holding is “big” still it is unable to fulfill
subsistence and cash needs of the farm households. Each farm household has subsidiary
occupation of goatery and agricultural labor. Each household has 3-4 goats (used for milk,
meat and selling ruminants). Agricultural wage labor is resorted to by all farm
households. There is good demand for wage labor for full year –both within the village as
also in neighboring villages (Narayanpur, Ram Nagar, Lahori, Khandala, etc.). Cotton
cultivation needs maximum number of wage laborers. Therefore, at the time of sowing,
weeding, pesticide spray, harvesting (plucking), etc. farmers require large number of
hired labor. Each farm household in Harankhuri village has 1-2 adult male members

70Land rent is higher in Devnala village (less irrigated) vis-à-vis Harankhuri village (more irrigated). It is
so because of scarce supply and greater demand in Devnala.

91
doing agricultural wage labor (as subsidiary occupation). Some households depend fully
on wage labor. Landless households mainly depend on wage labor occupation although
their subsidiary occupation is tenancy. Occupational pattern of the village has not
changed over the past 30 years. (Table 3.22)

Table 3.22: Main occupation and subsidiary occupation inHarankhuri village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Main occupation of village Farming Farming
Subsidiary occupations of village Goatery & agricultural labor Goatery & agricultural labor
Main occupation of landless households Agricultural labor Agricultural labor
Subsidiary occupations of landless HHs Tenancy Tenancy

Devnala Village

Occupational pattern of Devnala villagers is also the same as that of Harankhuri village.
Main occupation is farming and subsidiary occupation wage labor in each other’s fields
during sowing and harvesting seasons. Landless households mainly live on wage labor,
and their subsidiary occupation is tenancy. Occupational pattern of Devnalavillage has
remained the same during past 30 years. (Table 3.23)

Table 3.23: Main occupation and subsidiary occupation in Devnala village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Main occupation of village Farming Farming
Subsidiary occupations of village Agricultural labor Agricultural labor
Main occupation of landless households Agricultural labor Agricultural labor
Subsidiary occupations of landless HHs Tenancy Tenancy

5. Cropping Pattern and Crop Production

Harankhuri Village

Cotton is the major (cash) crop grown in Harnkhuri village since over 100 or 150 years so
far as elderly villagers could recuperate facts descended from memory of old days. They
grew toor (arhar) pulses as intercrop with cotton also; toor was produced mainly for
market (after fulfilling family consumption needs). Village had 298 ha agricultural land.
Cotton was grown over 75% area (225 ha) with inter-cropping of toor. Cotton matured in
8-9 months maximum (with 3-4 phases of plucking); toor got ready for harvesting in 3
months. On 25% area (73 ha), villagers first take soyabean in kharif/rainy season.
Thereafter, they grow black gram on 68 ha and wheat on 5 ha (on irrigated land only)
during winter season. Around 30 years ago, they used to grow jowar (for bhakar roti)
instead of wheat, as irrigation facilities were not available in winter; jowar suited dry land
farming and jowar flour was preferred in winter’s harsh cold season. Vegetables were
grown both in kharif and winter season (depending on water availability). Cotton was
grown on 25% area 30 years ago (depending on irrigation/rain). During three seasons
(kharif, winter, summer) farmers raised 8 crops including vegetables (of at least 11 types)
–also in kitchen garden. However, vegetable cultivation has come down currently due to
lack of irrigation and decline in rainfall even as farmers buy vegetables each week from

92
market. Black gram was also sold in market after keeping a fraction of the produce for
home consumption (chana daal) like in case of soyabean. Oilseed jawas was sown for
home consumption (30 years ago); residue of oilcake was used as animal feed for oxen.
Currently, farmers have stopped cultivating jawas oilseeds. Due to poor irrigation, 30
years ago, around 25% of agricultural land was left fallow (vacant) during the
year.Estimates of vegetables production are not made since crop wise data on area and
yield for 11 crops, were not available. (Table 3.23)

Average yield of all crops in the village was lower (30 years ago) as compared to yield in
2017-18 (50% or 33% of current yield). During 2017-18, Harankhuri village produced
3938 quintals cotton, 1406 quintals toor (arhar), 650 quintals wheat, 569 quintals black
gram, 40 quintals jowar, and 1095 quintals soyabean. Total production of major crops in
the village (30 years ago) was as under: 456 quintals cotton; 274 quintals toor; 131
quintals black gram; 350 quintals jowar; and 365 quintals soyabean. (Table 3.23)

Table 3.23: Cropping pattern and crop production in Harankhurivillage

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Crops grown Cotton, toor (arhar) pulses, Cotton, toor (arhar) pulses, jowar,
black gram, wheat, soyabean, jawas (oilseeds), fodder, vegetables
jowar, vegetables (gawar, (gawar, bhindi, tomato, barbati,
bhindi, tomato, barbati, popat, moong, moth(intercrop),
popat, moong, moth palak, methi, brinjal, chilly, etc.
(intercrop), brinjal, chilly, etc.
Area sown under crops (ha):
i. Cotton 225 73
ii. Toor (arhar) 225 73
iii. Soyabean 73 73
iv. Wheat 40 0
v. Black gram 35 35
vi. Jowar 4 40
vii. Vegetables 25 (rainy season) 25
viii. Vegetables 25 (winter) 25
Average yield (quintal/acre):
i. Cotton 4 -- 10 2– 3
ii. Toor 2.5 1 –2
iii. Wheat 6–7 2
iv. Black Gram 6–7 1 – 1.5
v. Jowar 4 3–4
vi. Soyabean 5 -- 7 2
vii. Jawas NA 1–2
Total productionquintal):
i. Cotton 3938 456
ii. Toor 1406 274
iii. Wheat 650 0
iv. Black Gram 569 131
v. Jowar 40 350
vi. Soyabean 1095 365
NA: Not Applicable (since not sown)

93
Devnala Village

In Devnala village, cropping pattern was more diversified 30 years ago as compared to
the current year’s cropping pattern. During 3 seasons (kharif, winter, summer), farmers
sowed cotton, toor, soyabean, black gram, wheat, jowar and vegetables. Thirty years ago,
in addition to the above crops, farmers used to sow groundnut, “til”, (oilseeds), moong,
and even paddy crop (since rainfall was sufficient). (Table 3.24)
Table 3.24: Cropping pattern and crop production in Devnala village

Particulars 2017-18 30 years ago

Crops grown Cotton, toor (arhar) pulses, Cotton, toor (arhar), soyabean, black
soyabean, black gram, wheat, gram, wheat, jowar, groundnut,
jowar, vegetables ‘til’oilseed, vegetables,moong, paddy
Area sown under crops (ha):
i. Cotton 404 404
ii. Toor 404 404
iii. Soyabean 20 NA
iv. Black gram 0 NA
v. Wheat 2 NA
vi. Jowar 0 NA
vii. Vegetables 1 NA
viii. Groundnut 0 Sown but data not available
ix. Moong 0 Sown but data not available
x. Til 0 Sown but data not available
xi. Paddy 0 Sown but data not available
Average yield quintal/acre):
i. Cotton 2 1
ii. Toor 1 1
iii. Soyabean 3 1
iv. Black Gram 2 4
v. Wheat 5 9
vi. Jowar 6 8
vii. Groundnut - 7
viii. Moong - 0.5
ix. Til - 0.25
x. Paddy - 5
Total production (quintal):
i. Cotton 2020 1010
ii. Toor 1010 1010
iii. Soyabean 150 NA
Notes: NA: data Not Available
(-): Not sown currently

As compared to diversified cropping pattern of 30 years ago facilitated by sufficient

rainfall, currently farmers sow entire area under cotton with toor intercrop. Only 20 ha is
sown under soyabean, 2 ha under wheat (by 4-5 farmers whose irrigation facility is
relatively better), and 1 ha under vegetables (by 3 farmers). Currently farmers do not grow
either jowar or wheat even for home consumption because they have started depending
partly on controlled price ration shop (under Public Distribution System) and partly on
open market. Since PDS provided food grains (wheat, rice) sufficient for 7-15 days per
month (depending on family size), farmers have stopped sowing wheat or jowar in recent

94
years. Year 2017 was relatively low rainfall year (less than 300 mm), therefore, average
yield of some of the crops was less than the normal. Besides, pink ball worm pest attack
(“bondani”) had severely affected the yield of cotton during 2017-18. There were some
farmers who were able to get 6-7 quintal/acre cotton but others either suffered complete
loss or 50% reduction in yield or still others had one-third of normal yield. Thus average
yield of cotton was 2 quintals/acre during 2017-18. Cotton yield thus reached almost the
level existing 30 years ago. Nonetheless total production ofcrops in Devnala village
during 2017-18 was 2020 quintalsof cotton, 1010 quintals of toor and 150 quintals of
soyabean.Around 30 years ago the village produced 1010 quintals each of cotton and toor.
However, villagers could not recall exact area sown and total production of groundnut,
til, moong and paddy crops 30 years ago. (Table 3.24)

6. Private Owned Economic Assets (Farm)

Harankhuri Village

A village of 50 farm households, Harankhuri, has 3 tractors and 3 harrow/cultivators,

which are used for tilling land ofall farmerson hire-purchase/rental basis. Though all
farmers own bullocks, these animals are used for furrow making and seed planting by
using iron plough (“naagar”). There are two ‘rotavators’, which are used with tractor for
performing farming operations such as ploughing, pulverizing and levelling the soil
simultaneously, saving time and fuel.The village does not own threshers as these
machines (‘haramba’ fitted on tractor) on hire-purchase/rental basis are supplied by
service providers, from outside the village who arrive from Rajasthan on tractors during
harvesting season of wheat. Since today few farmers grow wheat and area under wheat is
relatively less, such machines are not owned by farmers who prefer rental based
threshers. Village also does not have fodder cutter (manual/power) as they owned small
hand-used cutter to prepare fodder for animals. Farm produce (cotton, pulses) is also
transported to the nearby market (Samudrapur) on hired tractor-trollies. While no farm
had pump set with electric motor 30 years ago, only 15 out of 50 farm households had set
up this irrigation asset as on 2017-18. Farm mechanization has taken place in the village
but at slow pace and rental basis. First tractor was bought in 2005 and 2nd and 3rd tractor
in 2010. First trolley was bought in 2005. First ‘rotavator’ came in 2007. Aspects which
did not change during past 30 years are: owning manual iron plough (pulled by bullocks)
and hand-used fodder-cutter. (Table 3.25)

95
 Table 3.25: Private owned economic assets (farm based) in Harankhuri village

Economic Assets 2017-18 30 years

ago
Mechanized (number):
i. Tractors 3 0
ii. Trollies 2 0
iii. Harrow/cultivator 3
iv. Rotavator 2 0
v. Iron plough (‘naagar’) 50 50
vi. Threshers* 0 0
vii. Hand use fodder-cutter (‘beera’/ ‘javar’) 50 50
viii. Electric motors with pump sets 15 0
ix. Other manual implements: dranti (vera), kurat/farsa (axe), Owned by each
bakhar (cultivator-leveler used immediately after harvesting), dora individual household
(for inter-cultivation), teepan (for sowing), sarta (for sowing),
dattari (for sowing cotton seed in straight line), panji, etc.
Cattle (number):
i. Cows 40 100
ii. Buffaloes 4 10
iii. Bullocks 94 140
iv. Goats 200 200
v. Poultry 100 100
*Two threshers (‘Haramba’ fitted with tractor) on hire-purchase/rent are provided by service providers
from outside the village (arrive from Rajasthan).
Note: Data pertain to 50 farm households (2017-18) and 35 farm households (30 years ago)

Livestock/cattle assets owned by Harankhuri villagers have come down since past 30
years. Earlier each household (35) used to have at least 3 cows; today it is one cow at the
most per household as 50 households owned 40 cows. Milk is used for home consumption
(only tea). Farm households take only that much milk sufficient for tea-making (half kg a
day) and leave maximum milk (3 liters) daily for the calf. This customary practice of cow
rearing that is neither predominantly commercial nor subsistence but commercial in a
different form: calf (male or female) is fed by entire cow milk to have healthy bullock/ox
(if male) and healthy cow (if female) so that their aim is to preserve animal wealth/asset.
After 4 years of age, calf grown as bullock is sold at Rs.30,000 price.This practice of
maintaining animal health and wealth in village is very uncommon in other states.
Rearing buffaloes is not so common. Around 30 years ago, village had 10 buffaloes (in 35
farm households); today this number is just 4 buffaloes in 50 farm households. Lack of
green fodder and dry fodder for buffaloes (wheat chaff) is the reason. Villagers gave
specific emphasis on bullock wealth (needed for cultivation). Around 30 years ago, village
of 35 farm household owned 70 pairs (140 number) of bullocks i.e. 4 bullocks per farmer.
Bullocks or any other cattle (cow, buffalo) need intensive care each day (feeding, water,
other care) due to which each households made sure that at least one person in family
attended to these animals every day, which made going out of village very difficult (to city
for treatment, district head quarter/office, city for shopping, marriage ceremony
functions, death occasions, etc.). This is the reason that practice of rearing
bullocks/animals has worn out slowly in our villages though Harankhuri has continued
keeping bullocks for cultivation even as average size of owned holding is relatively higher
(big farmers) which facilitates keeping bullocks. (Table 3.25)

96
But number of cows owned has declined over 30 years due to these reasons: (i) less fodder
production; (ii) declining grazing area in forest (no grass, fires, low access, poor forest
management for pasture, etc.); (iii) declining surplus/excess vacant land of village Pandit
landlord; and (iv) growing use of pesticides leading to lower production of wheat/toor
(straw available used as fodder). Fodder is purchased for cows from Samudrapur town
(temporary daily stalls/bazaar) or procured from within the village (limited straw of
wheat or toor).Goats and poultry are such kind of small ruminant and domestic bird
wealth whose number remains always constant (automatically grows and barely
decreases) with increase in number of households. Size (number) and strength of these
animals (goats, poultry) is maintained intact/ in continuity over the years. Each farm
household maintains 2-3 poultry birds (with chicken) and 4 goats after
selling/consumption. Goats feed on grass and vegetation in forest. Non-vegetarian diet is
part of the culture of villagers in Harankhuri, so they maintain goats and poultry (Table
3.25).

Devnala Village

Devnala village revealed the same pattern (as other sample village above) of ownership
of economic asset by farm households. Farm mechanization took place during the past 30
years. Village of 350 farm households had private ownership of 4 tractors and trollies, 4
cultivators, 4 ‘rotavators’ and 4 threshers. First tractor and trolley was introduced in
village in 2005. First thresher came in 201071. Number of hand-use fodder cutters and
iron ploughs (“naagar”) did not decline during past 30 years as each farm household
owned one such unit of implement. While no farm had dug well with electric motor for
lifting rain water 30 years ago, only 50 out of 350 farm households had set up this
irrigation asset as on 2017-18. (Table 3.26)

Table 3.26: Private owned economic assets (farm based) in Devnala village

Economic Assets 2017-18 30 years ago

Mechanized (number.):
i. Tractors 4 0
ii. Trollies 4 0
iii. Harrow/cultivator 4 0
iv. Rotavator 4 0
v. Iron plough (‘naagar’) 350 350
vi. Threshers* 4 0
vii. Hand use fodder-cutter (‘beera’/ ‘javar’) 350 350
viii. Electric motors with dug wells (for rain waterlift) 50 0
Cattle (number):
i. Cows 250 2500
ii. Buffaloes 25 250
iii. Bullocks 168 300
iv. Goats 500 500
v. Poultry 2000 2000
Note: Data pertain to 350 farm households (2017-18) and 150 farm households (30 years ago)

71Area sown under wheat keeps fluctuating, depending on rainfall. In 2017-18, area under wheat was 2 ha.

97
Manual agricultural implements individually owned by each of the 350 farm households
in village are as under: kulhari (axe), dranti (reaper), sabbal (digger), faas, favra, teekas,
beera (hand cutter), khurpa, euro, chimta (cotton extractor), naagar (iron plough),
teefan (seed sower), hammer, spray pump, etc.

Cattle wealth of Devnala villagers has considerably declined over the past 30 years. Over
30 years ago or even before this village was predominantly pastoral and reared cows and
buffaloes. Total 150 farm households owned 2500 cows (17 cows/household) and 250
buffaloes (approximately 2 buffaloes/household) which was their main survival system
on rain-fed land even as good rains without water harvesting structures for full year
irrigation were of little use, but just animals could be sufficiently reared as aided by good
rains which allowed growing fodder also. However, in 2017-18, number of cows owned by
350 farm households declined to 250 (1/10th) and number of buffaloes to 25. Mainly
‘banjara’ (non-ST) category of farm households owned cows for selling milk and trading
in animals as they had traded in these commodities since long time as nomadic people
(before they got settled after mid-1950s in this village). Number of bullocks declined from
300 (two bullocks per farm household by 150 households) to 168 bullocks (every second
household owned) in 2017-18. Notably, the bullocks are mainly used for these farm
operations: (i) piroi (sowing); (ii) deepening; and (iii) bailbandi (transport cart). Number
of goats and poultry birds remained same at 500 goats and 2000 birds, respectively,
during past 30 years. Goats feed on grass and vegetation in the forest area. (Table 3.26)

7. Private Owned Economic Assets (Household)

Harankhuri Village

Out of total 50 households in Harankhuri village, 24% had a pucca/semi-puccahouse

structure in 2017-18. Some of these houses were constructed under Indira Awas Yojana
(IAY) with only one room and toilet. Until 30 years ago all the households had kutcha
huts. Village did not present a pleasant look even as walls, porches, boundaries,
rooms/huts, plaster, etc. appeared dull, unkempt and disorganized, unmaintained and
unappealing. They used a mix of tin sheds, red earthen tiles, straw, bamboo nets, earthen
plaster, cement, local stone, local wood (sangwan/teak), etc. to build semi-puccaand
semi-kutcha house. One portion is built with bricks/stones, another portion has cement-
plastered walls, still another has kutcha thatched hut and another is without plaster.
Animal barn for cows and goats was not differentiated from human residence area. Goats
roamed free in houses and streets. Houses were very small and clearly indicated the state
of poverty of village. Painting and decorating of house was seen uncommon or rare in the
village. Only a handful of them had a colorful wall. Low height houses looked like unkempt
arrangement of locally available materials and sheets. People could not afford money to
properly plaster their house (room) with cement or paint wall structures for decoration.
(Table 3.27)

98
 Table 3.27: Private owned economic assets (household based) in Harankhuri village

Economic Assets 2017-18 30 years ago

House building:
i. No. of pucca houses (out of total) 12 (50) 0 (35)
ii. % pucca houses 24.0 0.0
Savings
i. No. of savings account holder households 50 10
ii. Savings amount in bank accounts (Rs. lakh) NA NA
iii. Fixed deposits (F.D.) (Rs. lakh) NA NA
Vehicles
i. No. of 2-wheelers 27 0
ii. Value of 2-wheelers vehicles (Rs.lakh) 10.80 0.00
iii. No. of 4-wheelers (for transportation) 2 0
iv. Value of 4-wheelers vehicles (Rs.lakh) 6.00 0.00
Production/shop units
i. No. of household non-farm production units 0 0
ii. Investment in production units 0.00 0.00
iii. No. of kirana shop (trading business) units 2 0
iv. Investment in shop (trading business) units 0.40 0.00
Other units
i. Television (TV) 35 0
ii. TV Dish 35 0
iii. Mobile smart phones 150 0
iv. Value of mobile smart phones 15.00 0.00
NA: data Not Available

Since village appeared economically poor (in terms of wealth accumulation) as reflected
from house structures, villagers informed that all farm households had savings bank
account in banks (50 accounts) with minimum balance only, as these bank accounts were
opened under Jan Dhan Yojana (JDY). Villagers said bank savings accounts were
“maintained for dealing” (vyavhar) only, rather than accumulating their surplus incomes
as savings. Information on number of Fixed Deposit (F.D.) accounts, if any, was not
available although team probed, persuaded and inquired about it. These aspects of bank
deposits, if any, are rarely revealed by the respondents/ villagers. Ownership of two-
wheeler (motorcycle) is becoming a trend –both for roaming and working --among village
youths even as villagers reported 27 two-wheeler bikes owned by them. Out of 80 youths
(of which 40 males), 27 youths owned a motor bike. Instances of motor bike used for
roaming free or working purpose could be differentiated by having a close look. Village
has two ‘four-wheelers’ which are primarily meant for transportation on hire, hence used
as livelihood assets. Earlier, 30 years ago, farmers used to carry cotton produce for selling
in market on bullock carts; today they exclusively used four wheelers hired from the
village itself. Village is not yet developed to have household based processing/
production/ manufacturing units, or rural non-farm sector enterprise. For
trading/business shop, village has 2 small kirana (grocery) street corner shops, set up by
youths with investment of Rs.20,000 each. Around 30 years ago, even such modest level
economic units did not exist in Harankhuri and villagers had to buy grocery goods from
town/ weekly bazaar by visiting there. Out of 50 households, 35 (70%) have a television
set, whereas none of them had owned such asset 30 years ago. All these 35 households
had installed TV dish which cost Rs.1300/- each. Each TV dish gives access to the village

99
households to 150 different channels for entertainment, culture, news and knowledge.
Each household in the village had 3 mobile smart phones. Total 150 smart phones were
owned by 80 youths/ 50 families, in the village. (Table 3.27)

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, none of the houses was pucca structured 30 years ago. In 2017-18 also
only 14% of the houses had pucca structure (stone & cemented) –all of these constructed
under the IAY scheme with subsidy. Such apparent poverty was further reflected in their
savings. Although all households had savings bank account under JDY scheme, almost all
of them had ‘zero balance’ amount in their accounts. Only four account holders in village
had Fixed Deposit (F.D) account but amount of F.D in bank was not revealed by the
respondents/villagers. Separately one of the F.D. account holders told that amount would
not be more than Rs.1.00 lakh each. Villages do not have big savings in bank accounts or
sizeable Fixed Deposits in banks even as incomes are low and monthly expenses balanced
net incomes, necessitating borrowings. This village was particularly poor. Still the fashion
of owning a motorcycle has caught up with youths. The village had 50 motorcycles, mostly
used in roaming and sub-optimal/ unproductive purposes by youths. Around 30 years
ago, none of the above assets was owned by villagers. Devnala village has 4 cars owned
by relatively richer farm households having side trade/business. Village has total 4 kirana
shops, one of which is owned by the ration shop dealer of the village. Around 30 years
ago, village did not have any grocery shop (or cheap rate ration shop) even as villagers
used to go to nearby Jormoh, Nanja, Yavatmal to buy goods and vegetables from weekly
markets. Each farm household in village has 2 mobile phones/ smartphones even as total
mobile phones are 650 in the village. Despite no connectivity due to absence of mobile
tower in/around village, villagers own mobile phones for tele-communication since
connectivity is good outside the village (after 8-10 km) towards Yavatmal city, and they
find this assetvery useful in farm work, business, and personal/social communication –
even online search purpose. (Table 3.27)

100
 Table 3.27: Private owned economic assets (household based) in Devnala village

Economic Assets 2017-18 30 years ago

House building:
No. of pucca houses (out of total) 50 (350) 0 (150)
% pucca houses 14.2 0.0
Savings
i. No. of savings/ JDY account holder households 350 0
ii. Savings amount in JDY bank accounts (Rs. lakh) 0.00 0.00
iii. Fixed Deposits (F.D.) (Rs. lakh) NA NA
Vehicles
i. No. of 2-wheelers 50 0
ii. Value of 2-wheelers vehicles (Rs.lakh) 20.00 0.00
iii. No. of 4-wheelers (for transportation) 4 0
iv. Value of 4-wheelers vehicles (Rs.lakh) 12.00 0.00
Production/shop units
i. No. of household non-farm production units 0 0
ii. Investment in production units 0.00 0.00
iii. No. of kirana shop (trading business) units 4 0
iv. Investment in shop (trading business) units 0.80 0.00
Other units
i. Mobile phones/ smartphone 650 0
ii. Value of smartphones 65.00 0
NA: data Not Available

101
 Chapter-4
Ecosystem of Social Production Relations

In this chapter, focus is on presenting “relations of production” (network of relations)

emerging in the process of production in farming in sample villages.

The social “production relations” of farmers covers these aspects: (i) organizational/
associative/ inter-dependent/ interactive/ cohesive/ cooperative group networking
(showing mode of formal inter-relatedness); (ii) separation/autonomy/
independence/ individualization of production; and (iii) relation with produce and
produce market (ownership/ possession/ retention, market/alienation/exchange/sale,
whether voluntary or compulsive, sharing produce).

In farming system, focus is on purpose/objective of farming. In production system, focus

is on mode of organizing production. In marketing system, focus is on surplus/ selling.

The chapter describesthesecharacteristics of farming in sample villages, viz., farming

system (whether subsistence farmers or commercial farmers), productionsystem
(whether individualized or collectivized; owner-operators/tenants or groups/
companies), marketable surplus (of crop produce) andmarketable surplus of other
produce (milk, meat, poultry, eggs, etc.).

1. Farming System

Harankhuri Village

All the 47 farm households (100%) in Harankhuri village were semi-subsistence or semi-
commercialized farmers.This objective of farming (semi-subsistence) is carried over since
past at least 30 years. In earlier times, farmers were mainly subsistence based, with barter
and sharing being the customary practices. None of the farmers did farming with pure
subsistence or pure commercialized objective. Therefore, a sort of ‘tug of war’ continued
since the past 30 years between subsistence farming and commercialized farming in the
village. While farmers aimed to take care of family’s requirements first, the state-led
market forces were pressurizing or necessitating them to adopt cash crops for selling in
the market. Thus commercial aspect was tied to some of the crops (cotton, soyabean)
whereas subsistence aspect dominated in other crop produce (jowar, wheat, vegetables,
etc.). Some crops were grown both for subsistence as well as commercial purpose (toor
pulses, black gram, oilseeds). The objective of choice between subsistence and
commercial farming was basically a question of approach and mindset of farmers.
(Table 4.1)

102
 Table 4.1: Farming system in Harankhuri village

Objective of farming 2017-18(%) 30 years ago (%)

Semi-commercialized/semi-subsistence 100.0 100.0
Pure subsistence 0.0 0.0
Pure commercialized 0.0 0.0

Devnala Village

A similar feature of attraction towards both subsistence and commercial farming

characterized all the farmers of Devnala village. While subsistence farming was a means
of physical survival of family, commercial farming served the need of cash for daily
expenses and other short-term/long-term requirements. However, it was reported that
money invested in and cash flow received from commercial farming was not properly
managed by farmers due to which commercial farming ensued indebtedness of farmers.
Money-matters, cash flow and cash management necessitated under the commercial
farming, were a major problem of almost all the farmers (with few exceptions of farmers
who operated like ‘agri-preneurs’). Due to this traditional-cum-modern (mixed) approach
and mismanagement of commercialized aspect of farming, a continued tussle/conflict
between subsistence farming and commercial farming approaches, was visible
throughout the period of last 30 years or so, or even before as farmers began their journey
in agriculture with subsistence farming. (Table 4.2)

Table 4.2: Farming system in Devnala village

Objective of farming 2017-18 (%) 30 years ago (%)

Semi-commercialized/semi-subsistence 100.0 100.0
Pure subsistence 0.0 0.0
Pure commercialized 0.0 0.0

2. Production System

Harankhuri Village

The production system of all the farmers in Harankhuri village was characterized by
individual status or owner-operator relations. Production processes of these owner-
operators were separated by their individualized holdings. In this sense, these individual
owner-operators were carrying their agriculture in independent, autonomous and
individualized way. Their choices, approaches, arrangements, purchases, sales, etc. were
all separated from one another. This “individualized” autonomous approach came in the
way of enhancing the size and scale of farming when one NGO (Kamalnayan Jamnalal
Bajaj Foundation) tried to form a Producers’ Company of farmers selected from this
village (Harankhuri) along with farmers of nearby villages. Despite lot of efforts by NGO,
farmers of Harankhuri could not be persuaded to join FPO as they were unwilling due to
their overwhelming individualized attitude and autonomous approach to farming. The
NGO was still trying (January 2018). Such “independent” approach to farming influenced
all the farmers in the village. Even landless tenant farmers evinced such individualistic
attitude. There was no Joint Liability Group (JLG) formed in the village. Production

103
system of farmers (individualized, autonomous, independent and separated production
processes of each) did not undergo change in Harankhuri village during past 30 years.
(Table 4.3)

Table 4.3: Production system in Harankhuri village

Farm households 2017-18 30 years ago Individual organization Hired wage-

(FHH) (%) (%) by FHHs (%) labor (%)
Owner-operators 94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Landless Tenants 6.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
Joint Liability Groups (JLG) of 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.
landless tenants
Producers’ Companies (PC) 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.
n.a: not applicable

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, a same type of production system was in operation as observed in the
other sample village during past 30 years. Even though proportion of land owning farmers
(owner-operators) were 55% of total households, all (100%) of them displayed an
individuated and autonomous approach to the production processes, which were
separated from other farmers. Such atomist approach of managing individual farms was
the distinguishing feature of farmers. Even landless tenants felt “free” in dual way: (i) they
were “free” from private ownership encumbrances of land; and (ii) their production
processes were also independent from each other. Under these conditions, it was natural
that the village did not have any group form of farming entity, viz., JLG or PC. (Table 4.4)

Table 4.4: Production system in Devnala village

Farm households 2017-18 30 years ago Individual organization Hired wage-

(FHH) (%) (%) by FHHs (%) labor (%)
Owner-operators 54.9 100.0 100.0 100.0
Landless Tenants 45.1 0.0 100.0 100.0
Joint Liability Groups (JLG) of 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.
landless tenants
Producers Companies (PC) 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.
n.a.: not applicable

Marketable Surplus of Crops

Harankhuri Village

During 2017-18, total aggregated marketable surplus produce of different crops was to
the extent of 6373 quintals (weighted average 83% of total production) as compared to
1576 quintals (weighted average 69% of total production) reported 30 years ago in
Harnakhuri village. Marketable surplus of different individual crops during 2017-18 and
30 years ago was as under: cash crops cotton and soyabean (100% each); toor (75%);
black gram (50%); and wheat &jowar (nil). Around 30 years ago, proportion of total
produce kept as marketable surplus for individual crops was same as today. Cotton has
been a cash crop in the village since at least 100 years. It was considered white gold of
104
farmers for its quality of producing a cash flow of income each year. Soyabean came later.
Toor was predominantly a semi-commercial (75% for market) and semi-subsistence crop
(25% for household consumption). Wheat and jowar were totally subsistence crops of the
village (no proportion sold in market). While 30 years ago, jowar was the main food-grain
crop for family subsistence, currently (2017-18), its place is taken predominantly by
wheat. Although wheat is a superior food grain as compared to jowar (in terms of
nutrition and taste), the latter has useful quality for winter season even as farmers
prepared “bhakar roti” of jowar that helped them in coping with winter cold. Toor
(pulses) was lifeline of farmers both for nutrition/proteins and cash income. Data on
marketable surplus of oilseeds in quantity terms were not available though in terms of
proportion it was 90-100% (both 2017-18 and 30 years ago). Vegetables of different kinds
were produced in ‘kitchen garden” for home consumption; so marketable surplus was ‘nil’
for both the time periods. (Table 4.5)

Table 4.5: Marketable Surplus of crops (produce sold) in Harankhuri village

Crop 2017-18 30 years ago

Production Marketable Marketable Production Marketable Marketable
(quintal) Surplus Surplus (quintal) Surplus Surplus
(%) (quintal) (%) (quintal)
i. Cotton 3938 100.0 3938 456 100.0 456
ii. Toor 1406 75.0 1055 274 75.0 206
iii. Wheat 650 0.0 0 0 0.0 0
iv. Black Gram 569 50.0 285 131 50.0 56
v. Jowar 40 0.0 0 350 0.0 0
vi. Soyabean 1095 100.0 1095 365 100.0 365
Total 7698 82.7 6373 1576 68.7 1083

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, farmers are taking fewer crops in 2017-18 as compared to both other
sample village and vis-à-vis 30 years ago. As a result, aggregated marketable surplus of
different crops in Devnala was 3079 quintals during 2017-18 though in proportion terms
it is 97% of total production. Around 30 years ago, aggregated marketable surplus of
Devnala was 1919 quintals (95% of total production); for this older period data on
marketable surplus of Groundnut, til, moong, paddy, wheat and black gramsown by
farmers were not (readily) available from villagers. A relatively greater ratio of marketable
surplus in Devnala village (95 to 97%) during past 30 years as compared to the other
sample village (69 to 83%) over the same period, was due to the fact that Devnala sample
covers only cash crops for which data were available (other semi-cash crops are not
included). Devnala village lags behind other sample village in terms of aggregated
quantity of marketable surplus of different crops, due to these two reasons: (i) smaller
area sown under crops; and (ii) low yield of crops due to less availability of irrigation
water. (Table 4.6)

105
 Table 4.6: Marketable Surplus of crops (produce sold) in Devnala village

Crop 2017-18 30 years ago

Production Marketable Marketable Production Marketable Marketable
(quintal) Surplus Surplus (quintal) Surplus Surplus
(%) (quintal) (%) (quintal)
i. Cotton 2020 100.0 2020 1010 100.0 1010
ii. Toor 1010 90.0 909 1010 90.0 909
iii. Soyabean 150 100.0 150 n.a. 100.0 n.a.
Groundnut, til, Not sown Sown but data not available
moong, paddy,
wheat, black gram
Total 3180 96.8 3079 2020 95.0 1919
n.a.: not available

A greater marketable surplus of produce of different crops at given market price provides
farmers in both the sample villages greater economic strength. Commercialization of
farming is successful only when marketable surplus of produce increases. Market linkage
of farmers in sample villages was increasing over the past 30 years. Since all farmers
(100%) are selling (more or less) equal proportion of produce class distinctions could
not be made in villages in terms of “cash/commercial farmers” or “subsistence farmers”.
All farmers were semi-commercial and semi-subsistence farming oriented farmers.
Class distinctions can also not be made if all the farmers sold produce individually in
the market as bargaining power of each of them is more or less equal (low). If some
farmers grouped themselves and formed a cooperative/producers’ company of their
own or sold through this entity then in that case such farmers would have greater
bargaining strength, which is not the case in both the sample villages.At present or even
since past 30 years, all of them felt equally exploited due to “low price” or other problems
like fleecing in weighing of cotton by trader, transportation (loosely loaded in
trolleys/trucks/tempos, which caused loss and is farmers’ own fault, problem in selling
(30 years ago, it took 4-6 days or even 15 days to dispose-off cotton in market –going
by bullock cart, staying/food cost in market place for a number of days).

Nonetheless increasing marketable surplus has necessitated greater borrowings by

farmers from all sources or at least greater dependence on outside money as finance.
Objective conditions are such that the force of market necessitating ever greater
marketable surplus impels farmers to ultimately remain in indebtedness by ever greater/
increasing/ incessant borrowing of money as “market surplus” principle in the existing
objective conditions of state and market’s expectations, expects farmers to treat his own
farm produce as “money spinner”, as explained and articulated in chapter-7.

Marketable Surplus of Animal Husbandry Produce (Milk, Meat, Poultry)

Harankhuri Village

In Harnkhuri village, goat ruminant and bulls are the only kind of animal husbandry
produce that is marketable surplus/sold by farm households. Each year (e.g. 2017-18) 50
farmers sold 50 ruminant animals and 10 bulls in the market. Each goat fetched Rs.4000
to 5000 and each bull Rs.40,000 for the household. Each household sold on an average

106
one goat per year. There were total 200 goats in the village; so marketable surplus was
25% during 2017-18; 12.5% of owned goats were sold by households 30 years ago. They
sold 14 bulls per year (30 years ago) even as they could afford to rear more animals due
to greater fodder availability and more rains. A calf becomes bull in around 3-4 years.
There is good demand for bulls within village and nearby villages. Cattle fairs are also
held. Cow milk and buffalo milk production (240 quintal and 24 quintal, respectively) is
either consumed by households or calf of the animals. Farm households milch the animals
for milk requirement for tea and the rest is left for feeding calf (2 kg per day per calf).
Therefore, marketable surplus of cow and buffalo milk was “nil”. In Harankhuri village,
there was only one farm household out of total 50, which prepared curd from cow/buffalo
milk and sold it in nearby village on bicycle daily to earn income. Rest of the farm
households reported “nil” marketable surplus of milk (cow, buffalo, goat). Farmers ate
goat meat (once in a week) even as marketable surplus of meat was “nil”. However,
farmers sold full goat (live) in the market. For meat consumption, they depended even on
hunting/catching rabbits from forest. Poultry birds or eggs were also not sold, but entirely
consumed by farm households. A similar state of no marketable surplus in general of
animal husbandry produce existed in the village 30 years ago. It may be said that during
2017-18, all 50 farm households consumed entire production of 240 quintal of cow milk,
24 quintal of buffalo milk, 400 quintals of goat milk, and un-estimated quantity of goat
meat, poultry birds and eggs –leaving no marketable surplus.Similarly, around 30
years ago, all 35 farm households consumed entirely the production of 600 quintals of
cow milk, 60 quintals of buffalo milk, 400 quintals of goat milk, and unspecified quantity
of goat meat, poultry birds and eggs (besides catching/hunting rabbits from nearby
jungle for home consumption). (Table 4.7)

Table 4.7: Marketable Surplus of milk, meat, ruminant, poultry products in Harankhuri village

Output 2017-18 30 years ago

Production Marketable Marketable Production Marketable Marketable
Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus
(%) (%)
i. Cow milk 240 0.0 0 600 0.0 0
(quintal)
ii. Buffalo milk 24 0.0 0 60 0.0 0
(quintal)
iii. Goat milk 400 0.0 0 400 0.0 0
(quintal)
iv. Goat meat n.a. 0.0 0 n.a. 0.0 0
(quintal)
v. Goat fulllive 200 25.0 50 200 12.5 25
(No.)
vi. Poultry 100 0.0 0 100 0.0 0
birds (No.)
vii. Poultry eggs n.a. 0.0 0 n.a. 0.0 0
(No.)
viii. Bulls (No.) 10 100.0 10 14 100.0 14
n.a: Not Available

107
Devnala Village

In Devnala village, goat ruminant and bulls are the only kinds of animal husbandry
produce that is marketable surplus, sold by farm households. Each year (e.g. 2017-18) 350
farmers sold 125goat ruminant animals and 17 bulls in the market, with surplus of 25%
and 100%, respectively.Around 30 years ago, surplus of goats sold was 12.5%; number of
bulls sold was 30. During 2017-18, all 350 farm households consumed the entire
production of 500 quintals of cow milk, 100 quintals of buffalo milk, 1000 quintals of
goat milk, and un-estimated quantity of goat meat, poultry and eggs –with 0%
marketable surplus. The same pattern of “nil” marketable surplus existed 30 years ago
in Devnala even as all farm households consumed at home the entire quantity of 5000
quintals of cow milk, 1000 quintals of buffalo milk, 1000 quintals of goat milk and un-
estimated quantity of goat meat, poultry and eggs. (Table 4.8)

Table 4.8: Marketable Surplus of milk, meat, ruminant, poultry products in Devnala village

Output 2017-18 30 years ago

Production Marketable Marketable Production Marketable Marketable
Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus
(%) (%)
i. Cow milk 500 0.0 0 5000 0.0 0
(quintal)
ii. Buffalo milk 100 0.0 0 1000 0.0 0
(quintal)
iii. Goat milk 1000 0.0 0 1000 0.0 0
(quintal)
iv. Goat meat n.a. 0.0 0 n.a. 0.0 0
(quintal)
v. Goat full 500 25.0 125 500 12.5 63
live (No.)
vi. Poultry 2000 0.0 0 2000 0.0 0
birds (No.)
vii. Poultry eggs n.a. 0.0 0 n.a. 0.0 0
(No.)
viii. Bulls (No.) 17 100.0 17 30 100.0 30
n.a: Not Available

Selling goats and bulls keeps the commercial aspect of animal husbandry (AH) activity
alive in the two villages even as all farm households are engaged in it without
differentiation (with the exception of few). No differentiation was noticed also in respect
of their common behavior of entire quantity of milk, meat, poultry and eggs consumed by
farmers. It implies that processing and production part of AH activity is still subsistence-
based; commercialization exists only in selling live animals. This pattern of development
of relations of market are continuation of age old traditional relations when pastoral
communities used to buy and sell animals, from which trading in animals developed.
However, sample villages are yet to make progress in terms of processing of raw animal
husbandry produce in different varieties (milk, curd, butter, ghee, butter milk, meat,
eggs, etc.). The relations of production (RoP) with raw produce are yet to be raised at
higher level of processing: milk processing; meat processing/ packaging; eggs
packaging, etc., followed by market relations, which are yet to be developed on the basis

108
of food-processing of AH raw produce, available in sample villages. Economic/power
“class relations” and exploitation did not exist in animal husbandry on account of: (i)
farming system; (ii) production system; and (iii) market relations, within sample
villages.

109
 Chapter-5
Ecosystem of Infrastructure, Facilities and Natural Resources

In this chapter, the availability of following basic facilities and infrastructure related
public utilities for villagers, is covered: energy resource supply (electricity,petrol/diesel),
telecommunications, agricultural extension (agri-extension), road connectivity,
transportation, education, skills, employment, public health services, safe drinking
water, retail shops (open market, public distribution system), People’s Institutions,
common natural resources, physical infrastructure, agro-processing units (for
industrial/non-farm employment facility) and financial infrastructure.

Although entire village is normally expected to have equitable access to such

facilities/infrastructure, the differentiation in access among groups/sections, if any,
shall be highlighted to see whether economic/power-based class relations or
inequitable distribution relations or over-dependency relations operated on
the ground on account of infrastructure facilities supplied in sample villages.

1. Energy Resource Supply

Harankhuri Village

A majority (80%) of the farm households were connected with electricity supply in
Harankhuri village in 2017-18although village had not even a single house connected
with power supply 30 years ago. Other households either did not get connected
voluntarily or they were poor and could not afford connection and monthly bill.Electric
power was supplied to the households for 24 hours consumption regularly without power
cuts in this tribal village. About 32% of the farm households had facility of electric pump
set on farm; others had diesel generated pump set or no pump set was installed on their
farm. Nonetheless village had one petrol pump outlet at a distance of 12 km. Electric
supply to farm pump sets was maintained by this schedule: 12 hours supply/day for 4
days during day time; and 12 hours supply/day for 3 days during night time. Villagers
were happy about electric power supply to farms as cost of diesel generated set was
relatively higher. (Table 5.1)

Table 5.1: Energy resource supply system in Harankhuri village

Energy resource 2017-18 30 years ago

Electricity connection to households (%) 80.0 0.0
Electricity connection for farm pump sets (%) 31.9 0.0
Petrol-pump outlets in vicinity (No.) 1 0.0

Devnala Village

A majority (86%) of the farm households were connected with electricity supply in
Devnala village in 2017-18 though village did not have even a single house connected with
power supply 30 years ago. Around 14% farm households had got power connection for

110
dug well lift irrigation on farm. Farmers have installed dug wells (20 feet deep) on their
farms which get filled with rain water during monsoon season. They use electric motor
for lifting water from these dug wells after the rainy season, which suffices for irrigation
of one crop/season at the most, but is very helpful in their survival.Using rain water
accumulated in farm dug wells lifted by electric motor is an innovative method of
irrigation in such drought affected/ low rain-fall villages. There is one petrol pump station
near village. (Table 5.2)

Table 5.2: Energy resource supply system in Devnala village

Energy resource 2017-18 30 years ago

Electricity connection to households (%) 85.7 0.0
Electricity connection for farm pump sets (%) 14.3 0.0
Petrol-pump outlets in vicinity (No.) 1 0

2. Telecommunications Services

Harankhuri Village

In Harankhuri village, all (100%) farm households evinced positive and enthusiastic
response in adopting the available telecommunications services. Each farm household
had average 3 mobile-phone connections for using telecommunications technology (total
150 mobile-phone connections), out of which 20 households (40%) had Android
smartphones. Since smartphones were being used increasingly, there was no need felt for
internet café in the village. A second opinion was that since village did not have any
mobile-phone “tower” (within or around the village in vicinity), setting up public internet
café was not possible. Moreover due to the absence of mobile-phone tower, villagers
experienced poor (not very good) mobile-phone connectivity. Mobile-phone towers are
installed at Samudrapur (20 km) forvarious telecom companies such as Airtel, Vodafone,
Reliance (Jio), Idea and BSNL. Elderly persons in village complained that youths always
took to smartphones without productive work (even children who were becoming little
indifferent to farming and having little interest in farming matters as smartphone
games were more attractive to them). (Table 5.3)

Table 5.3: Telecommunications services inHarankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Mobile-phone connections(No.) 150 0
Average mobile-phone connections per household (No.) 3 0
Internet/ Android/ Smartphone connections (No.) 20 0
Internet cafe (No.) 0 0
Mobile-phone connectivity quality (no connectivity/poor/good) Poor connectivity NA
Mobile-phoneTower installed in village (Yes/no) No No
NA: Not Applicable

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, penetration of mobile phone technology was visible even as each farm
household had average 2 mobile phones during 2017-18. The village has 10 smartphone

111
connections. Jio telecom network of Reliance was introduced in village around 3 months
ago (November 2017). Mobile phone tower of any telecom company is not installed in the
village. Telecom tower services are provided by Yavatmal which is 50 km from village as
a result of which there is no mobile phone connectivity in village. It’s only when one moves
out of village towards Yavatmal on the way (25 km) near Jormohthat one gets mobile
phone connectivity. Only Reliance Jio phones get connected in village due to powerful
range. Whenever any person has to send urgent message/ WhatsApp, get connected over
phone, he searches and approaches any villager with Jio network connection (even
Sarpanch had Jio mobile connection whose mobile phone helpwas taken by study team
to get connected with District Planning Officer (Wardha) and “CM Fellow” posted in the
village for urgent messaging/ connecting. Since Devnala has Ghut Gram Panchayat
Office, and residents of 3 villages are connected to it for various works, it is felt by them
that telecom mobile phone tower facility may be urgently installed in Devnala. (Table 5.4)

Table 5.4: Telecommunications services in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Mobile-phone connections(No.) 650 0
Average mobile-phone connections per household (No.) 2 0
Internet/ Android/Smartphone connections (No.) 10 0
Internet cafe (No.) 0 0
Mobile-phone connectivity quality (no connectivity/poor/good) No connectivity NA
Mobile-phoneTower installed in village (Yes/no) No No
NA: Not Applicable

3. Agricultural Extension Services

Krishi Vikas Kendra (KVK) Center is located at Selsura, 62 km from Harankhuri village.
It was set up in 1979. It is affiliated to State Agricultural University, PDKV Akola, which
is 250 km from village. Its use/service to the farmers was reported as nil/negligible. Gram
Sewak (sometimes) comes to the village along with Field officer of Agriculture
Department, to gather some data/information from villagers (after 2 months). Farmers
expressed that they never felt any need to ask questions or seek information on agriculture
related aspects from Gram Sewak. The issue of yield of crops was never felt urgent by
them, so they expressed it in this way: “what should we ask? And why?” It shows there
was either lack of awareness on urgent issues of agriculture or they felt that existing agri-
system was unable to fulfil their requirements. Gram Sewak visited and had a long sitting
with Member of Gram Panchayat at home; nothing was asked nor told to any farmer, this
is how villagers felt.Farmers have never read booklet on Standard Package of Practices
(SPOP) of agriculture or “Krishi Sanjivani” book of PDKV Akola, which covers useful
information on all crops suitable to the region. A Krishi Polytechnic is established at
Mandgaon on Samudrapur Road, 15 km from village. This polytechnic is a branch of
PDKV, Akola and provides a very useful Two years Diploma course in agricultural
practices to the young students after Matriculation/10+2. From 2009-2011, its medium
of instruction was Marathi language but after 2011, its medium of instruction was made
English language, which created problem for the students, most of whom were from rural
background. As a result, e.g. only 4 students passed out of total 60 (in one year).
Originally, Mandgaon Krishi Polytechnic provided Two years Diploma course, but

112
currently it provides three years Degree Course. Graduates and Diploma Holders of this
Polytechnic could have been useful for agricultural extension services if a large number
of them were prepared for such services based on planning. One Diploma Holder from
Mandgaon Krishi Polytechnic was working for an NGO namely “Kamalnayan Jamnalal
Bajaj Foundation” (KJBF) situated at Samudrapur, and he accompanied with the study
team for Harankhurivillage, in coordinating the field study and helping the team with the
farmers for field survey including managing with Marathi language responses. It
appeared that Graduates/Diploma holders of Polytechnic had sufficient competence to
potentially guide and, therefore, revolutionize the agriculture of the district including
sample village, for which a large number of such agri-extension resource persons would
be needed. Hitherto, NGO had been engaged in creating awareness in Harankhuri village
about “Zero Budget Natural Farming” for the past 4 years (2014 to 2017) and still
continuing. There was no Farmers’ Club (FC) in village, due to which services of guest
expert lectures on farming issues could not be organized. Farmers used to take advice of
pesticide dealer very often on matters concerning use and spray of “medicine” on cotton
crop. Farmers had no other source of agri-extension except private pesticide/seeds dealer
and fellow farmers among themselves helping each other by seeing and interacting. The
village has 5 agri-machinery repair shopfor agri-business services to the farmers; they
also visited repair shops at nearby town Jam (12 km) for repair, etc. (Table 5.5)

Table 5.5: Agricultural extensionservices in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Nearest KVK Center Selsura(km) 62 62
Krishi Polytechnic Mandgaon(km) 15 NA
Visit of Gram Sewak and Field Officer Yes Yes
Farmers read Standard Package of Practices (SPOP) booklet No No
Farmers’ Club (for expert-talk) No No
NGO Yes No
Advice from pesticide dealer Yes Yes
Advice from fellow/progressive farmers Yes Yes
Repair shop in village (No.) 5 0
Custom-hiring service of tractor, harvester Yes No
Veterinary health center (km) 8 No
Patwari office (to assess crop damage) in village Yes Yes
Crop Insurance agent/agency No No
NA: Not Applicable

Custom hiring service of tractor was available within the village from other farmers (3
tractors with rotavators and trolleys). For harvesters/ threshers, some years ago some
persons in search of work, visited from Rajasthan in the village (though it looks strange
at first sight). Initially, they came to village as hired cultivators; so after they had
knowledge about crops cultivated and area cultivated, they returned to village at the time
of harvesting/threshing on tractors for harvesting/threshing service. Gradually they
started settling in clusters in/around the village and constructed houses with income thus
earned. They also used to roan around village and knew which crops are ready for
harvesting during which months, e.g. soyabean around Diwali. So, their hired services
were readily available to the farmers of Harankhuri easily for harvesting and threshing
(tractor). So far as veterinary health services for animals are concerned, farmers took their

113
animals to veterinary center at Samudrapur (8 km). Village Record-keeper Office (VRO)
of Patwari for services of assessment of crop damage, was also situated at Samudrapur
(8 km). “Annavari” (assessment of crop yield) was done by Patwari (in presence of
Revenue Officers/experts as task was found to be very difficult, complicated and
technical). Services for Crop Insurance were very poor in the village.First ever crop
insurance facility was introduced 8 years ago (2009). The Patwari and one officer from
Agriculture Department visited the village to inquire about farmers’ interest/opinion on
subscribing to crop insurance. During 2009, only 13 farmers bought crop insurance
policy; it rained very heavily and there were losses. However, 30% of them got claims
settled by the insurance company, between Rs.1000 to 1500. Afterwards, no farmer from
Harankhuri subscribed to any Crop Insurance policy under any scheme. Thereafter no
agent/agency of crop insurance came to village to inquire about CI policy subscription.
No farmer ever did cattle insurance also because their single experience with crop
insurance was not good and no farmer had got satisfactory/adequate service/claim
settlement. (Table 5.5)

Devnala Village

In Devnala, farmers could access KVK’s nearest center 30 km from the village. This KVK
has one Agriculture Assistant which looks after a cluster of 4-5 villages. There was no
Krishi Polytechnic nearby this village. Training of Agricultural Technology Management
Agency (ATMA) was availed by 13 farmers from the village, which helped others also.
Seeds for soyabean cultivation were given by ATMA @Rs.900 (30 kg packet) though
market rate was Rs.2200. Seeds could be given to “members” only; maximum 20
members were permissible. Agriculture Assistant/Officer of Department of Agriculture
visited village once in a month. A notice was circulated in entire village or “Chavri”
(Choupal). All farmers assembled there and Agriculture Assistant would give information
on cotton anddiseases (pink ballworm infestation). There was an office (room) meant for
Agriculture Assistant in front of Gram Panchayat Office in village, and it was kept locked
(opened only when Agriculture Assistant visited). Each village has one Krishi Mitra
(progressive farmer appointed by Gram Sabha); Devnala also has one. None of the
farmers (except 2-3) had read “Krishi Sanjivani” book on standard packages of practices
(SPOP) for all crops. This 100 pages book (prepared by PDKV, Akola) was distributed by
Agriculture Department in Devnala village (100 copies) in 2017 and 2018 (January). It
was reported that farmers were averse to or not sensitized about reading this important
book. Their main source of advice on agriculture (seed, pesticide) matters was private
pesticide/seeds dealers in Yavatmal. Other important source of local extension service
was 2-3 educated progressive farmers, one of which was M.Sc. (Horticulture), Bodh (SC)
villager. This educated farmer had resigned from service of college lecturer (M.C.V.C
College) appointed under “Keeman Kousnyavar Aadharit Abhyastum” Scheme at
monthly salary of Rs.32000/- because it did not suit. He started farming on owned land
and he also helped other farmers in guiding on crops, soils, pesticide use, etc. as and when
approached by them. His motto is: To do farming with a “sense of strict duty and
discipline”, and advises farmers to visit farm daily twice, in the morning and in evening.
There was no repair shop for agri-machinery in the village even as farmers used to go to
Yavatmal for this service. Custom hiring service of tractor was available from within the
village. Veterinary health center service was available from Nanja (6 km) which was very

114
difficult for cattle being pushed and dragged to the center; one visit by farmer would cost
Rs.100. (Table 5.6)

Table 5.6: Agricultural extension services in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Nearest KVK Center (km) 30 30
Krishi Polytechnic (nearby) No No
Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)’s training Yes No
Visit of Gram SewakandField Officer/ Agriculture Assistant Yes Yes
Krishi Mitra (1) Yes No
Farmers read “Krishi Sanjivani” (SPoP) booklet No No
Farmers’ Club (for expert lecture) No No
NGO No No
Advice from pesticide dealer Yes Yes
Advice from fellow/progressive farmers Yes Yes
Repair shop in village (No.) No No
Custom-hiring service of tractor Yes No
Veterinary health center (km) 6 No
Patwari office (to assess crop damage) (km) 8 8
Crop insurance agent in village came Yes No
NA: Not Applicable

Patwari office was situated 8 km from Devnala village at Ganeshwadi. Patwari visited
village after 1-2 days to address the problems/requirements of farmers. Patwari’s daily
routine was quite hectic and intensive. He was in charge of 10 villages. Besides land and
crop related tasks, Patwari had been involved in electoral duty, information/cases on
farmers’ suicides, crop yield assessment (Annawari), income certificates, revenue tax
collection, employment, education, fruits marketing/transport tax (after considering area
sown data), etc. First time, crop insurance was started in village 10 years ago. Agriculture
Department intimated banks and Patwari about this. First year (2007), only 10-20
farmers came forward for cotton. All of them got their claims settled (a typical pattern
seen all over, to attract the farmers more). Next year (2008) a greater number of farmers
subscribed to the policy and paid premium; none of them got claim settled despite crop
losses. Later in 2014 and 2015, about 60-70% farmers subscribed to the crop insurance
scheme (National Agricultural Insurance Scheme mNAIS/ Weather Based Crop
Insurance Scheme WBCIS). Farmers got claims settled as Patwari had data on crop loss.
Rate of premium was Rs.1400 per acre. From 2016, Reliance Foundation came to the
village for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) project to form (project) “Village Social
Transformation Foundation” (VSTF)72. Its premium for cotton was higher at Rs.2000 per
acre. During 2016-17, 150 farmers (out of total 350) had subscribed to crop insurance for
cotton. During 2017-18, only 30 farmers had subscribed Crop Insurance policy (under
WBCIS). Weather station is installed at Kalamb (which covers whole block). However,
data availability (on crop yield/loss) was reported to be a major problem under WBCIS73.
Farmers felt that they got better settlement of claim if insurance agency was

72 It involved 12 companies/agencies. Besides Reliance Foundation, other companies/ agencies were: Tata
Trust, Reliance Jio, Bajaj Foundation, Idea, Vodafone, Deutch Bank, etc.
73 With WBCIS it was envisaged that problem of data on crop yield/loss shall be less under WBCIS but

farmers cited it to be a problem. Weather data probably could not be linked up with crop yield data.

115
public/government company vis-à-vis private company (Reliance). Reliance Foundation
did not consider 30-40% loss despite heavy rains. Therefore, crop insurance of cotton was
a problem in the village. (Table 5.6)

4. Road Connectivity and Transport Services

Harankhuri Village

The condition of roads connecting with nearest town and block head quarter Samudrapur
(8 km), with nearby villages (Narayanpur and Jam, 12 km), with National Highway-7 (6
km) and with agricultural market (Samudrapur, 8 km) was reported to be good.
However, road connecting district head quarter (Wardha) was in poor condition beyond
Samudrapur and it was under re-construction and widening & strengthening. The
condition of internal road (cemented) built 15 years ago was also seen as good. Village
always has had good condition of roads. The village was yet to be have direct state bus
transport service (it’s available from Samudrapur town, 8 km). There is also no private
bus transport service from/to Harankhuri. Villagers mostly used own 2-wheeler for going
to town or other village. From Harankhuri to Lahori (Lavdi) they walked up to 3 km
(which was a difficulty today but not 30 years ago); from there, they caught auto rickshaw
for Samudrapur. For goods transport (cotton, soyabean, toor, household goods) farmers
used bullock cart service 30 years ago even as the same was available currently also but
not much in use (except from village to farm). Village has two 4-wheelers for goods
transport on hire basis. (Table 5.7)

Table 5.7: Road connectivity and transport services in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Condition of road connecting village:
(i) with nearest town (Samudrapur, 8 km) Good Good
(ii) with BlockHQ (Samudrapur, 8 km) Good Good
(iii) with District HQ Wardha (40 km) under re-construction Poor Poor
(iv) with nearby villages (Narayanpur andJam, 12 km) Good Good
(v) with National Highway-7 (6 km) Good Good
(vi) with agricultural market (Samudrapur, 8 km) Good Good
Internal road(built 15 years ago) Good Good
Availability of transport service:
State bus No No
Private bus No No
Private 2-wheeler Yes No
Private goods (bullock cart) Yes Yes
Private goods (auto/4-wheeler) Yes No

Devnala Village

Devnala–Karandhoba link road was built 10 years ago (second layer) and its condition is
poor. Since then annual maintenance has not been done. Karandhoba–Yavatmal road
(State Highway) gets damaged each year. Devnala village is connected to 6-7 villages; all
inter-village roads are in poor condition. Devnala–Gharoda is “kutcha” road. Wadona–
Devnala road (2 km) is not directly connected but via Ghodvan (10 km). This extra

116
distance of 8 km needs to be curtailed to actual 2 km by constructing direct road.
Otherwise villagers in Wadona have to waste a lot of time when coming to Devnala
Panchayat office for official work. Internal road of the village was constructed in 2008
(cemented) and it is in good condition. Devnala is located in the interior area near forest.
State transport bus service is available three times every day; this service was started in
2010 (after waiting for over 63 years since Independence). For going to town/other
village, villagers use own 2-wheelers (mostly motorcycle) or sometimes car. Two auto
rickshaw drivers/owners from this village also provide private passenger transport
service. For goods transport, they use own private 4-wheelers and bullock carts. Overall,
the condition of roads and road transport (public transport) is not good in Devnala
village. Their earlier mode of transportation (30 years ago) was walking. (Table 5.8)

Table 5.8: Road connectivity and transport services in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Condition of road connecting village:
(i) with nearest town Poor Poor
(ii) with Block HQ (Kalamb) Poor Poor
(iii) with District HQ (Yavatmal) Poor Poor
(iv) with nearby villages(7 villages) Poor Poor
(v) with State Highway(Karandhoba – Yavatmal) Poor Poor
(vi) with agricultural market Poor Poor
Internal road Good Good
Availability of transport service:
State bus No No
Private bus No No
Private 2-wheeler Yes No
Private3-wheeler (two Auto rickshaws) Yes No
Private goods (bullock cart) Yes Yes
Private goods (auto/4-wheeler) Yes No

5. Education, Skill and Self-Employment Facilities

Harankhuri Village

Educational, technical skills and self-employment related facilities are not very bright in
Harankhuri village. The only primary school, opened in 1979, is yet to be upgraded as
student strength is increasing. For middle/high school, children walk up to Lahori (3 km).
High/senior secondary school is at Narayanpur (12 km). For college education, they go
to Samudrapur (8 km). Industrial Training Institute (ITI) is at Jam (12 km). Only one
student from village is enrolled at ITI. Village needs to be made more aware about
importance of ITI technical education. A Krishi Polytechnic is established at
Mandgaonon Samudrapur Road, 15 km from village. This polytechnic is a branch of
PDKV, Akola and provides a very useful Two years Diploma course in agricultural
practices to the young students after Matriculation/10+2. From 2009-11 its medium of
instruction was Marathi language but after 2011 or 2015, its medium of instruction was
made English language, which created problem for the students most of whom were from
rural background. As a result, e.g. only 4 students passed out of total 60 (in one year).
Originally, Mandgaon Krishi Polytechnic provided Two years Diploma course, but

117
currently it provides a Three years Degree Course. Graduates and Diploma holders of this
Polytechnic could have been useful for agricultural extension services if a large number
of them were prepared for such services based on planning. One Diploma holder from
Mandgaon Krishi Polytechnic was working for an NGO namely “Kamalnayan Jamnalal
Bajaj Foundation” (KJBF) situated at Samudrapur, and he accompanied with the study
team for Harankhuri village, in coordinating the field study and helping the team with
the farmers for field survey including managing with Marathi language responses. It
appeared that Graduates/Diploma holders of Polytechnic had sufficient competence to
potentially guide agriculture on technical/operational issues from time to time (both
routine matters as well as problems of diseases e.g. pink ball worm “bondani”). At
Mandgaon, there is an extension center of State Agricultural University, Akola. Although
admissions to Engineering College (Wardha, 45 km) are based on common state entrance
test channel, the presence of this institution nearby is a great incentive to the students
and parents of the village for choosing this professional field as career. Despite all these
facilities, less than 1% of its youths (out of total 80 youths) are graduates/higher
education or technically educated/skilled because they are poor. The only skill youths
and their parents have is farming although a few SHGs of women have developed some
skills in cloth stitching/tailoring, and a few youths/parents have some rudimentary
experience in small grocery shop trade. Some men used to go on skilled labor works for
well digging for the past 30-40 years or more to other villages. Most of these meager
educational/professional/technical attributes did not exist 30 years ago. Human
resource development facilities are not fully utilized by the villagers over the past 30
years. (Table 5.9)

Table 5.9: Education, skills and self-employment facilities in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Educational Institutions:
Primary School (No.) 1 1
College Samudrapur distance (km) 8 No
ITI Jam distance (km) 12 No
Krishi Polytechnic Mandgaon distance (km) 15 No
Baburao Engineering CollegeWardha distance (km) 45 No
State Agricultural University SAU Akola distance (km) 250 250
SAU’sExtension Center Mandgaon distance (km) 15 No
Human Resource Development:
Graduate & above youths (%) <1.0 0.0
Technical skilled youths (%) <1.0 0.0
Types of major skills Farming, well-digger Farming, welldigger
Other professions Tailoring, retail shop Nil

Devnala Village

In Devnala village, the only school is Middle School, opened in 1964, which is yet to be
upgraded to high school or senior secondary school, despite increase in population during
last 50 years or more when this school was set up 53 years ago. For ITI and college
education, village youths go to Yavatmal (25 km). There is an Agriculture College at
Nagpur (120 km) and another private Agriculture College is at Yavatmal (25 km). Both
are recognized under state Agricultural University, Akola (150 km). Devnala has 10

118
youths, which are graduate or above. Six youths from village go to ITI for skill studies.
Overall, the level of achievement in educational/ skills/ training and self-employment
trades is poor though better than other sample village. Besides farming, villagers have
learned skills of tailoring, electric mechanic, grocery shop business. A few youths have
opened grocery shops (including one government ration store) for self-employment in
village and a couple of them migrated to Yavatmal and opened juice shop. For fashion
designed/stylish cloth stitching service, villagers go to another village Jodmoha (3 km) or
city. Village does not have any carpenter or ironsmith. (Table 5.10)

Table 5.10: Education, skills and self-employment facilities in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Educational Institutions:
Middle School (No.) 1 1
College distance Yavatmal(km) 25 25
ITI distance Yavatmal(km) 25 25
Agriculture CollegeNagpurdistance (km) 120 120
Agriculture College (Private) Yavatmal distance (km) 25 25
State Agricultural University SAU Akoladistance (km) 150 150
Human Resource Development:
Graduate & above youths (%) <1.0 0.0
Technical skilled youths (%) <1.0 0.0
Types of major skills Farming, electric mechanic, Farming
tailoring, grocery retail
Other professions Shop Nil

6. Public Healthcare Facilities

Harankhuri Village

Village Harankhuri does not have dispensary or primary healthcare center (PHC) for the
past at least 30 years.There is no private doctor/clinic (Registered Medical Practitioner
RMP) either. And there is no private medical shop in the village so that villagers could
buy basic medicines (for fever, first aid, stomach pain, common ailments, etc. atleast)
prescribed by doctor of nearest PHC or district hospital when there is emergency or on
urgent basis. Nearest PHC and maternity service center is at Samudrapur (8 km). A
government general hospital is at Samudrapur (8 km), which reportedly offered good
medical treatment and healthcare facilities despite being in public/government sector as
per the specific information provided by the villagers. In any case, private clinics and
private maternity homes are also available at Samudrapur (8 km). Government District
hospital is in Wardha (45 km). (Table 5.11)

119
 Table 5.11: Public healthcarefacilities in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Village dispensary/ primary health center (PHC) No No
Nearest primary health center Samudrapur (km) 8 8
Nearest General Hospital Samudrapur (km) 8 8
Nearest maternity service center Samudrapur (km) 8 8
District Hospital Wardha (km) 45 45
Village private clinic No No
Village medical shop No No

Devnala Village

Devnala village has one Primary Health Center (PHC), opened in 2011.Staff posted is one
nurse and one assistant. Nurse staff was on training and assistant’s presence was reported
as “not regular”.Village has 3 nurses unemployed, in search of job. Villagers in their way
expressed that due to rigidity of rules (systemic non-flexibility as understood by them),
while regular employed nurse was on training, the available private nurses in village
incidentally could not be utilized for medical care service on casual basisat PHC though
village patients sometimes suffered due to lack of services at PHC. Nearest maternity
service center and District General Hospital service was available at Yavatmal (25 km)
for the last at least 30 years. Village did not have private clinic or medical shop. However,
nearest private clinic and private medical shop service was available at Jodmoha (3 km).

Table 5.12: Public healthcare facilities in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Village primary health center (PHC) Yes No
Nearest maternity service center Yavatmal (km) 25 25
District Hospital Yavatmal (km) 25 25
Village private clinic No No
Nearest private clinic Jodmoha (km) 3 3
Village medical shop No No
Nearest medical shop Jodmoha (km) 3 3

7. Safe Drinking Water Facilities

Harankhuri Village

In Harankhuri village, adequate and safe drinking water supply for all households was
not a big problem. A piped water supply scheme was started 9 years ago (in 2009) after
waiting for 62 years in the village, since Independence. Under the scheme, government
installed one well, one water tank, one pumping house with electric motor and supply
pipes. Clean drinking water (bleached) was supplied through pipes to each of the 50
households in the village. Water fee of Rs.700 per year was collected from each household,
which the villagers found affordable (less than Rs.2 per day per household). (Table 5.13)

120
 Table 5.13: Safe drinking water facilities in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Piped water supply scheme* Yes No
Households covered by piped water supply scheme (%) 100.0 0.0
* Well + pump house with electric motor

Devnala Village

Villagers in Devnala had a distinct yet routine practice of undergoing acutewater

shortage after monsoon period is over, for next 3 months of the season for these
requirements: (i) safe drinking water for humans; (ii) other household-use water for
humans; and (iii) drinking water for domestic animals.

(i) Safe Drinking Water for Human Consumption

Extremely inadequate supply of safe drinking water to all the households after rainy
season was the major problem (“dhoop-kaal” problem i.e. “post-rains sunny season”
problem) faced each year by Devnala village. The problem arose each year after
monsoon season for next 3 months (October, November, December, and it could extend
even up to January month as this happened in 2018, and witnessed by the study team
during field survey). Total demand of safe drinking water by 350 households is 10500
liters per day. For this purpose, households have two sources of water supply available to
them: (i) piped water scheme in village; and (ii) 7 hand-pumps in village; and (iii)
borrowed open well in nearby village farm. There is problems-galore: The piped water
supply scheme of Devnala can supply maximum 3000 liters per day and hand-pumps can
supply maximum 2300 liters per day (as 5 hand pumps are totally dysfunctional, one is
semi-functional, and only one is fully functional). As a result, villagers started depending
on borrowed open well in nearby village farm where owner of the farm has installed an
electric motor with plastic pipe line to extract water for Devnala villagers on
humanitarian ground in dry months after monsoon season. Over 200 villagers huddle
together to get last drop of water as owner runs electric motor for maximum 15 minutes
a day and it gives maximum 2000 liters water daily. Out of 200 villagers, only 20 are able
to get water. Sometimes scuffle starts and villagers start pushing each other which
enhances the danger of someone getting thrown in open well even as they were aware that
in one such incident in Yavatmal one person fell in open well and died. So, total drinking
water supply is estimated as 7300 liters per day. Against daily requirement of 10,500
liters of safe drinking water, total daily maximum availability of 7300 liters gives
estimated shortage (deficit) of water supply for drinking purpose of humans as 3200
liters per day, which is substantial. Weekly and monthly shortage of safe drinking water
for humans is estimated as 22,400 liters and 96,000 liters, respectively. Water shortage
for drinking purpose by humansfor the period of 3 months after Monsoon, is estimated
as 2,88,000 liters, which is substantial and an area of concern for the entire village as
water shortage problem is experienced by all 350 households, similarly without
distinction and differentiation. (Table 5.14)

121
 Table 5.14: Safe drinking water shortage for humans (during October—December) in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Water Demand (2017-18):

Daily: 350 households x 30 liters per day (liters per day) 10500 4500
Monthly : 10500 liters x 30 days (liters per month) 315000 135000
A. Total water demand per day = 10500 liters
Water Supply (2017-18):
I. By Piped water scheme Devnala:
 Well (1 No.) 35 feet deep Yes No
 Pump-house with electric motor(1 No.) to lift water and fill tank Yes No
 Water tank capacity (liters) 40000 No
 Well’s maximum capacity to fill tank (liters per week) = 50% 20000 No
 Well’s maximum capacity to fill tank (liters per day) 3000 No
 Water supply by tank (liters per week) 20000 No
Water supply by tank on piped water scheme (liters per day) 3000 No
II. By hand-pumps in Devnala:
 Hand-pumps (7 Nos.) Yes No
 Functional hand-pump (1 No.) Yes No
Water supply:
 1 functional hand-pump per day (liters) 2000 No
 1 semi-functional hand-pumps per day (liters) 300 No
 5 dysfunctional hand-pumps per day (liters) 0 No
 Total 7 hand-pumps per day (liters) 2300 No
Total water supply by 7 hand-pumps per day (liters) 2300 No
III. By borrowed open well in nearby village farm:
 Water supply for 15 minutes by electric motor per day (liters) 2000
B. Total water supply by piped water scheme + 7 hand
pumps + borrowed open well, per day= 7300 liters
Water Shortage (2017-18):
(i) Total demand per day (liters) 10500
(ii) Total supply per day (liters) 7300
C. Water shortage per day (liters) (i)–(ii) 3200
Water shortage per week (liters) 22400
Water shortage per month (liters) 96000
Water shortage for 1st quarter post-Monsoon (liters) 288000

Note: Estimation is based on primary data for “drinking” water only; other household-use is additional.

Therefore, quantity of safe drinking water available, is in acute short supply. Villagers
expressed another problem with regard to safe drinking water supply for human
consumption, i.e. quality of drinking water. Such water supplied from piped water
scheme is not fit for drinking, as it was observed that water had physical impurities
(dust/sand particles, opaque color, greenish moss or “kai”/“kanji” type appearance, etc.).
Sometimes buffaloes’ dung gets mixed in water because there is one “nallah” (spring) or
ditch sort of structure near well, where buffaloes sit in rainy season; this nallah/ditch
water gets mixed in the well during rainy season, which contaminates water tank by
making it unclean. No villagers informed that they ever sawor being aware that water tank
was cleaned (though they did not rule out its cleaning done by panchayat peon
(responsible for cleaning duty). The duty of peon involves checking water

122
level/availability, releasing water and cleaning water with bleaching powder provided by
Public Health Department. Till few years ago or even 30 years ago, problem of shortage
of safe drinking water for human consumption did not exist in Devnala as rains were
“sufficient” 30 years ago vis-à-vis drought conditions faced by village at least since 2010
(for the past 7-8 years). Even in January, one could see entire village busy with arranging
water from here and there from 9 AM to 2 PM. During the course of field study (20-23
January 2018) entire village including youths, women and elderly, could be seen watching
with excitement the digging of borewell by contracted machines, in village. Villagers
erupted with joy on seeing digging of bore-well being “successful” yet not knowing it
would not meet their total drinking water requirement, only fraction of it. (Table 5.14)

(ii) Household-Use Water for Human Consumption

Villagers in Devnala (350 households) also faced shortage of water for routine household
consumption or other than daily drinking water needs, i.e. kitchen (cooking, utensils
cleaning), washing clothes, bathing, other household cleaning purpose, house
construction work (though sporadic), etc. This shortage of water was also felt for the post-
Monsoon months of October to December. It is assumed, based on discussions with
villagers, that same quantity of shortage of water i.e. estimated for drinking purpose can
be considered valid for other household use water needs, which is: 3200 liters for one day
and 2,88,000 liters for one quarter post-Monsoon season. (Table 5.15)

Table 5.15: Household use water shortage for humans (during October—December) in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Water shortage per day (liters) 3200 No
Water shortage per week (liters) 22400
Water shortage per month (liters) 96000
Water shortage for 1st quarter post-Monsoon (liters) 288000
Note: Assumed same as drinking water estimates of Table 5.14

(iii) Drinking Water for Domestic Animals

In Devnala village, acute shortage of drinking water for 1400 animals is another major
problem faced by villagers after monsoon season is over (1st three months), which persists
for the past 7-8 years every year (since 2010 at least). Water requirement for animals after
monsoon season is estimated as: 42,000 liters per day; 12,60,000 liters for 1 month;
25,20,000 liters for 2 months; and 37,80,000 liters for 1st quarter (3 months). To meet
demand, there are three sources of water supply available for Devnala village: (i) 2 open
wells in Devnala; (ii) borrowed small water/pond-use in neighboring Wandhona village
(4 km); and (iii) owned big pond of Devnala village (50 acres area). Water in two open
wells is fit for animal use only (not human consumption). The problem with these two
open wells near “nallah” and near panchayat office (20 feet and 18 feet deep,
respectively) is that these wells become dry for 3 months after monsoon, i.e. from October,
November and December. In 2017, these went dry even during monsoon period i.e.
August and September. So, these wells remained dry for total 5 months during 2017
(August to December). Even in January month (2018) there was no water in open wells.
During 7-9 months when these structures have some water (due to rains), it is insufficient

123
to meet the requirements of all villagers. Low rainfall since 2010 is the main reason.
Villagers tend to use this water even for drinking purpose (on ground that person from
Public Health Department cleans this water using bleaching powder). Water is extracted
by using ropes. The basic problem with these open wells (as with any other wells in the
area) is also that beneath the level of “black stone” (“kala Pathar”) further digging gives
no more water; so, well becomes a deep dug well dependent on rain water; if rainfall is
not good/adequate, open well cannot be a dependable source of adequate water. (Table
5.16)

Table 5.16: Drinking water shortage for 1400 animals (during October—December) in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years

ago
Water Demand (2017-18):
Daily: 350 households x 4 animals x 30 liters per animal per day 42,000 420,000
(liters per day) (10 times)
Monthly : 42000 liters x 30 days 12,60,000 126,00000
(liters per month) (10 times)
A. Total water demand per day = 42000 liters No
Total water demand per month = 12,60,000 liters problem
Total water demand for 2 months = 25,20,000 liters
Total water demand for 3 months = 37,80,000 liters
Water Supply (2017-18):
I. By open wells (rope lift) in Devnala:
Well (1 No.)* 20 feet deep 0
Well (1 No.)** 18 feet deep 0
Wells get dried after monsoon rains; hence Supply is negligible (0) 0 -do-
IV. By borrowed small pond in nearby Wadhona village
Supply for maximum 2 months (3rd month pond dries) 25,20,000
III. By big pond in Devnala:
 Pond is very big sized (50 acres)
 Pond construction is incomplete; its water source was rain
 Pond work trapped in litigation in High court since 15 years
 Verdict of court came in August 2017; still work not restarted
 Water supply is zero 0 -do-
Water Shortage (2017-18):
(i) Total demand for 3 months post-Monsoon (liters) 37,80,000
(ii) Total supply for 2 months maximum (liters) 25,20,000
B. Total Water Supply by 2 Open Wells + Borrowed Pond in -do-
Wadhona Village + Own Incomplete Pond in Devnala
Village, for Maximum 2 Months = 25,20,000 liters

C. Water shortage for the post-Monsoon 3rd Month (liters) 12,60,000 -do-
(i)-(ii)
*Near ‘nallah’ (rainy spring) in Devnala
**Near Panchayat office, Devnala
Note: Animals include cows, bullocks, buffaloes and goats

About second source, i.e. borrowed small pond (“dharan”) in Wandhona, it remained dry
after 2 months. Villagers of Wandhona allow Devnala villagers to use this water from
small pond, because their Gram Panchayat is same. Farmers of Devnala daily take their
animals to the small pond of Wandhona (4 km). Third source, i.e. big pond of Devnala

124
is unusable because it was entangled in court case by land sellers for 15 years (after
construction of bund, even gate/shelter/outlet could not be constructed on the pond,
which is situated on a big nallah, so that ultimately entire rain water goes waste by flowing
over stone check dam in rainy season). This big pond (40-50 acres) in Devnala would
have been sufficient for all three purposes, viz., drinking water for animals, farming
purpose, and drinking water for human consumption (after treatment). Total water
supply for animals, from above three sources, is estimated as 25,20,000 liters i.e.
available for the maximum 2 months, and basically it comes from single source i.e.
borrowed small pond water from nearby Wandhona village. The problem persists for
water supply for 3rd month after monsoon season is over and pond becomes dry, for which
water shortage is estimated at 12,60,000 liters. (Table 5.16)

A Prospective Solution Itself became Problem: Devnala’s Big Village Pond

Background and Location

The problem of water shortage has existed/started in the village generally for the past 25
years. It became acute during past 10 years (2010 onward) when rainfall became erratic
or very low. Keeping in view the persisting problem of (i) shortage of drinking water for
human consumption throughout post-Monsoon 3 months; (ii) shortage of water for
household needs (other than drinking water) throughout 3 months; (iii) shortage of water
for animals during 3rd month post-Monsoon season; and (iv) shortage of water for
irrigation of 404 hectares of agricultural land (throughout the year with erratic
monsoon), Irrigation Department started the process of land acquisition 25 years ago
(1992) for construction of a big pond (50 acres area) around a big gushing rainy “nalah”
on the outskirts of Devnala village, near forest and agricultural lands. By including the
surrounding fallow area, actual size of pond is 60 acres. Pond water is supposed to be
sufficient to meet all the water requirements of the village indicated above at (i)-(iv).

The area where pond is located was surveyed by study team with the help of few farmers,
sarpanch and ‘CM Fellow’ posted in village. It covers a small valley-like topography falling
between two foothills and is covered with large number of tall standing trees
(teek/sangwan wood) which get submerged during rainy season due to the gushing flow
of ‘nallah’; on one side of this pond (near earthen bund) is located the plain land and path
way from where the pond and its surrounding area can be approached (as it is currently
completely dry, since rain water is not being checked and stored that goes wasted each
year through low lying deep ‘nallah’). Depth of ‘nallah’, at its lowest point from
surrounding plain land, is approximately 30-40 meters. One needs to descend on slope
amid thousands of trees through pathways to reach at the lowest point of “pond” whose
base is “nallah”. Vegetation, bushes, grass, small plants and tall trees (as high as 8-10
meters each) abound the entire sloppy area of 40 acres of “pond”. In rainy season some
of it gets submerged. Shape of pond is rectangular as two of its sides/edges go parallel to
the surrounding hills. From one side, ‘nallah’ has inflow of rain water and from its front
side, there is outflow (restricted by small sized stony check dam).

125
Balance Work of Construction on Village Pond

Pond work shall be deemed to be completed if an outlet/ gate/ shelter is constructed on

one side (left side earmarked for it) to control water flow to the farmers’ fields.Since the
ownership of village pond vested with the Irrigation Department, its construction was the
responsibility of this department.

Chronology/Progress in Developments on Village Pond

During first 10 years (1992-2002), the development work on pond was reported as
acquisition of land from 5 farmers of the village (near/around ‘nallah’) and construction
of earthen bund on one side of pond along with a small stoned check dam across the flow
of ‘nallah’ for storing water. Construction work on a “gate” (shelter) on bund was yet to
start when court case was filed by the sellers of land in the Nagpur bench of Bombay High
Court in 2002, which continued up to August 2017. The final decision on appeal filed to
challenge the earlier decision, came in August 2017. The appellants (land sellers) wanted
higher compensation for land transferred to the Irrigation Department which pleaded
that already substantially more than the market value had been paid to the sellers (as per
village respondents 10 times higher). As per records, 5 sellers (farmers) whose land was
acquired by the government, received Rs.1.37 crore for 48 acres land (@ average Rs.2.85
lakh per acre). Farmers received between Rs.1.80 and 8.00 lakh per acre for the land
sold.One farmer received compensation at considerably higher rate (Rs.8 lakh per acre)
while another got the minimum of Rs.1.80 lakh. Other farmers also got compensation
valued at mutually varying different rates. (Table 5.17)

Table 5.17: Land acquired by Irrigation Department for village pond in Devnala

Farmer Caste Area Compensation paid Rate per acre

(Shri) group (acres) (Rs. lakh) (Rs. lakh)
1. Manik Thool SC 5 40.00 8.00
2. Shyamrao Mandokar OBC 5 14.00 2.80
3. Ramesh Mandokar ST 14 27.00 1.92
4. Lakshman Mandokar ST 14 38.00 2.71
5. Babarao Khunkar OBC 10 18.00 1.80
Total - 48 137.00 2.85

After the decision of the court came in August 2017, work on pond was yet to be started.
In fact, no one in village knew about the court decision (except 5 appellants/farmers) for
the past 6 months until study team inquired into the matteras part of the survey, and
discussed about it further in a large informal meeting of the farmers that was specially
called on Sunday by Sarpanch (as inducement impact of field survey discussions) wherein
study team was requested to join from Yavatmaland participate in it, to guide the
proceedings. It was during the course of this Sunday meeting that the fact of closure of
case in the court came into light; otherwise every villager was in the dark about the fate
of court case of village pond. Currently, path was clear for Irrigation Department to re-
start the work on village pond.

126
Problems Faced by 350 Farmer-households

Besides drinking water for human consumption and animal use, the major problem faced
by 350 farmer households owning 404 hectare land is, shortage of water for irrigation. In
order to get the village pond constructed, farmers formed a delegation for representation
to the District Collector. They also visited Block Development Officer with their problem.
They also met Mr.Kishor Tiwari, Farm/Social Activist, “Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti”
(VJAS). However, no solution could be found to the problem. Except getting assurances
of solution each year, nothing could materialize as the case dragged on for 15 years.
Farmers wanted “more” compensation, which is now understood as problem of
differentiation and discrimination in rates at which their land was evalued. Market rate,
as commonly understood earlier, was not the problem; the real issue was differential
rates of valuation of land. Since all land was of same type/ quality/ fertility and
contiguous/nearby and no marked variation in other qualities/factors except different
owners, then value of compensation may have been made at similar/equal rates to
ensure parity, which was not done.

Future Action on Village Pond

Village farmers were concerned; acute shortage of water for irrigation and drinking was
the major problem. In view of this, the joint meeting of villagers, one seller of land,
Sarpanch and study team discussed the status for future course of action. Land seller
informed that his lawyer was inciting him to file another case for compensation by
misguiding him about the court decision (drafted in English language) which suggested
that land sellers (one of whom lived in Yavatmal city with his brother who was Engineer)
to file fresh case in the court for higher compensation. In contrast, court decision clearly
mentioned that compensation was not less than market value. In view of the situation,
land seller assured that he would not file fresh case, and he will join the other villagers
along with Sarpanch to take a delegation of representatives/farmers, to the Irrigation
Department, for re-starting the work on village pond for construction of outlet/gate/
shelter on one side/edge of the pond, at the earliest. They also decided that they will follow
up with Irrigation Department with the help of Sarpanch and “CM Fellow”. They felt
optimistic that by their follow-ups, construction work on pond shall begin and
completed before the next monsoon season (July 2018). The meeting was held on 21
January 2018. So, the 6 months’ time was found adequate by them to be proactive,
proceed and act in the matter.

Feedback by Study Team to District Collector on Village Pond

The study team held a meeting with the District Collector (DC), Yavatmal and District
Planning Officer (DPO), Yavatmmal on 22 January 2018 (during the course of field
study) and apprised them about the purpose of the study and its preliminary findings.
Later in the evening, in a meeting with select departments which was chaired by the DC,
Yavatmal, the study team presented a portrayal of major problems of the village briefly
(including the problem of uncompleted village pond). The departments presented in the
meeting were: Agriculture Department; Irrigation Department; Rural Development &
Panchayats; Land Revenue/Reforms; and Public Health Department. The DC assured

127
that district administration was in the process of formulating a new scheme on irrigation
(Jalyukta Shivir) which shall be implemented in villages even as the existing problem of
village pond of Devnala could be taken up and resolved under this new initiative.

Likely Future Constraint and Challenge on Village Pond

Pond site (50 acres) is owned by the Irrigation Department. It has potential for multiple
use and is multi-purpose: drinking water and irrigation. Drinking water portfolio comes
under Public Health Engineering Department. Therefore, coordination between the two
departments (Irrigation and Public Health Engineering) shall be of critical need for
optimum use of village pond in the overall welfare of the farm households. Pond water
may be used by all the farm households, for drinking purpose (after
bleaching/processing/cleaning), domestic animal purpose, and irrigation of farms, for
which an appropriate distribution mechanism may be required to allocate water for
different uses and equal access to all 350 farm households.

8. Consumer Goods Shops

Harankhuri Village

Harankhuri village does not have any shops. For cheap rate ration shop under Public
Distribution System (PDS), they visited nearby village Ramnagar (3 km) by walking; 30
years ago they used to go to Lahori. To purchase grocery items of household-use from
‘kirana’shops, they had to go to Samudrapur (8 km). (Table 5.18)

Table 5.18: Consumer goods shops in Harankhuri village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Kirana shop (No.) 0 0
Stationary goods shop (No.) 0 0
Liquor shop (No.) 0 0
Fair price ration shop (No.) 0 0
Fair price ration shop distance (km) 3 3
Inputs (seeds, pesticides) shop (No.) 0 0
Other outlets (No.) 0 0

Devnala Village

Devnala village has 6 kiranashops to buy grocery items; 30 years ago, it had 2 kirana
shops. Village has one cheap rate ration store under PDS; 30 years ago villagers used to
go to nearby village Jormoha (3 km). There is weekly bazaar held at Jormoha (3 km)
where all villagers go and purchase items of daily use. There is no licensed liquor shop in
village though villagers, mainly Kolam tribals extracted wine through agents illegally from
Mahua flowers. Liquor consumption was abnormally high in the village. Illegal agents
increased the alcoholic content by adding some substance to the extracted wine as Kolam
ST preferred high alcoholic content wine thus purchased illegally from agents. A few
youths and heads of household of Kolam ST group were seen in intoxicated and inebriated
condition during the course of field survey by study team. Opinion rested balanced on

128
both sides if it was to be considered whether or not licensed liquor shop should be opened
in village or Kolam and other ST households should be allowed to legally extract wine
from Mahua flowers as they used to practice it quite long ago in jungle life before
integration with the mainstream village life. (Table 5.19)

Table 5.19: Consumer goods shops in Devnala village

Characteristics 2017-18 30 years ago

Kirana shop (No.) 6 2
Stationary goods shop (No.) 0 0
Liquor shop (No.) 0 0
Fair price ration shop (No.) 1 0
Fair price ration shop distance (km) 0 3
Inputs (seeds, pesticides) shop (No.) 0 0
Other outlets (No.) 0 0
Weekly bazaarJormoha (km) 3 3

9. People’s Institutions

Harankhuri Village

Meeting of the Gram Sabha (Village Assembly) of Harankhuri is held each month at
nearby village Nirgudi (6 km) in Panchayat Office. Normally, from democratic viewpoint,
all villagers should participate in Gram Sabha meeting which may be held within the
village itself; however, two villagers and 3 members of Gram Panchayat of Harankhuri
go to Nirgudi village to hold Gram Sabha meeting, which appears in contravention to the
spirit and structure of Gram Sabha institution. The agenda of the meeting is often not
known to the villagers in general or sometimes they just happen to know ex-ante/ex-post
that such meeting was held or would be held on a particular issue/problem.
Pressing/critical problems like pink ball worm (“bondadi”) inflicting cotton crop or
agriculture related problems (farmers’ stress, technology dissemination, yield, cost
escalation, price realization, irrigation, occupational diversification, group formation,
employment/ entrepreneurship development, etc.) were generally not discussed in the
Gram Sabha meeting. (Table 5.20)

Table 5.20: People’s Institutions in Harankhuri village

Characteristics (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Gram Sabha (GS) Village assembly 1 1
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS) 0 0
Self Help Group (SHG) 6 0
Joint Liability Group (JLG) 0 0
Farmers Clubs (FC) 0 0
Farmers Producers Organization (FPO) 1 0
Members of FPO 15 0
Forest Protection Committee (FPC) 0 0
Watershed Users Committee (WUC) 0 0
Community Resource Persons (CRPs)/Volunteers under NRLM 0 0
Gram Sewak 1 1

129
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS) has been closed automatically
since 2016 because the loss-making District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB), Wardha
has been closed which provided funding resources for its loaning operations. Harankhuri
has 6 SHGs (Bachat Gutt) of which 4 are women SHGs (opened in 2013) and 2 are men
SHGs (opened in 2017). Their main purpose is savings, though recently some activities,
like stitching machine and desi cow units, have been started for economic purpose. There
is no Joint Liability Group (JLG) in village. Village has only 3 landless tenant farmers who
are mainly interested in wage-labor in agriculture (on others’ farms) though do tenancy
only sporadically/irregularly, not in routine (every year). There is no Farmers Club (FC)
in Haankhuri though nearby villages are reported to have some FCs. Local NGO at
Samudrapur i.e. Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation (KJBF) had to make lot of
efforts in persuading farmers of Harankhuri and ultimately 15 members could be
convinced to join Farmers’ Producers Organization (FPO) as members which involves
other farmers from nearby villages. Farmers of Harankhuri have mindset of
preserving private entitlements of land intact. During field survey, all
farmers expressed that their private ownership right was sacrosanct to
them; therefore, any idea of group formation of farmers came as a blockade
and perceived threat to their private entitlements of agricultural land. KJBF
had to make several visits of the village to persuade and convince the farmers
to join FPO. Although Harankhuri has 200 hectare forest land, there is no Forest
Protection committee (FPC) formed as yet to ensure their participation in forest
management/security by community. Volunteers (People’s Institutions) under National
Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) for identification of BPL households, were also
reportedly not formed even as SHG formation was somehow done. There is no watershed;
hence no Watershed Users Committee (WUC) is formed in Harankhuri. (Table 5.20)

Devnala Village

Gram Sabha (Aam Sabha) or Village Assembly meeting was held each month at
Panchayat office in Devnala itself, in which around 100 villagers participated, with
Sarpanch and Secretary representing Panchayat in the meeting even as main problem
generally discussed is acute shortage of drinking water, besides taking benefits of PM’s
Housing Scheme. Recently in last meeting, it was discussed (January 2018) that a new
bore well may be installed for hand pump for which later during the month one contractor
agency was outsourced for digging bore well. Issue related to incomplete pond of Devnala
(50 acres) was also often discussed in the Gram Sabha meeting as it would have solved
the entire problem of water shortage faced by the village. PACS facility was available from
nearby village Jormoha (3 km) even as only 6 farmers from Devnala were members while
others were defaulters due to non-repayment of crop loan. Village has 22 SHGs formed
by District Rural development Center (DRDC) under NRLM, of which 22 SHGs were
women SHGs and 2 were men SHGs. They were doing goatery and tailoring activities.
There was no JLG or FC formed in the village. However, in 2012-13, one FPO was formed
by “Reliance Foundation”, which was closed within 1-2 years even as response of farmers
was not encouraging and there were certain differences of opinion between the
Foundation and farmer-members with regard to funds and benefits. A Forest Protection
Committee (FPC) was formed 10 years ago (2007). Village has 3 volunteers as Voluntary

130
Institutions (VIs) to assist in identifying BPL households for SHG formation under
NRLM. (Table 5.21)

Table 5.21: People’s Institutions in Devnala village

Characteristics (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Gram Sabha (GS) 1 1
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS) 0 0
Self Help Group (SHG) 22 0
Joint Liability Group (JLG) 0 0
Farmers Clubs (FC) 0 0
Farmers Producers Organization (FPO)* 0 0
Members of FPO 1 0
Forest Protection Committee (FPC) 0 0
Watershed Users Committee (WUC) 0 0
Community Resource Persons (CRPs)/Volunteers under NRLM 3 0
Gram Sewak 1 0
*Formed by Reliance Foundation but closed after some time

One FPO was formed by the “Reliance Foundation”, in Devnala village in 2012-13. It had
a governing body in which besides 2 officials of the Foundation (as supervisors/
overseers), there were 3 farmers representatives (President, Secretary and Deputy
Secretary) in that governing body. Although other FPOs in Nanja and Belapuri were
operating well, this FPO of Devnala has been disbanded and closed. All farmers were
made members of the FPO. It was reported that coordination between the officials and
farmers in the governing body was not good. Other 347 farmers had lot of interest in FPO
but could not exercise any due/deserved control despite being valid members of the
company. The Foundation made investment in construction of sub-nalahs/drains, wells,
and also made some lending of money to the farmer-members for crop production.
Gradually, it was reported that 2 leading farmers in the governing body siphoned-off some
funds and overstated the receipt of sand trollies against fake bills (if e.g. they received 10
trollies, they would show it as 12 and made payment for 12 trollies, causing loss to the
company). This fleecing and irresponsible accounting was being noticed by the officials
of the Foundation and led to the dissuasion among other 347 farmers and had adverse
impact on the functioning of FPO. All 347 farmers contributed 1 quintal each of soyabean
to the FPO for selling by the company on behalf of these members. Ultimately, trust
deficit, mismanagement and lack of compatibility/ adjustment led to the disbanding of
FPO in Devnala. (Table 5.21)

10. Common Property Resources (Natural)

Harankhuri Village

There was no village pond in Harankhuri (though it has 9 farm ponds of small size in
individual farms for individual use). It has no canals either. One nallah (spring) flowed
through village which has source in rain water of Rampur river. A part of the area of forest
of 200 hectares served the pasture needs of the village. It had scanty spread of trees and
somewhere vacant land without trees and at places small fire had destroyed few trees.
There is no proper supervision or control of fire problem in forest even as villagers were

131
not empowered for forest management through any Forest Protection Committee. There
is no watershed development activity even though there was good run-off of water from
surrounding hills during the rainy season. Forest also stood on the hills. (Table 5.22)

Table 5.22: Common Property Resources (Natural) in Harankhuri village

Characteristics (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Village pond* 0 0
Canal 0 0
Rainy Nallah(spring) 1 1
Forest and pasture 1 1
Forest area (ha) 200 200
Watershed 0 0
*Harankhuri village, however, has 9 personal farm ponds on individual farms

Devnala Village

Devnala village does not have any pond though one pond is under construction and
incomplete (in 50 acres) for the past 25 years. One rainy nallah passes through farm lands
around which the above pond was being developed on both sides. This nallah has
immense flow and storage capacity on low land that naturally forms into a rectangular
pond during the rainy season. Forest area of the village is 309 ha which includes payable
pasture (grazing area on which villagers can do grazing of animals after payment of fee).
Free grazing area is around 11 ha. There is no watershed development in the village
despite there being rain-fed nallah with gushing flow of water down the hills. (Table 5.23)

Table 5.23: Common Property Resources (Natural) in Devnala village

Characteristics (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Village pond$ 0 0
Canal 0 0
Rainy Nallah (spring) 1 1
Forests and paid pastures* 2 2
Forest area (ha)* 309 309
Free grazing pasture (ha) 11 11
Watershed 0 0
$Under-construction and incomplete since past 25 years
*Beat-1 has 309 ha and beat-2 has 44 ha area of Forest Department

11. Physical Infrastructure

Harankhuri Village

Some facilities of physical infrastructure were available and some were marked by an
absence in the village. In Harankhuri, ‘weather station’ was not yet installed for crop
insurance facility by any insurance company. Availability of this facility may have
encouraged and facilitated the companies in expanding the insurance coverage of
farmers. Piped water scheme is installed in the village, with connection to each household
for supply of safe drinking water. Internal roads and drains are pucca and well maintained
in the village. Earthen bunds were constructed in order to prevent flow of farm soil during

132
rainy season by Agriculture Department in 2007. Primary school has pucca classrooms,
toilet and playground facility with seesaw and slides facility for children. Iron polls for
electricity supply were also installed. Village had a temple also. However, Harankhuri did
not havethese infrastructures: meeting room for Gram Sabha, community center (for
organizing social functions and community festivals), rural godown, purchase center of
regulated market, and site for cattle trade (go to Samudrapur, 8 km). (Table 5.24)

Table 5.24: Physical Infrastructures in Harankhuri village

Facilities (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Weather station No No
Piped water supplyscheme Yes No
Internal roads(pucca) Yes Yes
Drains (pucca) Yes Yes
Gram Sabha meeting room No No
Community center No No
Earthen bunds Yes Yes
Rural godown/storage No No
Purchase center of regulated market No No
Cattle trade site No No
Pucca classrooms and toilet in primary school Yes Yes
Playground in school Yes Yes
Iron electricity polls Yes No
Temple Yes Yes

Devnala Village

Devnala village did not have Weather Stations installed by any insurance company for
crop insurance facility to the farmers. Piped water supply scheme had a pump house with
electric motor and a water tank of 40000 liter capacity. However, after rainy season water
supply suffered from acute shortage. Hand pumps installed in the village were mostly
dysfunctional. Wells with rope lift facility existed but depended on rain water
accumulated in monsoon for supply of drinking water by rope lift. The only pond in village
was incomplete as under construction for the past 25 years. Village depended on ponds
of nearby villages for drinking water supply and water needed for animals. Internal roads
and drains were pucca (constructed 20 years ago). (Table 5.25)

133
 Table 5.25: Physical Infrastructures in Devnala village

Facilities (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Weather station No No
Piped water supply scheme* Yes No
Hand pumps$ Yes Yes
Wells and ponds* Yes Yes
Internal roads (pucca) Yes No
Drains (pucca) Yes Yes
Gram Sabha meeting room Yes Yes
Panchayat ghar Yes Yes
Community center No No
Aanganwadi Center Yes No
Agriculture Assistant office Yes Yes
Earthen bund on nallah Yes No
Gate/outlet/shelter on village pond No No
Rural godown/storage No No
Purchase center of regulated market No No
Cattle trade site No No
Pucca classrooms and toilet in primary school Yes Yes
Playground in school No No
Iron electricity polls Yes Yes
Statutes of leaders and social reformers Yes No
Fencing around forest land No No
*Inadequate supply
$Dysfunctional (mostly)

Panchayatghar (Gram Panchayat Office) building was newly constructed in 2014 even as
old building of panchayatghar was being used for running an aanganwadi center. New
panchayatghar had a combined room for Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Secretary,
one staff room, corridor –all having pucca tile flooring and fully furnished with chairs,
decorated walls (with photographs of prominent leaders and social reformers), flag
hoisting platform and courtyard with pucca boundary walls –building was colorfully well
painted. Toilet facility was under construction as on date of field survey in January 2018.
An office room of Agriculture Assistant of the Agriculture Department existed in the
village. Earthen bund on village pond had been constructed around 15 years ago as the
work had been stopped due to court litigation. A gate/shelter/outlet for water was not yet
constructed on village pond/nallah. Iron electricity polls had been installed. Wiring on
one electric poll in front of Panchayatghar was being replaced by mechanics and
electricians to increase the height as on date of survey. Primary school had pucca
classrooms and toilet facilities. Aanganwadi center provided free meals to the school
children in the afternoon every day; children could be seen coming and going from
Aaganwari center with enthusiasm. A distinct feature of the village was that different
communities had installed statues of prominent leaders, social reformers and religious
personalities, e.g. Birsa Munda, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar, Mahatma Buddha, etc.
at prominent places in the village.The following facilities were marked by absence in the
village: Community center; rural godown; purchase center of APMC; site for cattle trade;
playground in school; and fencing around forest on the infringement of village since wild
animals like pigs, deer, neel gai, etc. destroyed farmers’ crops throughout the year. (Table
5.25)

134
 12. Agro/Food-processing & Household Industry for Self-Employment

Harankhuri Village

Agro/food-processing units or household processing units are marked by absence in

Harankhuri and nearby villages. There is only one cotton ginning unit at Samudrapur (8
km). In this cotton ginning unit, local procurement/supply of cotton as basic raw material
or labor supply from village for employment was reported as “nil”. Although Harankhuri
has variety of crops/produce available as marketable surplus of cash crops and semi-
commercial crops (cotton, soyabean, toor, black gram, milk, goats), not a single
processing or packaging unit has been set up in/around the village as registered or
household unit during the past 30 years. A potential source of employment generation in
agro-/food processing is unutilized somehow due to common lack of awareness or
mindsetor lack of capital for investment. One farmer however, appeared enthusiastic on
setting up a silk weaving unit at household by importing raw silk or starting first
sericulture activity; such innovative idea appealed some of them though appeared exotic
in the sense that the existing raw material advantage within village was not being first
utilized for value-addition and employment generation. (Table 5.26)

Table 5.26: Agro/food-processing and household industry in Harankhuri village

Facilities (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Agro-processing units within village 0 0
Agro-processing units nearby in villages 0 0
Agro-processing (cotton ginning unit) at Samudrapur (8 km) 1 0
Source of basic raw material within village available* Yes Yes
Other household industry units 0 0
Employment of villagers in above units 0 0
*Cotton, soyabean, toor, black gram, milk, poultry, goats

Devnala Village

In Devnala, agro/food-industry units have not been set up during the past 30 years at
household level or registered units despite availability of basic raw material Cotton,
soyabean, toor, milk, poultry, goats (2017) and groundnut and til oilseeds (30 years ago)
within village. Besides other common factors (lack of awareness, mindset, lack of capital,
defaulter farmers) there is another critical factor i.e. acute shortage of water due to which
setting up of such agro/food industry could face challenge for value-addition and
employment generation. (Table 5.27)

Table 5.27: Agro/food-processing and household industry in Devnala village

Facilities (No.) 2017-18 30 years ago

Agro-processing units within village 0 0
Agro-processing units in nearby villages 0 0
Source of basic raw material within village available* Yes Yes
Other household industry units 0 0
Employment of villagers in above units 0 0
*Cotton, soyabean, toor, milk, poultry, goats (2017); additionally groundnut, til oilseeds (30 years ago)

135
 13. Financial Infrastructure and Financial Inclusion

Harankhuri Village

There has been a growing trend in “financialization” of households in Harankhuri

during the past 30 years despite that there is no branch or ATM of any commercial bank
in Harankhuri. As it is a small village, villagers accessed branches of State Bank of India
(SBI) and Bank of India (BOI) situated at Samudrapur town (8 km). All 50 households
have openedJan Dhan Yojana (JDY) bank account in one of the above branches
(however, JDY accounts have zero/minimum balance, without any significant
savings).Out of 80 youths in village, 20 youths (25%) have smartphones with internet
connection, which could be used for internet banking, if need be. About 60% of village
households have access to credit from banks though almost all (100%) of them (barring
few) were defaulters as they had not repaid last loan to the bank (average Rs.50,000 per
borrower) taken 4-5 years ago, and all of them have got the benefit of “loan waiver
scheme” in 2017-18 (January 2018).None of the farmers/borrowers in village had been
issued Kisan Credit Card (KCC) by banks due to the defaulter problem. The earliest (first
time) they borrowed from bank was 23 years ago. Earlier, 30 years ago and thereafter they
would sometimes repay; sometimes go default, never to borrow again from bank.
Currently or even 30 years ago, any specialized/professional moneylender (“Sahukar”)
was not operating in Harankhuri village although (earlier) one wealthy Brahmin
zamindar owning 300 acres land used to engage in usurious practice of money lending
(50-60 years back). However, 75% of villagers borrow money from each other (inter-
personal borrowing) at critical moments when need for cash arises immediately (e.g.
buying seeds, pesticides, payment to wage-laborers, etc.) and cash is not available in hand
as payment for cotton (main cash crop) comes after crop is harvested and sold (twice a
year) and it gets finished in household expenses or social ceremony/ function (marriage,
festival, etc.) or in medical expenses for treatment of ailment, diseases or in education of
children. Basically they commonly borrow from fellow farmers or friends frequently due
to their poor management of cash-money received from selling cotton. Some of them did
manage to save some amount (up to Rs. 3000 or so after incurring all expenses), but it
was not revealed fully to the outsiders or even among others in the village. Earlier, 30
years ago, all (100%) households would borrow money from one another, at one time or
the other. On an average each household borrowed Rs.20,000 in inter-personal loan
(earlier 30 years ago amount was Rs.3000) and returned between 6 to 12 months with
interest rate of 2.5% per month (inter-personal) and 2.5 to 5% (30 years ago to Brahmin
zamindar lender). No household was indebted with overdue to moneylender/ friend/
zamindar. However, almost all (100%) of borrowers of banks were defaulters (barring
very few) as they did not repay their crop loans to the bank. Banks’ default loan amount
of farmers was around Rs.50,000 (average). They had defaulted on this loan 4 to 5 years
ago. However, all (100%) of them had been covered and benefited by “loan waiver
scheme” of 2017-18 since all of them applied on-line; some had got the “message” and
some were expecting it shortly. Only 10% of the farmer households had some savings
amount in their personal savings account (beyond JDY) but they won’t reveal it normally
even if amount was as small as Rs.3000 per savings account. Villagers did not reveal
information about Fixed Deposit (F.D.) in bank account though the number of households
having F.D. account was expected to be not more than a couple of households. There were

136
6 SHGs in the village, of which 4 were women SHGs (opened in 2014) and 2 were men
SHGs (set up in 2017). Data on total savings of women SHGs in bank and their loan-
linkage with bank or lending to the members, were not available as members did not know
and SHG leader was not available. Villagers thought and opined that no SHG was credit-
linked with bank as no member had ever borrowed from SHGs. One farmer had
committed suicide in 2016 in this tribal village. (Table 5.28)

Table 5.28: Financial infrastructure and financial inclusion in Harankhuri village

Facility 2017-18 30 years ago

Bank branches (No.) 0 0
ATMs (No.) 0 0
Smartphones with internet (No.) 20 0
Households having JDY accountin bank* (%) 100.0 0.0
Households (borrowers) with access to bank credit*(%) 60.0 0.0
Households (borrowers) having Kisan Credit Card (KCC) (%) 0.0 0.0
Households borrowed first bank loan (years ago) 23 NA
Professional moneylenders operating in village (No.) 0 1
Households engaged in informal inter-personal lending (%) 75.0 100.0
Amount of informal inter-personal loan (Rs.) 20,000 3000
Period of repayment of informal inter-personal loan (months) 6-12 6-12
Rate of interest on informal inter-personal loan (% per month) 2.5 NA
Rate of interest on moneylender’s loan (% per month) NA 2.5 – 5
Indebted households of moneylender sahukar (%) 0.0 0.0
Amount of informal source indebtedness/overdue (Rs.) 0.00 0.00
Defaulter borrowers of bank (%) 100.0 NA
Default loan amount of bank (average Rs. per borrower) 50,000 NA
Defaulted on current bank loan (years ago) 4 to 5 NA
Borrowers covered under “loan waiver scheme 2017-18” (%) 100.0 0.0
Households having personal savings bank account (%) 10.0 0.0
Savings in bank account (Rs. per depositor) 3000 NA
Total saving deposits in bank branch (Rs.) NA NA
Total fixed deposits in bank branch (Rs.) NA NA
SHGs (No.) 6 0
Total SHG loan from bank (Rs.) 0.00 0.00
Total SHG savings in bank (Rs.) NA NA
Villagers committed suicide (indebtedness induced) as on date 1 0
*State Bank of India (SBI) & Bank of India (BOI) Samudrapur (8 km); DCCB Wardha closed since 2016
NA: Not Available

Devnala Village

In Devnala village also, the same trend of “financialization” of villagers has been taking
place during the past 30 years (as in other sample village) despite there being no bank
branch or ATM in the village.Around 10 youths had smartphones with internet
connection though internet banking was not done as it requires finances and
income/savings. All (100%) households in Devnala had Jan Dhan Yojna (JDY) bank
account opened in Bank of Baroda (BoB), Jormoha branch (3 km). Only 10% of the
households had access to bank credit and nearly all previous borrowers (100%) were
defaulters of bank loan. They defaulted on last loan 7 years ago; earlier (30 years ago) the
pattern of borrowing used to be a cycle of occasional repayment and occasional default

137
over time, or some farmers repaying and others not in the cross section of village farmers.
None of the farmers/borrowers in village had been issued Kisan Credit Card (KCC) by
banks due to the defaulter problem. The first ever bank loan was taken 45 years ago from
District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB) Yavatmal. Currently (2017-18) no professional
moneylender (Sahukar) operated in Devnala though 30 years ago there used to be 2
Sahukars in the village.About 50% of the households currently borrowed from each other
(informal inter-personal borrowing) though 30 years ago nearly all (100%) of them did
so. Average inter-personal loan amount currently was between Rs.50,000 to 200,000
while 30 years ago it used to be only Rs.5000. Their lack of access (ineligibility due to
default) to banks is the main reason for increased over-dependence on inter-personal
borrowing in critical moments of paucity of cash for various expenses in agriculture and
household. On an average, inter-personal loan was repayable within 6 months and rate of
interest of inter-personal loan and sahukar’s loan being 2.5% per month. As on date of
survey, none of the households was indebted to Sahukar/ friend/ informal source with
any overdue amount. However nearly all (100%) of the borrowers of bank loan were
defaulters (barring very few). Average amount of default loan of banks varied from
Rs.50,000 to 100,000 of each borrower; the last/latest default loan of bank pertained to
borrowing made 7 years ago. All the bank loan defaulters have been covered under “loan
waiverscheme” 2017-18. Some farmers were receiving messages on mobile phone from
bank (DCCB) to visit the branch and complete certain formalities; some farmers
expressed their non-repaid loan amount has been waived off. Being poor village, with
acute shortage of water for irrigation, their income from cultivation was reported as “low”
(despite cash crop cotton) even as only 5% of households were reported to have personal
savings account (beyond JDY) and average savings amount was Rs.2000. It may not be a
reliable/convincing figure. Total aggregated savings in bank account (savings or fixed
deposit) were not revealed. Village has 22 Self Help Groups (SHGs), of which 20 are
women SHGs and 2 are men SHGs. It was reported that all 22 SHGs were credit-linked
with banks; however, data on amount of loan from bank or onward loaning from SHGs to
members and total savings of the 22 SHGs could not be obtained. Since indebtedness of
farmers to bank loan has been a grave problem (along with concurrent wine drinking
problem among youths) in Devnala for quite some time, particularly during past 7-10
years, it was reported that during past 1½ years (18 months between June 2016 to
December 2017), as many as 10 farmers/youths have committed suicide in the village. Of
these 10 farmers/youths who committed suicide, two were indebted to bank and 8 were
having excessive wine drinking/addiction habits. Villagers opined that indebtedness
triggers the conditions for suicide and wine addiction accelerates its incidence. During
past 3 months (October – December 2017) there were 3 farmers’ suicides and past two
months, two suicides; so average one farmer suicide took place each month. Farmers’
suicide rate has accelerated during past 3 months due to the “propaganda” (in populist
way) of “compensation” for suicide which was perceived as economic “benefit”.
Estrangement of mind to commit suicide, in overall conditions of bank indebtedness, has
increased in Devnala village, due to two impacts: (i) attraction of monetary
“compensation”; and (ii) wine addiction. Otherwise, 30 years ago or earlier when there
was no bank indebtedness, the concurrent phenomenon of farmers’ suicide was marked
by absence as no farmers’ suicides were reported despite poverty. It is possible that
earlier, due to good rainfall, family survival based on subsistence farming was not a
general/important problem. (Table 5.29)

138
 Table 5.29: Financial infrastructure and financial inclusion in Devnala village

Facility 2017-18 30 years ago

Bank branches (No.) 0 0
ATMs (No.) 0 0
Smartphones with “Jio” internet connection (No.) 10 0
Households having JDY account in bank* (%) 100.0 0.0
Households (borrowers) with access to bank credit* (%) 10.0 0.0
Households (borrowers) having Kisan Credit Card (KCC) (%) 0.0 0.0
Households borrowed first bank loan (DCCB) (years ago) 45 NA
Moneylenders operating in village (No.) 0 2
Households engaged in informal inter-personal lending (%) 50.0 100.0
Amount of informal inter-personal loan (Rs.) 50,000 - 200,000 5,000
Period of repayment of informal inter-personal loan (months) 6 6
Rate of interest on informal inter-personal loan (% per month) 2.5 NA
Rate of interest on moneylender’s loan (% per month) NA 2.5
Indebted households of moneylender sahukar (%) 0.0 0.0
Amount of informal source indebtedness/overdue (Rs.) 0.00 0.00
Defaulter borrowers of bank (%) 100.0 NA
Defaulted loan amount of bank (average Rs. per borrower) 50,000 - 100,000 NA
Defaulted on current bank loan (years ago) 7 sometimes
Borrowers covered under “loan waiver scheme 2017-18” (%) 100.0 0.0
Households having savings bank account (%) 5.0 0.0
Savings in bank account (Rs. per depositor) 2000 0.00
Total saving deposits in bank branch (Rs.) NA NA
Total fixed deposits in bank branch (Rs.) NA NA
SHGs (No.) 22 0
Total SHG loan from bank (Rs.) NA 0.00
Total SHG savings in bank (Rs.) NA NA
Villagers committed suicide (indebtedness induced) in past 18 10 0
months (June 2016 - December 2017)
#Bank of Baroda (BoB), District Central cooperative Bank (DCCB) Yavatmal
NA: Not Available

139
 Chapter-6

Farmers’ Perspectives on Family Farming

This chapter focuses on presenting the farmers’ perspectives on family farming in the two
sample villages. The perspectives cover characteristics of family farms pertaining to two
periods: (a) their current state (2017-18); and (b) their history (when present head of farm
household became “head” after his marriage or partition/apportionment).

I. Current State of Family Farming (2017-18)

(i) The ‘Head’ of Family Farm

The current ‘head’ of the household in family farming during 2017-18 is above 50 years of
age. In Harankhuri village, ‘head’ is as old as 56 years old; in Devnala village, he is
relatively younger at 45 years of age. This finding is very important to understand private,
domestic and demographic features of family: It shows young members (say 25 or 30
years old) are not in-charge of family farm; heads are over 50 years old –in their middle
age. Authoritative character of patriarchal family system, based on private property
and a ‘head’ at center of family (or head of hierarchy), emerges from these features. Over
54% of heads have earned farming as main skill. Other 46% heads have learned one of
these skills: mason/ dug-well digger/ tractor driver/ shop skill/ Animal Husbandry/
Commerce Graduate/ DTE technical education diploma/ Agriculture Post-Graduate/
bamboo craft/ electrician/ roof shuttering skill in house construction. (Table 6.1)

Table-6.1: Features of the ‘head’ of family (2017-18)

Head of household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Age (years) 56 45 51
Farming learned as main skill (%) 82.6 26.0 54.3
Other types* of skills learned as main skill (%) 17.4% 74.0 45.7
Exclusive farming as main job (%) 81.8 60.0 71.0
Farming with agricultural wage-labor as main job (%) 18.2 40.0 29.0
Experience in farming job (years) 32.2 19.3 26.0
*Mason/ dug-well digger/ tractor driver/ shop skill/ Animal Husbandry/ Commerce Graduate/ DTE
technical education diploma/ Agriculture Post-Graduate/ bamboo craft/ electrician/ roof shuttering skill
in house construction

Heads of families in Harankhuri village, to a larger extent (82.6%), have farming as their
main skill vis-à-vis Devnala village where heads (74%) have other kinds of skills as main
skill (though somehow they could not use their differential skills). Nevertheless, majority
(71%) of the heads in both villages have exclusive farming as main job, particularly in
Harankhuri village (81.8% heads). The remaining 29% heads also in both villages do
farming but it is combined with agricultural wage-labor, particularly in Devnala village
(40% heads). Average experience of the head in farming activity in both villages is 26
years; the head of Harankhuri is more experienced with 32 years in farming as compared
to 19 years’ experience of head in Devnala. Overall it appears that Devnala village is

140
relatively ahead of Harankhuri in giving “liberty” to the youths for taking up charge of
family farm, which invariably occurs with “separation” coinciding with marriage.
Marriage brings partition and apportionment of property as new family and new family-
farm emerges. (Table 6.1)

(ii) Family Members

Current family size is less than 5 in both the sample villages. An average family has just
over 3 adult members (both male and female) i.e. 70% members are adult (>18 years) or
in the age group of earning income. Almost all the adult members have learned farming
skill. Only 2% adult members (other than head) have learned any skill other than farming
(which includes, nursing diploma, higher education as Master of Arts, mason, tractor
driver and grocery shop skill. Almost all family members (adults) have common job i.e.
farming –they help the ‘head’ on his farm. Each farm household has 2 adult members
(56%) who help the head on his farm. Farm households have a broad family division of
labor: at least one family member (male or frmale) is exclusive wage-laborer, who works
on other farmers’ farms in different crop seasons (mainly cotton farms) or at construction
sites, full year (and when not working, he/she helps the head on owned farm). Such
exclusive wage-laborers are around 25% (1/4th of adult members) in the family. Other
adult members can also do wage-labor, but on on- and-off basis (not throughout the year,
as family farm is also to be looked after). Wife of the head (house wife) is also engaged in
farm jobs; her average farm experience is 21 years, which coincides with her date of
marriage to the household. Average annual savings of a family farm, pertaining to 30% of
sample farmers (from all possible sources), in 2017-18 was Rs.67,430, with Devnala
(Rs.1,18,750) surpassing Harankhuri (Rs.16,111), mainly because of these farmers’
greater commercial approach to farming. (Table 6.2)

141
 Table-6.2: Demographic features of family members (2017-18)

Family members Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Family size (number of members) 4.9 4.5 4.7
Adult male & female members (number) 3.5 3.0 3.3
Farming learned as a common skill (%) 95.6 100.0 97.8
Other types* of skills learned (%) 4.4 0.0 2.2
Farming (or farming with agricultural wage-labor) as a 95.6 100.0 97.8
common job (%)
Helping the ‘head’ at farm (number of adults) 2.2 1.6 1.9
Helping the ‘head’ at farm (% of adults) 60.8 51.4 56.1
Doing exclusive wage-labor (number of adults) 1.0 0.66 0.88
Doing exclusive wage-labor (% of adults) 74 32.2 16.8 24.5
Experience of wife of ‘head’ in farming job (years) 26.8 15.7 21.2
Annual savings per household (approx. all sources)# (Rs.) 16,111 1,18,750 67,430
*Nursing diploma, higher education (M.A.), mason, tractor driver, grocery/retail shop skill
#It includes sources, e.g. family farming, agricultural wages, other casual labor wages, goat selling, ox
selling, shop/business, any other cash/money received from any undisclosed source, etc. This savings is
income above expenditure before repayment of loan and repayment of old debt, etc. i.e. not yet made.
Savings figurepertains to 30.6% of sample households: 34.7% in Harankhuri and 26.6% in Devnala)

(iii) Private Land Ownership, Land Leasing and Irrigation

Average size of private owned land by family is 9.3 acres; Devnala sample farmers are
bigger vis-à-vis Harankhuri farmers though both are of medium scale. It may be seen
later in the report that private property right, as manifestation of “self sufficient” self-
interest, becomes a cause of social separation and alienation between farmers (as
individuals) and ultimately the farmers’ suicides. Average land owned per member in the
family is just over 2 acres and per adult member just over 3 acres. Land is the major source
of attraction, affiliation and attachment of farmers. In this sample, 28% farmers are
leasing-in land for cultivation. In Devnala village, it’s not exactly “leasing-in” but
“allotted” by one ‘Ruikar Trust’ on payment of nominal annual fee (called “hazi”), which
is not land rent. Only 8.7% farmers in Harankhuri village have leased-in land for family
cultivation. Similarly, only 5.5% sample farmers in both villages have leased-out land for
cultivation. Artificial irrigation facility, based on tube-well with Diesel Generated (DG)
set or electric pump set, is installed by 53% farmers –the maximum being in Devnala
village (67% farmers) while only 39% sample farmers of Harankhri have tube-well
facility. Only 27% of owned area of sample farmers in two villages is irrigated by tube-
wells whereas a majority of the area (73%) is still rain-fed. (Table 6.3)

74In Harankhuri village, there is always huge demand for agricultural wage labor (on cotton farms)
within village as also in nearby 4 villages, viz., Narayanpur, Ramnanagar, Lahori and Khandala, where
big land owners create demand for cotton labor. Not only cotton, but other crops and works/sites as wee,
there is demand for wage labor for full 365 days in a year. Thus overall, 24.5% members do ‘exclusive
wage labor’ and 59.2% members do ‘part-time wage labor’ (as showed later in this chapter). So, total
83.7% members are engaged in ‘wage labor’ (‘full time’ and ‘part time’ combined).

142
 Table-6.3: Land ownership, leasing, irrigation by farm households (2017-18)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Land owned (acres) 8.4 10.1 9.3
Land owned per member (acres) 1.7 2.4 2.1
Land owned per adult member (acres) 2.5 3.7 3.1
Land leasing-in or “allotted” (%) 8.7 46.7 27.6
Land leasing-out (%) 4.3 6.7 5.5
Tube-well irrigation facility installed with DG set or electric 39.1 66.7* 52.9
pump-set (%)
Proportion of owned area irrigated by tube-well (%) 31.5 21.7 26.6
Proportion of owned area exclusively rain-fed (%) 68.5 78.3 73.4
*In Devnala village, these irrigation structures are basically dug-wells, not tube wells (or bore wells), 18-
20 feet deep, in which rain water gets filled during Monsoon season and it is lifted by electric motor or DG
set with pipes. This stored/accumulated rain water is sufficient for one crop at the most. After monsoon,
these dugwells become dry and useless for irrigation purpose.

(iv) Crops Grown, Improving Farming Skill, Training in Agriculture

Family farming in both sample villages is currently based on growing 3-4 crops (cotton,
soyabean, toor and wheat) and some farmers growing black gram. A majority of the
farmers are making small improvements in technology and skills for cultivation, based on
emulation of other progressive farmers (one or two) in the village or if some NGO provides
them information on new cost effective method e.g. “zero budget natural farming” (“water
spray”/ sprinkler system), or how to spray pesticides, make mixture of liquid for
pesticides spray, etc. Only 45% sample farmers have recently received formal training of
one day through exposure visit or demonstration farm or workshop, etc. organized by
Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA). However, majority of the
training/learning/exposure of farmers in sample villages was made possible through their
visit to agriculture “mela” (fair) where they saw many stalls displaying agricultural
implements, solar pump set, etc. Some of them learned about “pashu samvardhan”
(animal breeding). NGO (e.g. in Harankhuri) provided them knowledge about “wadi”
(intercrop of vegetables), using less chemical fertilizers in cotton, proper tools to increase
crop yield; “patta” method of cotton sowing; pesticide spray on chana and soyabean;
sprinkler on chana and wheat (10 farmers out of 50 are using it now in Harankhuri),
sowing seeds on humid soil on boundaries (mendh) if there is more rain, etc. One farmer
got exposure visit to wadi on vegetables (tomato, chilly) for diversification and
participated in workshop. Zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) by exposure visit to
Amravati and attending one workshop, was mentioned by one farmer as he learned these
points: spend money judiously; using household’s resources; preparing liquid
“Jiwamrut” in 2 days (20 litreusing in 1 acre twice/month after 15 days) by using
household resources such as cow urine, cow dung + besan (black gram flour), soil of
"mundher" for ZBNF (ZBNF method was invented by Padmashree Paikar, social activist).
“Wadi” visit in village and another such visit in district (for intercrop vegetables) was
mentioned by one farmer. Some sample farmers had got chance of two exposure
visits/workshops in recent past and current year. One farmer mentioned he visited “krishi
Mela” and saw 3 exhibitions on his own, at Nagpur, Akola and Yavatmal; he saw all stalls,
solar instruments, and solar motor (and came to know that it cost Rs.7 lakh and with

143
subsidy of Agriculture Department). One farmer saw vegetable cultivation, soya milk
demonstration, etc. One farmer is university trained/educated as M.Sc. (Horticulture)
educated from State Agricultural University, Akola. He guides other farmers as and when
they approach him, or he also makes them aware on his own (e.g. in “chofuli” technique
of cotton sowing). One farmer visited exhibition in Kalamb, saw various stalls, solar pump
demonstration, and also learned about cow feed for more milk yield. One farmer got
opportunity for training in bamboo tokri and flowercase making as part of non-farm
sector development. One farmer saw check dam of stones erected on sloppy land at
various points, to stop gushing rain water. One farmer learned about seasonal fruit
cultivation. One farmer saw a plot on “Patta” (row) method of sowing Bt cotton. The
above exposure visits and training were received by sample farmers (45%) during past 2-
3 years. A majority (79%0 of the sample farmers found the learning points of
training/exposure useful and applicable to their family farming practices (with variation
of 57% in Devnala and 100% in Harankhuri). Sample farmers in Devnala faced some
difficulties in applying the knowledge of training in their family farms. Farmers in
Devnala said they could not install solar motor if water itself was not there (neither stored
rain water nor ground water in dug wells). NGO (KJBF) provided training/exposure in
Harankhuri sample village and ATMA and Agriculture Department arranged these
facilities in Devnala village. (Table 6.4)

Table-6.4: Crops grown, farming skills, training in agriculture (2017-18)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Crops grown each year (number) 4.1 3.0 3.6
Improved farming skills (by seeing others or agency/NGO help) 82.6 66.7 74.6
(%)
Training received in agriculture recently (%) 43.4 46.7 45.0
Training received in agriculture (years ago) 2.1 3.0 2.5
Utility/application of learning from training for family farming 100.0 57.1 78.6
(%)

(v) Objective of Farming, Adoption of Allied & Subsidiary Occupations

A majority (93%) of the sample farm households opined that “semi-subsistence” farming
is the objective of their family farming occupation, along with self-employment of adult
members (male and female) on this family job so they they need not look outward for
livelihood or being occupied. Pure commercial farming as objective with agri-business
approach was mentioned/practiced by 7% sample farmers (13% farmers in Devnala
village). As many as 42% sample farmers in both villages have adopted animal husbandry
(AH) as allied activity to support family’s subsistence and consumption level in tact for
physical survival; they rear a few goats (4-5), one or two cows, one buffalo (few families)
and poultry birds. These AH activities are exclusively for family subsistence, not
commercial activities. For cash income, 59% families of sample farmers were engaged in
part time subsidiary activity of wage-labor for part of the year (when free from own farm).
(Table 6.5)

144
 Table-6.5: Opinion of farmers on objectives of farming, allied and subsidiary occupations (2017-18)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
‘Semi-subsistence’ farming as objective for self-employment of 100.0 86.7 93.3
adult members in family (%)
Commercial farming as objective with agri-business approach (%) 0.0 13.3 6.7
Agricultural allied activities of AH (goat, cow, buffalo and 56.5 26.7 41.6
poultry) adopted for family’s subsistence/consumption (%)
Part time wage-labor as a subsidiary activity for cash income 65.2 53.3 59.2
(%)75

(vi) Factors behind Persistence/Continuity of Family Farming 2017-18

Sample farmers in Harankhuri village opined that the followingsupportive factors have
facilitated the persistence of subsistence-based family-farming in 2017-18 which is
continued since the past many years (average 25 years or ever since 50-60 years as they
witnessed it themselves in family): Using owned resources (owned farm seeds, family
labor, owned land, owned implements including bullocks for plowing)76; mix of
foodgrains with cash crops; support of agricultural wage-labor income; strong
commitment of the family ‘head’ and hard-work by family; changed mentality by buying
seeds each year; cash income from cotton/toor/soyabean; support to family by son’s new
carpenter shop (making agricultural implements); bullock-cart as occupation; buying
gold by saving money; buying land by saving money; diversification to “wadi” (vegetable
cultivation); cash income from becoming “hunda” (contractor job); tractor plowing
enabled full month wage-labor; wage-labor at blast-mine; contract-labor of harvesting
toor on contract (enabled upto Rs.40,000 per season); relatively more weightage to
subsistence objective and less emphasis on commercial aspect 77; compelling necessity of
subsistence leading to “determination” (as son not educated/ employed)78;
suppressing/diluting the importance of commercial approach for the past minimum 30
years (same as whole village did); food-grains supply from cheap-price ration shop under
PDS (same story for entire village) sufficient period equivalent to 6 months of the year;
buffalo dairy (selling curd at household within village and in neighboring villages on
bicycle); saving own seeds for next year; keeping cost of cultivation in check by using own
resources; savings in bank account; adopting the technique of Zero Budget Natural
Farming (ZBNF); joy in family farming; adopting with changed time, e.g. “patta” sowing
practice with Bt cotton seeds in place of “chofuli” sowing practice with “desi” Nanded
seeds in 2007 (but it has created crisis of severe crop loss/failure after 10 years); aiming
75
Overall, 24.5% members do ‘exclusive wage labor’ (as seen earlier in this chapter) and 59.2% members
do ‘part-time wage labor’. So, total 83.7% members (59.2 + 24.5) are engaged in ‘wage labor’ (‘exclusive
full time’ and ‘part time’ combined).
76 Owned/saved money is not mentioned as a factor by these sample farmers, which means they depended

on outside/borrowed money for commercial or even subsistence farming.

77 In contrast, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggests giving emphasis on

commercial orientation of small farmers by “moving out” (to cities) and “moving up” (within village),
approach, particularly in India and China, which can be possible only by large scale capital investment
from outside that replaces the existing farmers and their families, hence causing disastrous
displacement consequences of this strategy. See “Move out, move up approach could ease India’s farm
crisis”, The Hindu, March 21, 2018.
78 This (negative) aspect suggests authoritarian over-dependence caused by head in family youths.

145
for handsome money from cash crops; proper use of bank loan (by few farmers); sons
working as wage-laborers; andsaving cash money income in home (instead of depositing
it in bank account) for coping up with unknown adversity on family in agriculture in
future79.

Sample farmers in Devnala village perceived that the following factors were responsible
for their continuity/persistence in family farming in 2017-18: Using owned money
(without depending on loans)80 for all kinds of expenditure whether farming or marriage
of daughters; regularly using borrowed money from informal sources of
lending/moneylender; having better quality farm land in nearby village; expansion of
family farm by buying land using money saved by family (including bank’s default loan);
farming other new cash crops, viz., sugarcane and pomegranate in agri-business approach
(select farmer); adopting commercial/agri-business approach to existing crops; assured
wage-labor income of pesticides spraying (50 days work per year); ‘discipline’ of agri-
business (duty bound, twice monitoring of farm daily, proper accounts and focus on
savings; using university education in farming, using sprinkler irrigation system, etc.);
basing farming on “allotted” land (of a private Trust) on nominal “fee” (not land rent);
constant “support” of money lender for all needs of family farm; using Farm Yard Manure
(FYM), which even prevented attack of pink ball worm (“bondani”) diseases on Bt cotton);
and assured annual rentier income (Rs.50,000) from rent on land, which helped the
family farm as cushion against losses and other adversities. Similarly, some family farms
receive outside support (from brother, etc.) in cities as remittances by them from time
to time help the family farm in buying inputs and supporting their critical expenses so
that family in village could survive at least by growing food grains and vegetables.

One sample farmer in Harankhuri village and two sample farmers in Devnala village,
were reported as “decaying farm” as they have sold a significant part of their owned
agricultural land of family farm in recent past.

79 Many of the farmers in Harankhuri sample village do not save (much) in bank account, is because their
savings gets exposed to the bank branch, which would necessitate repayment of bank loan. The similar
phenomenon of hiding money savings (and gold ornaments) by a small farmer, from his younger brother
living in city, was depicted succinctly and effectively in a famous and very popular and successful Marathi
play “Wada Chirebandi” (whose location was set in the backward Amravati district of Vidarbha (and it
was played in capital city of Kolkata in West Bengal also and probably in other states as well, since so
convincing portrayl of the ground reality). While younger brother employed in service sector and living in
city, was supposed and imagined to be rich, prosperous and comfortable, his elder brother (farmer)
regularly hyped/flaunted/publicised himself, before his brother, as very poor, resourceless fellow and
always reeling in financial difficulty even as both argued on their respective plight and troubles of village
and city life. In the end, hidden gold-armament stock of the poor farmer in iron box makes appearance in
defiance of surface-reality exposed by subterranean reality of hidden essence. Malcolm Lyall Darling in
his Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt, mentioned that Indian peasants, in 1930s and even 1950s,
used to save, hide and store whatever money/savings/gold in utensil buried under the earth/ground in
farm households.
80 This factor (exclusively owned money used) is in deviation from other routine fecator (regular

dependence on borrowing) in both sample villages.

146
(vii) Allied Activities Adopted for Family’s Income (Other Than
Agricultural Wage Income and Animal Husbandry Produce)

For survival and continutity of family farm, farmers explore various sources of income
and subsistence (besides farming, animal husbandry and agricultural wage labor), such
as carpenter (agricultural implement-making, which has good demand), buying a tractor
(by mortgaging land) and learning driving skill for using tractor in custom hiring service
on others’ farms, becoming a “hunda” (contractor) in house construction sector, semi-
skilled mason in house construction sector (making concrete mixture, shuttering work,
etc.), toor harvesting contract, dug well digging job, stone breaking at blast-mine site,
preparing and selling buffalo-milk curd on bicycle in nearby villages, grocery shop in the
village, juice shop (in Yavatmal city), ration goods store in village, etc. Some farmers
(Harankhuri) collect forest producelike tendu leave for selling ito to traders or hunting
rabbit (for meat consumption). Some families witnessed discarding service sector job for
the sake of family farming (e.g. accountant in Hindustan Lever Company in Mumbai,
college lecturer in agricultural science in Nagpur, etc.). There are some non-farm skills
that farmers could not use somehow to earn subsidiary income, e.g. one household in
Devnala village has nursing diploma educated wife which could not find government job.
One household head is trained electrician, but already occupied in family farming on agri-
business lines ad running a grocery shop and ration supply store. One household head is
trained in bamboo craft (making bamboo products) like flower case, baskets, etc. but he
cannot adopt this activity as he perceives that demand for cheap plastic decoration goods,
has made bamboo products relatively costlier and less popular. Farm households do
everything possible to save and protect family farm from decay and exit.

(viii) Important Sources of Money Income to Manage Ready Cash

Family farming daily requires money in cash form to be available in hand every moment
and for all 12 months of the year. The sample farmers’ most important 18 types of sources
of receipt of cash/money income, are reported as under: (i) money received, and
directly/immediately used, from selling surplus agricultural produce in the market such
as cotton (main cash crop), toor and soyabean (and to some extent black gram)81; (ii)
agricultural wage labor (some farmers are full time/year agricultural wage laborers
including “saladar” and some are seasonal part time agricultural wage laborers). Other
sources of money/cash are: (iii) operating retail shop business (village grocery shop,
village carpenter shop, village fair price ration shop, city juice shop, city electrician shop,
etc.); (iv) job/service in city (electricity department service, private company service,
etc.); (v) tractor hiring service provider; (vi) casual wage-labor on construction sites; (vii)
contractual wage labor for toor harvesting; (viii) curd vendor on bicycle; (ix) using bank
account savings (money saved and deposited in bank account by selling cotton); (x) taking
crop loansfrom banks (State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India); (xi) borrowing
money from moneylender or informal lending sources; (xii) semi-skilled mason income;
(xiii) money saved/used by loan waiver or old debt; (xiv) daily auto rickshaw driving
income (from village to town/nearby village); (xv) bullock cart transport service; (xvi)

81This is the most important source of receipt (and expenditure) of money instantly (within 4-5 or 7
days), which also causes need for borrowing and indebtedness as expenditure exceeds cash in hand.

147
selling other (new) cash crops (sugarcane and pomegranate) in the market; (xvii) using
owned money savings in household by selling cash crops; and (xviii) selling goats each
year and bullock after every four years.

(ix) Day-to-Day Problems Faced in Farming Activity and ‘Exit’ Issue

A majority (79%) of the sample farmers in both villages expressed that they are recently
facing some critical problems, of routine nature, daily in agriculture. However, only about
9% of them have recently thought about making exit from agriculture. Nonetheless it has
been a perennial problem and none of the sample farmers has actually exited from family
farming activity as informed by villagers. (Table 6.6)

Table-6.6: Routine problems faced in agriculture (2017-18)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Critical problems commonly faced (%) 72.7 85.7 79.2
Recently thought on exit from agriculture due to problems (%) 17.4 0.0 8.7

Individual sample farmers in Harankhuri village are recently/currently (2017-18) facing

the following routine problems in family farming, related to agriculture: (i) cash crunch;
(ii) necessity of wage labor (keep chasing wage-work) as urgency erupts at least 10-12
times in 3 quarters of the year; (iii) low yield of crops; (iv) repayment of loan (loan is not
a problem but repayment is); (v) domestic/personal problems82; (vi) low-fertile hilly-land
that was inherited from father83; (vii) over-dependence on loan; (viii) mental stress; (ix)
son’s mismanagement of loans and disinterest in farming, followed by suicide (such
sporadic yet tragic instances haunt all farmers daily); (x) failed borewell at 10 feet due to
hard rocky “black-stone” at sub-surface causing financial loss (25-30 such borewell in
Harankhuri village; some have failed); (xi) lack of capital for investment, by inaccessible
bank loan of Rs.3.00 lakh, in deep borewell with electric motor and pipes; (xii) growing
wine addiction; (xiii) despite earning reasonable net income, farmers are unable to make
savings due to mismanagement of cash; (xiv) increasing education expenses of children
(it puts burden on family farming alreadypressured by low yield); (xv) capital intensive,
high cost and fast increasing cost of cultivation (cotton requires Rs.20,000 to 22,000 per
acre operational cost); (xvi) lack of knowledge of spraying pesticides on cotton; (xvii) ‘pink
ball worm’ pest attack (“bondani” disease) on Bt-3 cotton causing crop loss between 50
to 100%; (xviii) low cotton price (below MSP) in recent past (except in current year 2017-
18); (xix) dubious marketing practices (making long queue of 15-20 trolleys and
auctioning together, then finding fault in quality mid-way of auction (when 50% produce
82 Domestic problems (authoritarianism, rude behavior, reprimanding, patriarchy, ego of property,
conspicuous consumption, poor healthcare, sickness, diseases, apathy to hard-work, farming as
compulsion, wine addiction, etc.) as manifestation of social decay and downfall are, as next chapter
shows, the major factor behind farmers’ suicides.
83Farmers in sample villages consider private property more as “right” than duty. Theyfind inherited land

in hilly area as “problem”but make little effort in saving money to enhance its fertility by artificial
irrigation. In one sample village (Devnala), a farmer sold his entire inherited land of 5 acres (inherited
from father) after his father’s death, to the Irrigation Department for a village pond, and got engaged in
litigation also to get higher price/compensation from government. Affection for inherited property is
itself a problem (egoism, little effort to enhance yield, selling away land, etc.)

148
is unloaded and farmer cannot take it back to home); (xx) seeds washing away in rain;
(xxi) bad impact of pesticides spray on human health; (xxii) farming generally in loss as
reported (including cotton, toor, soyabean, black gram) due to unremunerative price in
market in recent past years (below MSP except for cotton in 2017-18) for all these 3-4
crops; (xxiii) increased use and cost of chemical fertilizers (xxiv) shortage in supply of
wage labor for picking cotton; (xxv) attack by wild animals on standing crops causing loss;
and (xxvi) problem of irrigation water. (Table 6.6)

Individual farmers in sample village Devnala expressed their routine problems in 2017-
18 as under: (i) irrigation facilities (dug wells to store rain water) extremely insufficient;
(ii) less rainfall and declining over the past few years; (iii) village does not have even a
single pond and depends on ponds of nearby villages; (iv) Bt-3 cotton seeds failed in 2017
due to pink ball worm disease that led to fall in production between 50 to 100% i.e.
complete loss; (v) crops (cotton, toor, soyabean) destroyed by wild animals (pigs, neelgai,
deer, monkeys), sometimes 50-75% as there is no fensing arounf fields or forest; (vi)
indebtedness of bank upto Rs.1 lakh and expecting loan waiver but doubtful; (vii)
indebtedness to moneylender (up to Rs.2 lakh); (viii) ineligible to borrow from
commercial bank, as defaulters since 7-8 years; (ix) deforestation on hill causing
problems as wild animals intrude into fields; (x) untimely rain causes disease and loss of
yield in cotton and black gram; (xi) cash crunch felt almost daily by farmers; and (xii)
sickness of whole family, accident/leg fracture of the ‘head’ of family, mental sickness of
wife and daughter, huge expenses on private medical care (Rs.2000/month),
indebtedness due to increasing medical expenditure on diseases/mental sickness, and
lost interest in farming due to poor health). (Table 6.6)

(x) Reasons for ‘Exit’ and Alternative Occupation After ‘Exit’

Individual farmers (though few) in Harankhuri village expressed the following reasons
for exit from agriculture: (i) problem of family labor (no son to inherit landed property as
landed-property and human labor are correlated); (ii) disinterested in farming due to
wine addiction; (iii) dry land without irrigation and rain-fed farming; (iv) no techniques
to save money and accumulate savings; (v) loss due to rising costs of production in cotton
and other cash crops. Alternative occupations (substitute for family farming) suggested
by farmers in Harankhuri village are as under: (i) wage laborer; (ii) rentier (lease-out
land); (iii) any skilled non-farm job; and (iv) goat-rearing (return to the original
occupation from where the farmer, who suggested this option, had began).

(xi) Cultivation Practices of Different Crops (2017-18)

Harankhuri Village

It is notable that all farmers currently use “shen-khaad” (dry cow-dung) common in all
the crops (as they used it 25 years ago). It is used when land is vacant, or during inter-
cropping, or during gap between two crops.

Sample farmers in Harankhurivillage are currently using the following practices of

cultivation for different crops, in 2017-18:

149
 Box 6.1: Bt-3 Cotton

 Farmers in this village started Bt cotton in 2007; they buy Bt seeds of government
company MAHYCO (not private MNC Monsanto)
 Preparation of land by tractor
 Sowing in late June month (after waiting for rain); harvested after 6 months
 Sowing done by labor
 “Patta” (row) method of sowing (popular since 2007)is used
 Row-to-Row (R-R) distance = 4 feet
 Plant-to-Plant (P-P) distance = 1 foot
 Sowing variations by sample farmers: 2.5x1 / 3x1 / 4x1 (some using 4x4 ‘chofuli’))
 Some farmers keep R-R distance 3.5 feet (to get more yield)
 Some farmers keep R-R distance 5 feet (because canopy expands)
 Seed = 900 gm/acre (each bag 450 gm x 2 bags/acre)
 Yield = 7-8 quintal per acre / 5 quintal per acre / 4 quintal per acre
 Total crop loss in 2017 due to ‘bondani” pest was not/rarely reported in village
 Only “late variety” of Bt-3 got inflicted with “bondani” pink ball worm pest
Only specific plots were affected or land with high irrigation affected
 Chemical fertilizers DAP: SSP (Potash): Urea : : 18:18:10
 Chemical fertilizers used 2-3 times (“some farmers use less”; “some use more”)
 Spray of pesticides 4-5 times
 Mono Proto Phos pesticide used for spray
 Private dealers persuade farmers to use pesticides more and more
 Weedicide is used (necessary) in patta method
 Cost of cultivation: Rs.20,000 – 24,000 per acre
 First time pest/disease attack of “pink ball worm” (“bondani’) pest in 2017 in village
 Bt Seeds purchased each year from market : MAHYCO
 Black soil (in village): suitable for cotton
-
Box 6.2: Toor

 Inter-cropping with cotton; sowing in June-end; harvested after 5 months

 Seed = 3 kg/acre
 Yield = 1–1.5 quintal/acre

Box 6.3: Soyabean

 Preparation of land by tractor

 Started sowing in June and July months; harvested after 3 months
 Spacing 18 inches
 Seed variety: Ankur 335
 Seeds = 20 - 30 or 40 kg/acre
 Seeds sprayed by “wakhar” from above (by tieing a “sarta”)

150
  Yield = 5-7 quintal/acre
 Use “Jivamrut” (Liquid made by cow urine and cow dung) as natural fertilizer
 DAP used 1 bag/acre; Urea not used
 Weedicide used by spray
 Pesticide used if needed (if stubborn “ari” worms)
 Expenditure = Rs.15,000 per acre
-
Box 6.4: Black gram (Chana)

 Spacing : 17 -18 cm
 No use of Urea
 1 bag/acre of 10-26-26 (instead of DAP) used only once
 Spray of pesticide 2 times (now increased to 4 times as advised by private dealers
 Some farmers learned to do irrigation by sprinkler to save water
 Expenditure: Not much, since cultivated for family subsistence
 Seed = 20 kg/acre
 Yield = 6-7 quintal/acre
-
Box 6.5: Wheat
 Sown after soyabean is harvested (November)
 Spacing: 6 cm
 Seed = 40- 45 kg/acre
 Yield = 6-7 quintal/acre
 “Jivmrut” used as natural fertilizer
 10-26-26 fertilizer used 1 bag/acre
 Urea used (after plant is >1 foot height) 1 bag/acre
 Urea is used once or twice after seeing need of plant (height, color, health)
 KJBF (NGO) creates awareness and guides farmers to reduce expenses
-
Box 6.6: Vegetables

 For family consumption; “Wadi” cultivation on small plot

 Chilly, polas, gawar, bhindi, tomato, barbati, popat, moong, moth, brinjal
 10-26-26 and Urea used in “small quantity”

Devnala Village

Two important feature of Devnala village is that 100 farmers out of 350 total farmers
(35%) do soil testing, albeit after each 2 years. That means 65% farmers do not do soil
testing (and it is commonly assumed that since entire district has “black soil”, so it is
suitable for cultivation of cotton crop.But this soil may not be similarly suitable for
soyabean or toor or blackgram or wheat or vegetables; this aspect is not examined by
farmers. Second, the Agriculture Department distributed 200 copies of book Krishi

151
Samvadini-201684 written in Marathi language, in Devnala village, free of cost. However,
very few farmers read this book.

Sample farmers in Devnala village are currently using the following practices of
cultivation for different crops, in 2017-18:

Box 6.7: Bt-2 Cotton

 Farmers in this village started Bt cotton in 2006; they buy Bt seeds of private seed
patent company Monsanto (not MAHYCO)
 Farmers started using BG-1, then BG-2 (from 2013)
 Method: Farmers started new “patta”/row method in 2006; but “balls” got damaged
 Method: Some farmers reverted to old “chofuli” (square) method
 Method: Some farmers now use “patta” method; some use “chofuli” sowing method
 In “patta” (row) method, cotton “balls” become affected by “crowding”
 One Agriuclture PG educated farmer of this village guided all farmers to “Chofuli”
technique by giving demonstration in village; currently many of them follow it.
 Sowing starts early June (some farmers June-end/late variety, as they wait for rain)
 Chofuli method: R-R gap = 3 feet ; P-P gap = 2 feet; Sowing method = 3x2 feet
 Patta method: R-R gap = 6 feet (variable); P-P gap = 6 inches (to get more yield)
 “Patil Biotech” dealer’s resource-person advised the farmers R-R gap of 3 inches and
6 inches; earlier farmers used 18 inches (which was a “mistake”, resource person
said)
 But Agriculture PG educated farmer saw that excess plants got rotted in rain
 Devnala village has great problem of weeds (in fact whole ofYavatmal district)
 Weeding is done by doing “dora” (hoeing) through hiring tractor (additional cost)
 Seeds = 550 gm/acre (some use 450 gm/ acre, some use 750 gm/acre);
 They buy 450 gm packet & use full packet or 1½ (depending on money, not SPoPs)
 Yield = 5 quintal per acre normal average (without/before “pink ball worm attack”)
 Yield varied (2017): 1.5 quintal per acre / 2 quintal per acre / 2.5 quintal per acre /3
quintal per acre / 8.5 quintal per acre / 10 quintal per acre (5-6 farmers, by using
FYM)
 Yield loss: average 50-70% (few farmers 100%); wild animal attack (pigs) also
 Spray of pesticide: 2-3sprays (farmers also go to KVK center and get guidance)
 Innovation:5-6 farmers, using FYM, did not face crop loss due to‘pink ball worm’
attack85
 One farmer,using FYM,got yield 12 quintal/acre; he used FYM 1 trolley/acre and
DID NOT use chemical fertilizers
 Selling price : Rs.4500-5000/quintal (2017-18)

84
Book (320 pages) was published by “Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth”, Akola i.e. State
Agricultural University, in 2016. It covers these sections: Cash crops; Oilseeds; Animal Husbandry &
Dairy; Grains (Food); Pulses; Diseases, Insects, Weed Control; Allied-agricultural (Silk, Fishery, Poultry);
Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers; Agri-mechanisation/Equipment; and Economics of Agriculture.
85 Just as in Harankhuri where farmers generally used dry cow-dung and saved against “bondani” insect

152
  Cost of cultivation Rs./acre: 4000 (least, one Kolam ST) / 15,000 / 20,000 / 24,000
(expenditure depending on availability of cash in pocket!)
 Some farmers experienced “excess rain” (reported low cotton yield 3 quintal/acre)
 Some farmers experienced erratic/low rain (same village); perceptions differ
 Farmers are aware that Bt-4-7 versions are being used in the world (Israel, Brazil,
USA, etc. sold by ‘Monsanto’ company) whose yield is 35 quintal/acre.
 Farmers think that government agencies should popularize Bt-7 updated variety
(instead of older Bt-2 or Bt-3 versions which were earlier debated for 10 years then
introduced after delay).
 Farmers expressed that 20 out of 32 companies, selling Bt cotton seeds, are “fraud”.
 Adequate and timely irrigation is necessary for maximizing yield to 10 quintal/acre
 Weeding (“nindai”) of weeds (“jhar”)is done by weedicide, and if no money then
manually done with “khurpa”
 Kolam STs are 28 farmers; some of them use 2 sprays, some use 3-4 sprays. They
use different quantities/types of pesticides (‘Monosil’, ‘Indosulphan’, ‘computer’)
depending on money in pocket. No SPoPs are followed, since Krishi Samvadini
book does not indicate use of pesticides on “bondani” of pink ball worm, which is
new insect.
 Labor is hired for cotton picking
-
Box 6.8: Toor

 Sowing in June-end as inter-crop with cotton (after waiting for rain)

 Crop harvested after 5 months
 Yield: 1 quintal/acre (one farmer got 20 kg/acre)

Box 6.9: Wheat

 Sowing in November and December (after cutting soyabean) by tractor

 Crop harvested after 4 months
 Seed : 30 kg/acre
 Yield (maximum): 6-8 quintal/acre(once 12 quintal/acre)
 Yield (average): 5 quintal/acre

II. History of Family Farming (Since average 25 years)

(i) Demographic Features 25 Years Ago

The head of the household could provide information on family’s history of farming
around 25 years ago (average). In extreme cases, information pertained to 50-60 years
ago (head being 85 years old) and 7-10 years ago when farm household was of recent
origin (in very few cases). Almost all farm households (98%) were carrying family farming
activity on hereditary basis; only in one case (in Harankhuri village), new farmer joined
who started farming after leaving his occupation of contractor in blast-mine sites/

153
shephered (goat rearing and grazing). Interestingly, he also mentioned that he was fed up
with difficulties in agriculture and would like to exit. Nonetheless only 61% farmers had
joint family (with both parents and brothers, if any, in family) when they began their
journey of independent family farming; 39% farmers started by partitioning frpm joint
family. It means emergence of new family farm coincides with breaking up of joint
family; new private property comes at the cost of losing family unity/proximity.
Devnala village was more victim of nuclear sized families when new family farms
emerged due to apportionment and partitioning. Average family size was 6 persons (both
sample villages); Devnala village was far behind with 5 members per family as compared
to 7 members per family in Harankhuri village when family farm emerged. Normally
memory of the head about history coincided with emergence of new family farm out of
the old one. All farm households (100%) witnessed participation of women (housewife)
in all operations of family farming, including on-farm jobs. (Table 6.7)

Table-6.7: Demographic features of family members (since 1993 /25 years ago)

Family members Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Earliest memory of the ‘head’ of history of family farming (years) 30.7 19.2 25.0
Hereditary family farming (%) 95.6 100.0 97.8
New entry in farming (%) 4.4 0.0 2.2
Joint family (%) 82.6 40.0 61.3
Family size (number of members) 7.2 5.2 6.2
Women involved in family farming (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

(ii) Private Land Ownership, Land Leasing and Irrigation Since 25 Years

Average size of owned land per family was 14 acres in the history of farm households of
both sample villages (25 years ago). Owned land holding of each household in
Harankhuri village (18 acres) was almost double the size of owned holding per family in
Devnala village (9 acres). And owned per member in family was 2.6 acres. More than 1/4th
of sample households were leasing-in or allotted land by a private Ruikar Trust; land
leasing-out was only by 7.6% sample farm households. Only 30% farm households has
tube well irrigation facility (in Devnala village it was dug well facility provided under
MNREGA on farm land and covered 47% of the sample farmers). Only 10% aea was
irrigated by tube well/ dug well with DG set facility. Around 90% of owned area in both
sample villages was rainfed and dependent on Monsoon rains (Table 6.8)
Table-6.8: Land ownership, land leasing, irrigation (since 1993 / 25 years ago)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Land owned (acres) 18.6 9.6 14.1
Land owned per member (acres) 3.0 2.3 2.6
Land leasing-in or allotted (%) 13.0 40.0 26.5
Land leasing-out (%) 8.7 6.6 7.6
Tube-well irrigation facility with DG set installed (%) 13.0 46.7 29.8
Proportion of owned area irrigated by tube-well (%) 9.5 11.7 10.6
Proportion of owned area exclusively rain-fed (%) 90.5 88.3 89.4

154
(iii) Crops Grown, Learning Farming Skills, Training in Agriculture Since
25 Years

Sample farmers were growing 4-5 crops each year in sample villages. All sample farmers
(100%) had learned their farming skills from father (then head of household). Only 36%
sample farmers had ever received training in agriculture from any agency (NGO in
Harankhuri village and ATMA and Agriculture Department in Devnala village). They also
visited exhibitions and Krishi Mela (fair) in Nagpur, Yavatmal and Akola cities from time
to time on their own awareness. Sample farmers received training by exposure/
workshop/ demonstration visits/farms around 5 years ago. One farmer got exposure visit
to wadi on vegetables (tomato, chilly) for diversification and participated in workshop.
Zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) by exposure visit to Amravati and attending one
workshop, was mentioned by one farmer as he learned these points: spend money
judiously; using household’s resources; preparing liquid “Jiwamrut” in 2 days (20
litreusing in 1 acre twice/month after 15 days) by using household resources such as cow
urine, cow dung + besan (black gram flour), soil of "mundher" for ZBNF (ZBNF method
was invented by Padmashree Paikar, social activist). “Wadi” visit in village and another
such visit in district (for intercrop vegetables) was mentioned by one farmer. Some
sample farmers had got chance of two exposure visits/workshops in recent past and
current year. One farmer mentioned, he visited “krishi Mela” and saw 3 exhibitions on
his own at Nagpur, Akola and Yavatmal; he saw all stalls, solar instruments and solar
motor (and came to know that it cost Rs.7 lakh and with subsidy of Agriculture
Department). One farmer saw vegetable cultivation, soya milk demonstration, etc. One
farmer is university trained/educated as M.Sc. (Horticulture) educated from State
Agricultural University, Akola. He guides other farmers as and when they approach him,
or he also makes them aware on his own (e.g. in “chofuli” technique of cotton sowing).
One farmer visited exhibition in Kalamb, saw various stalls, solar pump demonstration,
and also learned about cow feed for more milk yield. One farmer got opportunity for
training in bambootokriand flowercase making as part of non-farm sector development.
One farmer saw check dam of stones erected on sloppy land at various points, to stop
gushing rain water. One farmer learned about seasonal fruit cultivation. One farmer saw
a plot on “Patta” (row) method of sowing Bt cotton seeds. A majority (73%) of the sample
farmers found these training inputs useful and applicable to their family farms. In
Harankhuri village, one farmer could not use ZBNF technique because he did not own
any cow to have cow dung and cow urine (to prepare “Jiwanrut” liquid). It did not,
however, occur to the farmer, or was not guided that he could obtain these resources
locally within village, from other farmers at very cheap rate or free of cost or by sharing
system. (Table 6.9)

Table-6.9: Crops grown, farming skills, training in agriculture (since 1993 / 25 years ago)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Crops grown each year (number) 5.2 3.7 4.5
Farming skills learned from father (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0
Training ever received in agriculture (%) 26.0 46.7 36.3
Training received in agriculture (years ago) 3.5 5.9 4.7
Utility/application of learning from training infarming (%) 83.3 62.5 72.9

155
(iv) Objective of Farming, Adoption of Allied & Subsidiary Occupations
Since 25 Years

A majority (91%) of the sample farmers in both villages opined that “semi-subsistence”
farming was historical objective of family farming. Commercial farming with business
approach was historical objective of 9% farmers. In Devnala village, 13% farmers who
followed business approach to family farming historically (25 years ago), are doing
farming currently also with same business approach (as seen earlier in this chapter).
However, in Harankhuri village, 4.4% sample farmers had started business approach to
farming historically, but they could not sustain it after some time, as seen earlier in this
chapter. Agricultural allied activities (goat, cow, buffalo and poultry) were carried out 25
years ago for family’s subsistence and consumption purpose, by 47% farmers in both
sample villages; only 33% farmers did so in Devnala village because water has been a
major problem in this village. To boost their income, 56% sample households in both
villages were historically doing part-time wage labor as subsidiary activity; incidence
of part time wage-labor was historically higher (65%) in Harankhuri village. (Table 6.10)

Table-6.10: Opinion of farmers on agriculture, allied & subsidiary occupations (since 1993 / 25 years ago)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
‘Semi-subsistence’ farming as objective for self-employment of 95.6 86.7 91.1
adult members in family (%)
Commercial farming as objective with business approach (%) 4.4 13.3 8.9
Agricultural allied activities of AH (goat, cow, buffalo and 60.9 33.3 47.1
poultry) adopted for family’s subsistence/consumption (%)
Part time wage-labor as a subsidiary activity for cash income (%) 65.2 46.6 56.0

(v) Historical Factors behind Survival/Continuity of Family Farming

Since 25 Years

Major historical supportive factors behind persistence of family farming with success (25
years ago), are perceived by farmers as under: Owned resources (owned farm seeds,
family labor, owned land, owned bullocks, owned bullock cart, owned implements);
income from selling cash crops; supply of food-grains by ration card from fair price shop;
hard work by family; “division of labor” of members by family into own farm work and
wage-labor work; collecting forest leaves and in city to the traders86; buying gold for
adversity; buying land from a Brahimin landlord by saving money from cotton income;
bullock cart transport; determination and commitment to persist under compulsion (as
no other option existed or physical survival); “saladar” (full year servant on big farmers’
fields); “saladar” along with looking after own farm by hiring wage laborers (as children
were small); major dependence on wage-labor for coping with adversity; bank loan 25
years ago; using cotton income for buying family’s necessities first (cloths, ration,
education expenses); doing wage labor on small/marginal farmers' land, without
shame/hesitation/arrogance (despite owning 90 acres land, mostly kept vacant as no

86Farmers used to collect forest leaves of “Kumbi”, “Mahua” and “Biarey” trees, and sell these leaves to
traders in Samudrapur and Wardha where “kirana” merchants and grocers used these leaves for packing
“kirana” goods sold to the customers.

156
capital resources to invest); a proper mix of subsistence and commercial farming;
thought/philosophy that farming is life and life is in family farming; installation of pump
set helped in irrigation; inspiration to start farming after quitting the job of contractor at
blast mines; share cropping ensured food security by jowar/wheat and cotton cultivation
(despite low yield) by hard work of entire family; and learning farming as a “saladar” (full
year servant) from landlord during “Bhoodan” movement.

Major historical reasons behind continuity of family farming in Devnala village were
reported as under: Started and continued business approach to farming on commercial
basis (with son’s education, other small trading businesses/shops); good rainfall; buying
land in nearby village (Peeda); first priority to farming (left company job in Mumbai);
non-repayment of bank loan and buying land near tube well with this money (loan later
waived) 8 years ago; land accumulation to expand farming; ration food from fair price sop
under PDS to widow mother; one farmer left his agricultural science college lecturer job
some years ago to start family farming as agri-business; allotment of agricultural land on
nominal annual fee, from a private Ruikar Trust (having surplus land beyond ceiling
laws) helped; casual labor in forest plantations; well digging job; informal lending sources
were major support for “udar nirvah” (survival) and “ghar-ghooti kheti” (subsistence
farming); persistent support of moneylender; soil testing after 2 years (35% farmers
doing); using Farm Yard Manure (FYM) each year; “desi” cotton seeds were not prone to
disease/pest attack; money lender’s assured loan despite losses (accumulated debt
Rs.2.32 lakh) helped in farm continuity; and purchased “allotment” land from Ruikar
Trust by father and got “7-12” title deed in his name, which helped.

One sample farmer in Harankhuri village witnessed family farming decayed/failed as

joint family of 5 brothers got addicted to wine consumption; 4 brothers died; and fifth
farmer/brother survivor is also drunkard and depends on daily wage labor of different
kinds; entire land of 5 acres is divided and leased-out to earn petty rental income. Another
sample farmer in Devnala village had sold a part of his family land. One farmer in
Devnala village has kept 7 acres of “allotted” land as vacant since there is no tubewell (or
even dug well) irrigation facility. One farmer in Devnala sold 5 acres of hereditary land to
the Irrigation Department and he was living on allotted land of Ruikar Trustby paying
nominal fee. Zeal of farming in some farmers had been vanishing gradually.

(vi) Allied Activities Adopted for Family’s Income (Other Than Agricultural
Wage Income and Animal Husbandry Produce) Since 25 years

Sample farmers in Harankhuri village had adopted the following allied activities for
family income 25 years ago: rearing calves to sell bulls (after each 4 years); collected forest
leaves (of Kumbi”, “Mahua” and “Biaarey” trees) to sell in city to the trader; “hunda”
(contractor) job for drain construction; being “saladar” (permanent annual farm servant
with landlord); selling goats; dugwell digging; stone breaking at contractor’s site at
blastmine; “toor” harvesting on contract; preparing curd and selling in nearby villages on
bicycle (3 such households in Harankhurivillage) and selling curd at home in same village
(Rs.10/glass); mining contractor; bullock cart transporter; and grazing goats. Sample
farmers in Devnala village had been doing these allied activities: grocery shop, fair price
shop under PDS, and auto rickshaw driver.

157
(vii) Important Sources of Money Income to Manage Ready Cash Since 25
Years

Having some cash in hand is always important and necessary for farmers, since it is
imposed by objective conditions, as their needs are varied, urgent and uncertain.

Historically, farmers in sample village of Harankhurimanaged cash 25 years ago, from

these sources: (i) selling cotton, toor and soyabean in market; (ii) loan from PACS (small
amount up to Rs.3000); (iii) agricultural wage labor income; (iv) selling forest leaves; (v)
farmloan from “sahukar” (moneylender); (vi) consumption loan from moneylender by
mortgaging gold; (vii) income (wages and grains) from being saladar (permanent farm
servant); (viii) income from wage labor at blast mine; (ix) “hunda” (contract) income from
toor harvesting on contract (up to Rs.40,000 per season); (x) pure money salary from
“saladari” (Rs.1000/year) 50-60 years ago; (xi) wages from mason for dugwell digging
(Rs.50/day); (xii) wage labor income on marginal farmers’ fields (despite owning 90 acres
land, mostly vacant/infertile); (xiii) and income from selling curd in villages.

Farmers in Devnala village managed cash 25 years ago, from these sources: (i) grocery
shop in village; (ii) selling cotton; (iii) selling other commercial/cash crops (toor,
soyabean); (iv) money received from commercial bank loan (Bank of Baroda); (v) loan
from moneylender each year; and (vi) land rent from leased-out land.

(viii) Day-to-Day Problems Faced in Farming and ‘Exit’ Issue 25 Years Ago

A majority (77%) of the sample farmers in both villages expressed that they had faced
routine yet critical problems in agriculture 25 years ago. A lesser proportion of sample
farmers (61%) in Harankhuri village faced problems, since they were less inclined to the
commercial aspect while doing semi-subsistence (semi-commercial) farming. In contrast,
farmers of Devnala village were facing problems to a greater extent (93%) as they were
more oriented to commercial aspects. Despite these problems (and acceptance of risks),
none of the farmers of Devnala village ever thought about exit from agriculture. In
contrast, 26% of semi-subsistence oriented farmers of Harankhuri sample village,
working with subsistence approach/mindset, had thought about exit from agriculture
(some farmers even thought about exit twice) since they could not better withstand the
pressure of commercial approach. (Table 6.11)

Table-6.11: Opinion of farmers on routine problems faced in agriculture (since 1993 / 25 years ago)

Farm household Harankhuri Devnala Average

village village
Critical problems faced (%) 60.9 93.3 77.1
Ever thought about exit from agriculture due to problems (%) 26.0 0.0 13.0

Sample farmers of Harankhuri village faced the following problems in farming, 25 years
ago, which affected their family farm: (i) Excess rains (continued for one month); (ii)
costly and difficult staying in market yard/city (for 4-5 days or even 7 days) at Hinganghat
(Wardha) market or Nagpur for selling cotton; (iii) no adult male member in family to

158
assist/look after farming; (iv) ruthless necessity of doing wage-labor for survival (though
they did not have “surplus time” from own farm); (v) difficulty in arranging cash for
payment to the wage laborers hired for cotton picking/harvesting; (vi) cotton being labor-
intensive (and capital-intensive) crop; (vii) passing through forest area while going to the
market on bullock cart for selling cotton was dangerous (fear of wild animals); (viii)
domestic problem of father’s annoyance with son to marry in family of his choice that
disintegrated joint family and ultimately family farming; (ix) despite hard work farming
not flourishing beyond a mere survival proposition; (x) poor quality, low fertile hilly land;
(xi) persisting poverty despite diverse occupations/ activities/arrangements tried; (xii)
habit of wine drinking in family (but rarely led to suicides); (xiii) dry rain-fed land
(occasionally more rain); (xiv) low yield of crops (mainly cotton, up to 3 quintals/acre);
(xv) over-dependence on moneylender (sahukar) for loan; (xvi) subsistence
mindset/approach could not be shed despite commercial farming of cash crops
necessitated by market/state; (xvii) Shortage of labor supply for picking cotton in peak
period; (xviii) cash crunch felt daily or at the time of buying inputs, e.g. chemical
fertilizers (though not habituated to incur expenditure too often); (xix) seeds got washed
away in rain; (xx) high expenses and less availability of cash during cotton picking period,
to pay to wage-laborers even as farmers were not accustomed to hiring wage-labor; (xxi)
unremunerative price of cotton (particulary during past 10 years, except in 2017) below
MSP; and (xxii) drought condition faced 3 years ago (2014/15).

Farmers in sample village of Devnala faced the following routine yet critical problems in
farming, 25 years ago: (i) Depending on water (for irrigation) drawn from others’ fields/
distant ‘nallah’; (ii) additional cost of pipeline (2 km) necessitated on nallahfor lifting
water by electric motor; (iii) high cost of digging borewell on rocky surface
(“kalapathar”); (iv) occasional drought, low rainfall and irrigation water shortage
problem (most common); (v) incomplete village pond since 25 years (that could have
solved the problem of irrigaton of entire village); (vi) no farm pond on any farmers’ field;
(vii) indebtedness due to loan default of bank; (viii) land sold and farm decaying since no
son (or relative e.g. father/ brother/ wife/ son) except widow mother hence problem of
family labor; (ix) no fencing around farm or forest to control wild animals’ attack on
crops; (x) declining profit (two years loss, third year meager profit); (xi) children not
interested in farming; (xii) slowly and invisibly vanishing family farms (villagers opine
that 25% of farms shall vanish in next 10 years); (xiii) burden of indebtedness of
moneylender witnessed directly, experienced personally and continued in family since
past 40 years (though it did not cause mental stress unlike bank loans); (xiv) “no savings”
(but it looked as rhetoric to some extent); rising cost of production in cotton; (xv)
ineligible to borrow from commercial banks due to default and no Kisan Credit Card
(KCC) issued to any farmer; and (xvi) personal/domestic problems affected family farm
and its operations (leg fracture in accident, whole family in sickness; wife mentally ill and
medical expenses Rs.200/month, daughter mentally ill, rising medical expenditure, as it
was affected farming).

159
(ix) Cultivation Practices of Different Crops (25 Years Ago)

Harankhuri Village

Sample farmers in Harankhuri village were using the following practices of cultivation
for different crops, 25 years ago:

Box 6.10: Cotton (desi)

 All farmers used “Chofuli” (“dibbling”) technique of sowing in square plots:

 R-R distance: 1.25 - 2 feet

 P-P distance : 1.25 - 2 feet
 Most common sub-plot: 2 x 2 feet
 Land cultivation with bullocks by all farmers
 Varieties of seeds: home produced (desi) –Nanded-44; Neemkar; 8-No.; H-4; Bhuri
 Some farmers also used other non-Bt seeds: Surbhi; Sooraj
 Seeds: 1 kg/acre
 Sowing in June month after waiting for rain; ready to harvest in 4 months
 Weeding (nindan) manually done with khurpa
 No pesticides spray; no chemical fertilizers used
 Yield 2-3 quintal/acre; if good irrigation then 4 quintal/acre
 Village has black soil, suitable for cotton
 Family labor used
 Children helped for 2-4 days by leaving studies; in summer holidays daily helped
 Selling price (5 years ago): Rs.3500/quintal
 Selling price (25-30 years ago): Rs.1000/quintal
 Selling price (50 years ago): Rs.50/quintal
 Chofuli technique of cultivation with “desi” seeds was profitable; there was no need
for using weedicides; worms automatically got destroyed; FYM was used by all.
-
Box 6.11: Toor

 Inter-crop with cotton; sown in June-end

 Gap 2 feet x 2 feet
 Seed : 5-6 kg/acre
 Yield : 1-2 quintal/acre
-

160
 Box 6.12: Soyabean

 Sowing started in June month and goes up to July

 Ready/ripes in 3 months
 Seeds : 30 kg/acre
 Seeds: Mahabeej; jaat; kala; 335; burel; 58 No.
 Kala soya (black soyabean) grew fast and splitted (“futa”); it caused loss to farmer
 R-R gap = 1.25 – 1.50 feet
 P-P gap = 20 cm
 Sown seeds: By tieing “sarta” behind “wakhar” manually, pouring seeds from above
 Procedure/method: Lagvad, periv, tifanse
 Weeding (nindan), davran, darfe and puvarni was not done
 Yield = 2-8 quintal/acre
 Price : Rs.5000/quintal (10 years ago, 2008)
 Whatever yield nature gave, was accepted (jaisa utpadan hona hota, hota hi tha)
-
Box 6.13: Jowar

 Sown for subsistence farming (“gharghuti kheti”) for “bhakar roti”

 Inter-crop: Moong/urad (seeds 3 kg/acre); no fertilizers
 Sown in June
 Variety: Hybrid 5, 9
 R-R gap = 18 cm
 P-P gap = 15 cm (less gap to get more production)
 Seed = 3 kg/acre (hybrid 1 kg/acre)
 Yield = 2-4 quintal/acre (hybrid = 9 quintal/acre)
 Weeding was done manyually by family labor
 Used fertilizer 18:18; Urea
 Weeding (nindan) was not done
 Procedure & practices: Periv, tifan, datari, sarayani perni
 Selling price = Rs.150/quintal (30 years ago, 1988)
-
Box 6.14: Black Gram

 Sown in November and December months

 Ripes/ready in 4 months
 R-R = 1-1.5 feet
 Seeds : 15 kg/acre
 Yield = 1-1½ quintal/acre
 Used fertilizer Urea
 Pesticides spray: twice
 Procedure & practices: Periv, Vakhrane, Tifanse
-

161
 Box 6.15 : Jawas (oilseeds)

 Sown in winter (October-November) around/before Diwali festival

 Ripes/ready in February-March month
 R-R gap = 1 foot
 P-P gap = 12-13 cm
 Seeds = 4-5 kg/acre
 Yield = 1-2 quintal/acre
 Rows were prepared with “naagar” (small iron plow)
 Cultivated for home consumption of oil (extracted from processing Jawas seeds)
 Oilcake of Jawas was used for bullocks as nutritious cattle feed
 Jawas cultivation has now been stopped gradually (15-20 years ago)

Devnala Village

Sample farmers in Devnala village were using the following practices of cultivation for
different crops, 25 years ago:

Box 6.16: Cotton (desi)

Note: Nanded (desi) seed variety continued to be sown in the village historically up to
year 2006 (when Bt seed was introduced). But few traditional farmers continued
sowing “desi” Nanded variety further up to 2017 (current year). However, currently
this “desi” variety started getting affected with insect, and requiring pesticides spray,
from 2016/ 2017 onwards (earlier spray was not needed in this variety).

 All farmers used “Chofuli” technique of sowing in square plots:

 R-R distance: 2½ feet

 P-P distance : 2½ feet
 Most common sub-plot: 2½ x 2½ feet
 Desi variety: Nanded; 1007; Yelar (purchased from KVK at Mitti-khera)
 Till 2003, desi cotton was profitable (sold @Rs.500-700/quintal)
 Deeds used: 5 kg/acre (own seed of farm household)
 Yield: 2-3 quintal/acre
 Output was sold in Yavatmal market (25 km): It was “monopsonist” (single
buyer’s market); payment to the cotton farmers was delayed
 Some farmers took output to adjoining Andhra Pradesh State in Adilabad market
(150 km) by truck, where they got higher price and immediate payment by cash
-

162
 Box 6.17: Toor

 Inter-crop with cotton

 Sown in June-end (after waiting for rain)
 Seeds : 2 kg/acre
 Yield : 1 quintal/acre
 Sowing method: On chofuli (square) plot; 4-5 seeds were thrown at one corner point
 6th, 7th or 8th row of square plot (in cotton field) was used for sowing toor seeds

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF):

Innovative Technique in Harankhuri Village

During field survey, the study team made visit to see a small plot of farm and collect data,
in sample village of Harankhuri which has adopted a new innovative “Zero Budget
Natural Farming” (ZBNF) technique, being popularized by “Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj
Foundation” (KJBF), an NGO in Samudrapur, Wardha district.

Salient features and parameters of farming in ZBNF technique, are presented as under:

Box 6.18

‘Zero Budget Natural Farming’in Harankhuri Village (2017-18)

Arjanrao Madhavrao Uike has started Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) of: (i)
Wheat (“bansi” variety) with intercropping of (ii) saunf; (iii) onion; (iv) garlic; (v)
pomegranate; (vi) palak; (vii) methi; and viii) drumstick. First time seeds are
purchased, then these are continued each year. Therefore, ZBNF presumes that while
market facilitates one time nuying of seeds, it (market) vanishes thereafter or has no
impact on farmers becoming dependent on market (like Monsanto’s patented Bt seeds
make farmers ruthlessly over-dependent on seeds).Currently in 2017-18, farmer is
taking 6-7 quintals wheat/acre from his 0.25 acre plot. This has potential to reach 20-
22 quintals/acre. He has prepared “Jiwamrut” liquid (2 drums) from cow urine and
dung as he has one cow on farm itself. Almost each farm household in the village has
cows; so everyone can use ZBNF technique. One cow is adequate for 30 acres land
cultivation with ZBNF technique. Jiwamrut is given by “drip” (irrigation) method.
Nandi Foundation (of Mahindra group) is promoting “drip” irrigation equipment.
Therefore, with the objective to achieve “zero budget” some initial capital investment is
necessary. Each crop combination in inter-cropping has a purpose. For example, honey
bees coming on coriander increase the yield of wheat by pollination. No other initial
cost (other than drip irrigation equipment and seeds) is required. With use of
household resources, farmer can do very low cost natural farming with ZBNF method.
He will not have to depend on money expenditure daily in every season.

163
Innovative Risk-taking Commercial Farmer in Dhondgaon neighboring
Village

During field survey, the study team also made visit to a neighboring village Dhondgaon
to meet one innovative farmer who is doing family farming on business lines, i.e. purely
commercial basis.

Information collected from innovative farmer is presented as under:

Box 6.19

Innovative Risk-taking Commercial Farmer in Dhondgaon Village

 This is a case study of ‘profit-loss-profit’ cycle of a risk-taking farmer.

 A farmer Bandu Thute (age 56 years) and educated up to matriculation has been
doing farming on pure commercial basis since 2008 on 12 acres owned land.
 Currently (2017-18) he is cultivating tomato (desi variety) on 3 acres land.
 He started tomato cultivation in 2014.
 Tomato is sown in July and it gives yield for 10 months (May, next year)
 Cultivating tomato in Vidarbha is a challenge in itself when reports of glut in the
market of tomato and farmers throwing their output on roads due to slump in price,
make news headlines now and then in the media.
 Farmer has made close study of market fluctuation of price and its seasonal trend.
He makes himself mentally prepared for potential loss due to fall in price and his
prior knowledge about monthly trade cycle of demand, supply and price.
 He supplies tamoto to 2 markets: Chandrapur and Umred
 Daily he supplies 100 boxes of 24 kg each (24 quintals)
 During slump, he sold tomato @Rs.30/box (Rs.1.25 kg)
 In May 2017, price was Rs.75/box (Rs.3.25 kg)
 During January (2018), price was Rs.250/box (cost of production Rs.150/box)
 Farmer is vigilant on pest/insecticide attack on tomato and protects his crop
 His tracking/study of tomato wholesale market clarified to him that:
o Price is at peak or good between 20 July and November (5 months)
o Price falls between December and June
 In 2016: Farmer earned profit of Rs.5 lakh from tomato (3 acres)
 In 2017: Farmer made loss of Rs.10 lakh (it appeared exaggerated though, and it was
discussed –farmer normally exaggerates loss and discounts profit)
 In 2014: farmer refused to reveal whether it was profit or loss.
 Between 2006 and 2013 he experimented with diversification: Farmer cultivated 3
acres cotton; 1 acre chana (black gram); 1 acre wheat; 2 acres soyabean; 1 acre Jute;
1 acres gawar (for industrial supply); and 3 acres banana.
 Farmer sold Jute in Selutaluka. There is government purchasing center; but he said
they did not buy his jute (possibly due to poor quality); so he left this crop.
 Farmer reportedly made high profit from banana cultivation only because it
required lot of family labor (or wage labor that was not available in this cotton belt).

164
 His sons were still young and he could not look after banana farm alone; he was
required to stay at mandi (market) and there was no one in the family to manage
the farm in his absence to the market. His brother is doing service of executive in
Mumbai (Cooperation Department); brother’s land is also managed and looked
after by him only.
 Farmer is flexible in his approach and receptive to different innovative ideas. The
idea of banana was given to him by his father and Jute by Agriculture Department.
Idea of tomato is his idea as he likes taking risk in new crops even as he made a prior
study of tomato market before taking up tomato cultivation in 2014.
 Farmer was taking bank loan from District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB)
Wardha, between Rs.50,000 to 2 lakh, but now bank is closed. Many farmers
reportedly could/ did not repay loan, and DCCB went into loss and was closed.
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies (PACS) were, as a result, closed;
nonetheless PACS could not sustain commercial farming with very small loans.
 Since 2014 (when he started tomato cultivation), farmer is covered under the
NABARD’s Umbrella Project on Natural Resource Management (UPNRM) as he has
benefitted by loan support of Rs.2.46 lakh.
 Farmers’ two sons are now (2018) grown up youths (29 years, 12th class educated;
and 27 years age, B.A. educated) and help him in the farm.
 Sons manage the family farm (production, plucking, hired labor aspects) and farmer
(head) himself looks after marketing aspect. Occasionally younger son also helps in
marketing (inputs, output, supply, transportation).
 Even pure commercial farming is not possible without family labor and family
support. That is the secret of success of commercial farming and family farms.
 Farmer spares money for village welfare activities also. He arranged drain pipes for
sanitation in streets. A temple was constructed by his monetary help. Now he has a
“dream” to set up a “community health center” type of healthcare service in village
(with minimum 5 beds medical center facility).
 Farmer’s other ideas for venturing into new crops are: Pomegranate and wadi of
vegetables. He also plans to install fencing with net & poles, to protect crops from
attack by wild animals. He is not deterred by predator markets or predator
animals.

165
 Chapter - 7
Farmers’ Perspectives on Problems of Agriculture

In this chapter, focus is on presenting farmers’ perspectives on problems of agriculture,

based on primary data, collected through field survey in two sample villages.

Farmers shared their perspectives on the following 22 problems in agriculture in

Harankhuri and Devnala sample villages:

1. “Exit” from Agriculture / “Persistence” in Cultivation: Mutual Tension

2. Adverse Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Becoming Visible
3. Animal Husbandry not yet “Supportive” Activity for Cash Income
4. Tug of War between Subsistence Farming and Commercial Farming
5. Absence of Culture of Household Processing Units/Industry
6. Lack of Skills for Handicrafts
7. Private Ownership: Unorganized Farmers and Uneconomic Farms
8. Preference to Individual-Independent Farms over Cooperatives/Collectivized
Companies
9. Proceeds of the “Marketable Surplus” in Service of “Family Subsistence” Philosophy
10. “Subsistence-based Food Security”in Conflict with and Under Threat from “Market-
based Food Security”
11. Cash-in-Hand and Money-Management
12. Reinforcement of Semi-/Subsistence Farming by Preference to Informal Sources vis-
à-vis Banks (for Loan & Repayment)
13. Absence of Real Freedom and Losing Control over Conditions
14. Mental Stress Overtakes Joy of Farming
15. Varied Access to “Nature”for Its Possession/Use as “Resource”and Its Impact
16. Lack of Effective Village Institutions and Real Empowered Community
17. Access to Government Agencies/Institutions(including Banks)
18. Yield Loss of Bt Cotton: ‘Pink Ball Worm’ Disease (“Bondani” Pest)
19. Marketing Problem
20. Indebtedness, Wine Addiction, Farmers’ Suicides
21. Shortage of Drinking Water for Human Consumption and Animals
22. Incomplete Construction of Village Pond for Irrigation: Solution Itself became
Problem Since 25 Years

1. “Exit” from Agriculture and “Persistence”: Mutual Tension

Land cultivation is perceived by farmers, notas a problem even as there are so many
obstaclesfaced by them. There was no question of “exit” from farming in the past, when
they carried-out this activity 20, or 30 or 60 years back (some respondents were 85 years
old) nor do they think about “exit”, currently in 2017-18. They laughed at any suggestion
of quitting the farming now or then when facilities were very poor during the past. They
put back a question to the study team: “what shall we do and eat to survive if we didn’t
cultivate land?” Elderly farmers opined that even if youths got educated and somehow
didn’t get job in service sector, they will be doing farming. They think more and more

166
about land cultivation, getting income out of farming activity, and adopting new
technology/practices such as “zero budget organic farming”. Farmers clearly expressed
that if “corporate farming” or outside companies ever make entry for “industrial farming”
(farming as industry or pure “agri-business”) then they or their youths would not be ready
to be wage-laborers of the company/corporate sector.To the new emerging
phenomenon/scenario of “social business” and “start-ups” in agriculture by city youths,
villagers asserted that their own youths were “better skilled” to do such “social business”
in agriculture than city youths. Notably, home skilling and training of youths in farming
activities in sample villages started from age 10 when they are in 5 th class in school;
children get daily exposure to the activities and affairs/issues of farming within the family
set up, on-field, in discussions/talk and other mechanisms like, joining father (the head
of household) to the field on bullock-cart, watching them conduct operations on the farm
(tilling, levelling, furrow-making, seeding, watering, supervision/monitoring,
fertilizers/pesticides spraying, weeding, harvesting/plucking, etc.). Even in dealing with
banking matters, acts of borrowing, money expenses and marketing related activities, the
children get skilled directly/indirectly, by virtue of their proximity with their parents even
as mother also contributes to the family farming operations and skilling of all children,
including girl child, in farming.

In these conditions of family farming where everyone in the family is involved in farm
related matters, land cultivation is going to be a “persistent” and continued activity in
spite of the obstacles, with no question of “exit” of next generation of farmers from the
concept of “family farm” –whether as a “business” or as “subsistence” – in near future.

There is another side to the feature of “persistence” (no “exit”). It concerns with mutual
tension between “exit” and “persistence”. Elderly heads do not want “exit”; youths in
family do not want “persistence”; at least no persistence without “freedom”. Hitherto,
there is coercion from family/family-head on youths to carry “family farming” as such
with subsistence approach; market/state pressure expects them to follow commercial
approach. In this tug of war, the question of “persistence” versus “exit” has created
mental stress for the village youths. Today’s “agrarian stress” is mostly because of
youth’s mental stress caused by opposition between “exit” and “persistence”. The reason
why elders/heads of households complain (e.g. in Harankhuri) that the village youths
consume liquor/wine unabashedly in front of elders, wander “freely” on motorcycle, and
are not obedient, or not keen listeners, etc. is because youths want freedom to take free
decision on occupation (exit versus persistence) and approach, in the exiting set up of
patriarchal family farming.

2. Adverse Impact of ‘Climate Change’ on Agriculture Becoming Visible

Timing of crop ripening has changed for almost all crops. It has got extended. Seeds are
not sprouting as per older schedules (of few years ago). Incidence of rainfall has come
down; precipitation is low; days of precipitation have come down. Where earlier there
used to be excess rainfall or even nallah flooding kind of situations, currently there are
drought like conditions immediately after monsoon as level of rainfall has decreased.
Around 30 years ago, it was possible to sow crops in 3-4 seasons. Soyabean was sown
coterminous with cotton (and toor intercropping) in June-July. Soyabean would be

167
harvested within 3 months, followed by wheat and black gram ready in 4 months. Moong
and Urad pulses got ready to be harvested in 3 months. In between, farmers could take
vegetables (in kharif/monsoon) or winter months as per availability of money to buy
inputs. Toor ripened in 5 months; and cotton harvested in 6 months –now it takes 6-9
months. Currently, this pattern has changed even as crop ripening and harvesting takes
more time than earlier. In Devnala village, farmers used to grow paddy 30 years ago since
sufficient rainwater was available; but currently low rainfall has obviated this possibility
of sowing paddy during monsoon season. Change in pattern of nature is noticed by the
farmers in recent years. Suitable mitigation and adaptation strategies are required, which
involve capital investment (e.g. drip/sprinkler micro irrigation), particularly when
objective of crop production is not yet pure commercial.

Most significant impact of climate change (low rainfall) has been on vegetable
cultivation. Earlier, 30 years ago, farmers used to grow 10-12 different vegetables on
very small plot of “kitchen garden” or “backyard vegetable farming”(“Wadi”) for
household consumption (and a small surplus was sold each week during the season).
Currently even that is not possible due to lack of irrigation water during/ post-rainy
season or in winter. Now they have to buy vegetables from market or weekly bazaar
(haat) spending up to Rs.300 per week, which is a big amount for them. Earlier (30 years
ago and until recently) they would grow vegetables like, tomato, palak, methi, bhindi,
brinjal, chilly, barbati, popat, moong, moth beans, gawar beans, etc. Now hardly one or
two farmers grow vegetables on one acre of land in entire village, which is negligible, and
is the direct adverse impact of climate change (low rainfall resulting in less irrigation
water) and change in crop ripening schedule/period. Climate change has led to exclusion
of vegetables from cropping pattern of farmers in sample villages, and their over-
dependence on market (weekly buying as compared to weekly selling earlier).

3. Animal Husbandry is not yet a “Supportive” Activity for Cash Income

Both sample villages have thousands of animals (cows, buffaloes, goats) and birds
(poultry) yet these cattle resources (pashu dhan) were reared only for family subsistence,
and not primarily for cash income. Farmers were willing to adopt these activities of
animal husbandry for commercial purpose but they faced problem of capital investment.
Poultry activity on commercial basis was perceived as risky due to diseases of birds and
absence of insurance facility for poultry birds. Farmers are not as much entrepreneurial
for diversification as would be required, for which the reason is their over-engagement
and occupation with scarcities of several kind as it doesn’t allow them free time and spare
family manpower for thinking about activities like, animal husbandry (AH). Limited
money resources at their disposal posed the problem of “commercialized diversification”
though “subsistence-based diversification” of activities and occupations was not much a
problem. Villagers were aware about the benefits of, what they termed, “supportive”
occupation of “commercialized dairy” for enhancing family income from agri-allied
activity but they could not take practical initiative because of scarcity of own money for
investment while bank loan was generally not accessible –farmers in village being
generally ineligible due to old defaults on bank loans and poor repayment attitude. Under
given circumstances, villagers were losing an opportunity to enhance their incomes from
dairy (or other related) activities even as Government of India has launched an ambitious

168
campaign of “doubling of farmers’ income by 2022” in the country, for which a significant
emphasis has been given to the animal husbandry activities, particularly household-based
commercial dairy. As such their meager capital-base forced the farmers to strictly choose
any one option as they seem to be divided between the competing objectives of farming
(land cultivation) and animal husbandry so far as the “commercialized” approach to their
family enterprise is concerned.

4. Tug of War between Subsistence Farming and Commercial Farming

Farmers in sample villages have been passing through a long, decades-old, phase of
virtual “tug of war” going on between “subsistence farming” (producing primarily for
family) and “commercial farming” (producing primarily for market). Although division of
crops in the existing cropping pattern separates “cash crops” (cotton, soyabean) from
“other crops” like “semi-commercial crops” (toor pulses, black-gram, oilseeds,
vegetables) and “subsistence crops” (wheat, jowar), farmers cultivate these diverse
categories of crops with same approach, i.e. subsistence-based farming approach. This is
the main reason behind lack of economic progress in agriculture of sample villages as
found elsewhere in the country.In the words of farmers, “we mix gharghuti kheti
(subsistence farming) with vyapari kheti (commercial farming).” This “mixed” approach
to farming creates confusion in the minds of farmers.

They are unable to separate the two systems of farming in their common approach
followedto undertake these distinct systems.Even “commercial” cultivation of cash crops
is done with same traditional “subsistence farming approach”: soil-testing is not
generally done; focus of operations is strictly practically not on enhancing yield (though
it’s desired in mind); right proportion/combination of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
is not used; and farm management practices are not adopted (accounting all costs and
benefits, daily monitoring/visiting of field in the morning and evening, maintaining good
loan repayment behavior, keeping good working relations with bank for loan-capital
availability, crop insurance, objective of maximizing profit/ sale/ marketable surplus,
minimizing costs, adoption of new/latest/cost-effective technologies, etc. is least
preferred).

This push and pull between subsistence and commercial farming systems does not seem
to end somewhere. In their attempt to go along with both the systems, they are unable to
maintain a balanced approach. Uni-directional polarization is also not possible as it could
further endanger their survival. If farmers choose to be pure subsistence-based then their
cash requirement for other household expenses is not met in the absence of
supplementary income generating activities including government/private job/service. If
farmers opt to go pure commercial, it is not only highly risky (price, production volatility)
but also not possible due to regular requirement of capital investment during each season,
which they can hardly afford. For balance, commercial approach is too difficult to adopt
for subsistence and commercial farming system; it implies, their commercial farming
system is not as per their free choice but imposed and necessitated by the conditions and
emerging coercive networks of market/policy. Rural life has increasingly become
integrated with and over-dependent on (national/ international) markets, cities/non-
farm sectors, intervention of institutions (including KVK, banks), state apparatus

169
(departments), industries sector (including supply for agro/food-processing industries),
supply chain intermediaries, and all sorts of forward and backward linkages (including
the chain of inputs suppliers) besides local dependencies within village in land lease
market for leasing-in land or even increasing requirement of borrowing money from
friends/fellow farmers who are relatively richer or bigger in terms of resources. Small
farmers’ subsistence objective faces lot of pressure from such diversified sources. Their
attempt to be partly-commercial does not lead them to be “independent”, “free” and
“autonomous” eventually although they imagine that they are “independent” and
“autonomous” by virtue of being “owner-operators”. Their “independence” of production
process is adversely affected by their ruthless over-dependence on markets, state and
institutions.Even for family “subsistence”, farmersare partly dependent on food supplies
of cheap rate ration store in village made under the Public Distribution System (PDS).

5. Absence of Culture of Household Processing Units/Industry

Despite sizeable marketable surplus produced in village, farmers have not yet understood
the “value” (importance) of their basic raw produce and enhance it further through “value
addition” by way of setting up small scale household industrial units. No sooner cotton,
toor pulses, soyabean, black gram, etc. crops are harvested, the farmers’ immediate
wish/objective or next action is to any how supply the produce to the market.

Farmers’ desperation to supply produce to the market immediately after harvest, is borne
out of his immediate requirement of cash. He has to incur household expenses
(consumption, education, treatment of disease, other medical expenses, social functions
like marriage, festival, repayment of informal loan, buy seeds and other inputs for next
crop season). Therefore, immediate cash-money requirement fulfilled by selling produce
prevents farmers to adopt processing activities at household level or through production
cooperatives or even high scale joint production based Farmers Producers’ Companies
having agro/food-processing an integral part of the company.

Culture, cultural values and mindset (approach) related factors matter a lot. Processing is
perceived as “headache” by the farmers in the existing arrangement/ecosystem. This
regressive culture is inherited by them from old traditions of “barter” (locally called
“devaan—khevaan” or “aavak—jaavak”) practices. A barter system was predominantly
based on exchange of raw goods/produce, whereby mechanical/chemical processing or
“value-addition” was least expected and done. They shall traditionally process produce in
household only and for household use. Family subsistence based farming shall have little
connection with commercialized processing of produce by the farmers. They do process
toor, black gram, oilseeds and soyabean for household consumption (e.g. making “besan”
floor from black-gram or extracting oil from oilseeds in whatever limited quantity as per
need), but commercial scale processing of raw produce has never been their objective in
traditional way of life. Such traditions and cultures have been carried further till today in
sample villages as elsewhere in most of the places (with few exceptions) which is a
national trend and pattern.

Farmers think that if raw produce faces such great difficulty in marketing and causes
losses due to price volatility, then processed and “value-added” production of there is

170
more likely to face still greater problems in selling and price realization in the market.
Such myths have continued in sample villages partly as reality and partly as pure myth.
Lack of entrepreneurship, lack of will power to make greater efforts involving hard work,
lack of attitude for own capital accumulation based on any income generating industrious
activity, and lack of awareness/guidance, are the continuing factors of absence of agro-
/food-processing in sample villages. Despite the fact that “cotton” is considered to be
“white gold” of the region (particularly Yavatmal district), the farmers in sample villages
have rarely evinced interest in coming forward to start entrepreneurial cotton processing-
based ginning units at small/household/ medium scale. So also, the same mindset
operates for processing and “value-addition” in respect of the other crops.

6. Lack of Skills for Handicrafts

In both the sample villages, there was general absence of skills for productive activities.
Except farming, villagers in all age groups did not know any skills or technical knowledge.
Though skill of digging dug well or open well was present to some extent as popular in
older society (40-50 years ago), it is waning as demand for this skill/activity has been
coming down with machine-based bore wells coming into vogue in recent years.
Moreover, due to hard surface and stony sub-surface layers, digging open wells is very
difficult and not very popular or in demand. A few villagers knew mason work and were
skilled/semi-skilled mason workers. Otherwise, there was general absence of skills for
artisan work, handicrafts and handloom works. Even carpenter was called from
neighboring village (4-5 km) in both the cases of sample villages, for making agricultural
inputs like wooden plough or other manual instruments like sickle, axe or “favra” or
“khurpa” or wheel of bullock cart. There was no person who knew yarn making or weaving
activity on handloom. Weaver’s skill is marked by absence. None of the communities
(including Teli, kunbi, tribals) had distinct skills other than the cultivation of land.
However, Kolam tribals knew how to make wine from Mahua flowers as they had been
doing this activity in their forests since beginning though stopped in village as illegal. As
there are a diverse kinds of raw material available (teak wood, stone, tendu leaves, cotton,
etc.) craftsmen like wood artisans, stone goods makers/craftsmen, yarn makers,
handloom weavers, power-loom operators, leaf plate makers, ‘biri’ makers, etc. could be
expected in sample villages. However, general lack of diversified skilling in villages (due
to over-dependence on farming activity) has not enabled the growth of diversified skilled
jobs or handicraft-development in sample villages.

Moreover, farmers in sample villages generally (with few exceptions) feel that learning
new skills (or old traditional skills, popular/practiced elsewhere) would have no
benefitting impact on their lives. They feel intimidated by the marketas selling is found to
be very difficult proposition by them. The problem of intoxicants and wine addiction has
been growing, which dissuades the youths for acquiring new skills in the non-farm sector
or service sector (or even within farming, adoption of new ways/ technologies like zero-
budget based organic farming which is labor-intensive and demands dedicated
entrepreneurial effort).

Growing popularity of agricultural wage-labor/casual labor (which require least skilled

involvement in work) among men, women, youths, including owner-operators, etc. has

171
also adversely affected the probability of youths acquiring any technical skills other than
farming. Since so many years (50-60 years ago or even before), villagers reported the fact
of many farmers doing agricultural wage labor (cotton fields, from sowing till
picking/plucking cotton) within the village on others’ fields or even going outside the
village. Farmers also used to go to the nearby village to work in “blast mine” (“Gitti
Khadan”) as wage-laborers. Or some of them became permanent farm servants
(“Saladar”, on lines of ‘Sewadar system in rural Punjab) for the whole year. In 1993, there
was drought due to very low rain fall. As there was no relief package or compensation to
the farmers, all youths found solution in finding wage-work in “blast mine” where they
would extract black stone which is used in road construction, and were issued “Work
Coupons” (“Food Coupons”) by exchanging which they could get either 5 kg food-grains
daily or Rs.4 to 5 per day. Such avenues of wage employment during adversity, almost
every year, ensured that youths shall keep reverting to wage-labor (in agriculture or blast
mine) but did not think of acquiring any technical skills. In sample villages, cotton
cultivation kept farmers busy for a greater part of the year, obviating the need for
acquiring new skills in non-farm sector activities.

7. Private Land Ownership: Unorganized Farmers, Uneconomic Farms

As a matter of “surface reality”, private ownership of land appears to be appealing.

However, in essence”, private land entitlementposes several problems, as a matter of
substantial reality at the operational level: (i) unorganized, separated, isolated, alienated,
individuated production processes; and (ii) uneconomical size of owned holding due to
partitioning/apportionment.

While private proprietorship of land has great appeal and attraction, no farming system
can afford to ignore dark side of ownership of land. In sample villages such lacunae of
land ownership were noticed in practice though Marxian theory originally pointed out
adverse social effects of private land ownership. The study team asked villagers whether
“village common land” aggregated by pooling all individual private holdings was
acceptable to them; all of them perceived that it won’t be acceptable to them. Farmers
preferred individual owned holdings.

(i). Unorganized, separated, isolated, alienated, individuated production

processes:- There are 50 land owning farmers in Harankhuri village, and 350 farmers
own agricultural land in Devnala village.

First, the farmers are unorganized economically. While they, as owner-operators, face the
outside world e.g. market functionaries, who are united, organized or institutionalized or
at least command greater strength, they (farmers) themselves are unorganized on
political/ economic/ social lines. As a result, bargaining power of negotiation between a
farmer (or farmers) on one side and institutions/ organizations/ state/ market
functionaries (traders) on the other side, is unequal. Unorganized farmers can hardly
expect that remunerative price shall be available to them or their produce shall face no
problem in selling at Minimum Support Price (MSP). In one sample village, unorganized
farmers faced problems even in getting a village pond completed in a span of 25 years
despite help promised by “Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti” (VJAS). Small farmers’ unity,

172
in all matters, particularly political and economic, is critical for their survival as merely
being “owners” does not help their cause. Hitherto these “owner” farmers do not have
an effective organized farmers’ forum. They are “owners”, but not yet organized.
Absence of organization weakens the farmers.

Second, farmers have separated production processes. Each farmer produces separately
as separated “owner-operator”. Each owner-operator has his own decision making,
sowing schedule, combination of fertilizer mix, quantum of pesticide-use, frequency of
watering (all depending on cash availability), harvesting schedule, buying agent/trader,
etc. although they have commonalities also. Such commonalities do not make farmers
integrated; rather they follow common practices in their separated capacity. If they were
having integrated production process, they would buy inputs collectively at cost-effective
rates; they would use inputs judiciously as per standard package of practices; and they
would optimize their production by minimizing unit costs.

Third, they feel alienated from the ecosystem from beginning, which in turn reinforces
their isolated existence and individualized mindset. Private ownership of land is the root
source of individual, social and natural alienation. Ownership/alienation implies
alienating from oneself, alienating from others (by monopoly right) and alienating from
nature (land cannot be owned for private us/control). Private ownership appears
as “chain” though farmers try to get rid of it by becoming wage-laborers (for
more than 6 months of the year). They want to get rid of encumbrance of
private ownership of agricultural land by being agricultural laborers in each
other’s cotton farms. Land entitlement makes farmers eligible for loan, but
loan for failed individual investment renders them defaulter, since he
virtually fails in farm activity to generate economic surplus.

Almost all farmers are defaulters of bank loan. Individual land ownership makes them
cut-off from ecosystem. No bank provides them loan. Kisan Credit Card (KCC) has not
yet been issued to any farmer-owner. Government development schemes have barely
reached them or fetching them optimum/sustainable gains except expectations and over-
dependence. Their problem of disease of pink ball worm (“bondani”) could not be solved
by state’s welfare/development agencies, including Agriculture Department (Gram
Sewak and Agriculture Assistant) and Krishi Vikas Kendra (KVK). Insurance agencies
are yet to reach them to cover beyond 40-50% farmers, and their coverage fluctuates each
year even as they feel claims are not settled.Farmers feel that agencies maintained
distance from them. Alienation was also felt as the agencies could not check the problem
of farmers’ suicides.Wine addiction and such problems made them further isolated, not
only from each other or community but also from state agencies. Mindset of being
individualized, monopolist, self-seeking, self-preserving andself-centered at the cost of
serving community/common good of all farmers (by detesting collective organization)
does not augur well for sample villages.

Keeping in view the individuated farmers’ condition in stress, village Devnala was
selected by State Government to appoint a resource person designated as “CM Fellow”
(Chief Minister’s Fellow) whose function was to act as a sort of Action Research Fellow
for 3 years in 2017; CM Fellow has completed first year as on date, of field stay. His

173
function is to understand the problem of the villagers while staying full time in village
itself, and try to resolve their day-to-day issues by coordinating and approaching various
departments so that problem of alienation and isolation of villagers from ecosystem could
be addressed. The study team brought the issue of incomplete village pond (lying as such
for the past 25 years) to the notice of CM Fellow and Sarpanch even as they assured
further action on this socio-political issue for the common good of entire village.

(ii). Uneconomical size of owned holding due to continuous partitioning/

apportionment:- Private ownership eventually leads to uneconomical size of the owned
holdings. Average size of owned holdings has declined during the past 30 years, which is
natural as owned area remains the same but number of farm households increase due to
the partitioning and apportionment of households. In Harnkhuri village, average size of
owned holding declined from 8.51 ha (30 years ago) to 6.34 ha (2017-18). Devnala village
witnessed average size of owned holding declining from 4.04 ha to 2.10 ha over the same
period. Therefore, in future, average size of owned holdings shall further decline, posing
a problem of uneconomical size of land holding, as a result of private ownership.
Average size of owned holding will become practically meaningless and useless.

8. Preference to Individual-Independent Farms over Cooperatives/

Collectivized Companies

Farmers revealed their preference for independent farms in place of

cooperative/collective farming company or joint farming unit. “Independence” and
“autonomy” of enterprise is the buzzword. It overlooks the fact that such “independence”
and “autonomy”, flowing from individualized farming, is not genuine or effective for
several reasons: (i) over-dependence on bank loan; (ii) over-dependence on government
support for compensation/ relief/ packages in adversity; (iii) over-dependence on
informal borrowing; (iv) over-dependence on monsoon/rains; and (v) over-dependence
on outside support from all institutions (agricultural extension, subsidies, etc.).

Farmers misconstrued and confused the concept of individual holdings and individual
farming with “independence”. They ignored that such “autonomy” needed to be
completed/holistic by genuine freedom that comes with association/cooperation on the
one hand and getting rid of over-dependencies on the other hand.

“We like individual independence”, was the response of individual farmers. They said they
were “not yet ready” for cooperative-associative form of farming, or for forming
producers’ company.

Their mindset is such that each of them thought that “other farmers” shall not adhere to
the “rules” of cooperation. So, it was “not possible” as yet to launch Farmers’ Producers
Organization (FPO) as it would encroach upon their “individual independence”. In fact,
individual farmers’ perspective highlighted a valid concern that in any form of
cooperative/collective organization of farmers, “employer-wage laborer” kind of relations
tend to emerge, which should not happen, or sometimes the constitution of
companies/organizations/cooperatives, is such that class-relations of “employer-
employees” are imposed from the very beginning. Farmers’ allusion towards adherence

174
of “rules” pointed to such dangers of emergence of the “ruler” and the “ruled” in the
cooperatives/collective organizations, which should be avoided, if individual farmers are
to be attracted towards cooperative/associative forms of agriculture in villages.

In these conditions, and with such individualized mindset, farmers over-emphasized the
importance of individualized farming by private owner-operatorship even as pooling of
efforts and resources, was virtually looked down upon. They ignored that in the existing
state of individual farming, farmers would be unable to take benefits of scaled-up farming
units and collectivization.

However, it gave a learning point that individual farmers’ education by way of changed
mindset is essential before launching collective-cooperative effort in agriculture.Without
changing mental set up, even adversities in ecosystem are not that powerful force to
induce farmers towards economic cooperation and association in any form. It was
reported that 40-50 years ago, after harvesting crops, when individual farmers (of
Harankhuri) had to go to the market on bullock carts for selling cotton and were required
to stay there for 7-10 days or even more (up to 30 days), in such adverse situation and in
that duration only, they would voluntarily/compulsively collectivize themselves
(socially) in these forms: (a) accompany/go-together to town (yet on individual bullock
carts), (b) return together to village (similarly on personal bullock cart), (c) stay together
in town/market-yard, arrange food together i.e. one person from each family in turn shall
go to village daily, collect and carry food from all other households, and return to market,
(d) keep each other’s safety, (e) arrange fodder/feed for bullocks together, and (f) sell
individually to a trader or deal with dealer/ commission-agent individually, but their
economic cooperation in the acts/processes of crop production and selling, was marked
by absence.

9. Proceeds from “Marketable Surplus” in Service of “Family

Subsistence” Philosophy

Farmers’ “marketable surplus” does not grow at such a speed as to outpace and serve
“family subsistence” needs satisfactorily; “marketable surplus”is under tremendous
pressure of “family” and “family needs”.

Farmers informed that they sold produce in the market “over and above”their “household
consumption” requirement. They asserted that family consumption of any produce was
their top most priority. When their philosophy of life is “family consumption”, then
proceeds of selling of “marketable surplus” also tend to be diverted
entirely/predominantly for “family subsistence”. It’s the “family subsistence” philosophy
that overrides the disposal of proceeds obtained from selling “marketable surplus”. It was
reported and observed that proceeds of selling “marketable surplus” were diverted
mainly/immediately/first towards household consumption needs of diverse kinds (which
loomed large over the head all the time). Even though individual farmers may have taken
a loan from bank and/or informal source like rich friend/ wealthy villager, their first
priority remains, habitually and customarily, to immediately divert cash obtained from
selling “marketable surplus” towards personal/ family consumption requirements:
Typically grocers (karyana merchants) and cloth merchants have first “right” on farmer’s

175
income, as next month’s delivery of goods (in case of grocery) or next bi-annual delivery
(of cloths) is expected only if previous month’s/season’s payment is made out of the
proceeds of “marketable surplus”. In this sense, the extent of “marketable surplus” varies
according to the household’s requirements of cash needed for market purchases of
grocery, cloths, expenses for school/college education, social functions, medical expenses,
etc. while investment in inputs for next crop season invariably comes into conflict each
season.

Marketable Surplus as “Money Spinner”: The following analysis is sample farmers’

version. The burden of trade-offs between family consumption of owned-farm food,
family consumption of purchased food (grocer’s supply), family consumption of non-
food items (diversified and increasing) and family investment in next crop season,
comes on one single source, i.e. “marketable surplus” of crop production. With crop
productivity stagnating and market prices fluctuating, the available “marketable
surplus” is invariably unable to sustain diverse household encumbrances and burden of
all expenditures and investments. By definition, “marketable surplus” falls in the realm
of “commerce” and it ought to be really the economic “surplus” i.e. genuinely “over and
above” the “household requirements”. But in actuality such “marketable surplus” and its
proceeds have to cater to the yawning deficits, scarcities, paucities and problems of the
farm household. And, “household requirements” in actuality transcend and go beyond
“mere subsistence” requirements of the old traditional era. This notion of “subsistence”
needs of family have expanded their sphere so large that there appears no end to it even
as car, motorcycle, cable TV, color TV, smartphone, electronic digital “Tab”, and many
other “electronic needs” have expanded the list of already expanding household needs.
Every sort of “false need” (as Hegel and Herbert Marcuse said) has been added to the
list of “family consumption” which adversely affects the functional health of “marketable
surplus”. As needs are expanding, a given limited volume of “marketable surplus” of
produce of farmer becomes source or means of “money spinner”: It spins
money/cash. Farmer households since the emergence of, what they termed “Harit
Kranti” (Green Revolution) 25 years ago (1991/1992), had unwittingly learned that
whatever “marketable surplus” of cotton or other crops (toor, soya) was available to
them (induced by market forces and state), it could be effectively utilized as the basis for
creation of some money and spinning more money from this base. If they took some
“advance” money from trader/ friend/ villager on the basis of expected cash crop
(“marketable surplus”), such “advance money” also became a part of their “money
spinning” technique”.87 Such “money spinner” perspective of the farmers on
“marketable surplus” eventually becomes the basis of their indebtedness.
Cotton, which is cultivated in the villages since 100 years, or even since 150 years in
Vidarbha region (introduced by the British Government of India), is prime source and
means through which “indebtedness” has been perpetuated. Cotton, cash, loan and
indebtednesss have a long common history.

87Such example of “money spinner” technique of farmers could be seen in Kashmir Division of J&K State,
where small apple orchard owners had taken “advance money” from more than one Pre-Harvest
contractors (PHCs) for same/given lot/ volume of expected apple produce. NABARD study on
marketing of apple, conducted in 2012-13, had highlighted and articulated this phenomenon.

176
 10. “Subsistence-based Food Security” in Conflict with and Under
Threat from “Market-based Food Security”

As explained earlier, the trade-off between subsistence farming and commercial farming
has been ongoing for long. Its impact is that individual farmers’ food security has come
under threat from commercialization of farming. Till date, farmers in sample villages (as
also in Vidarbha region) produced food grains (wheat, jowar), not for selling in market
to earn cash, but solely for family consumption. Even family consumption requirements
of food-grains were not fully met from subsistence -based farming; they (partly)
depended on the Public Distribution System (PDS). They expected/feared that in case in
near future the PDS based cheap price ration store facility (supplying 2 kg rice and 3 kg
wheat per person per month) were withdrawn (completely or replaced by cash transfer)
and they were (suppose) forced to buy food-grains from open market, then their food-
security for family would come into question/threat. They envisaged a scenario when
market-based food security could endanger their traditional family subsistence-based
food security, which they had practiced successfully since centuries, without prolonged
challenge or problem faced from nature (drought) or changing political set ups –before
and after the Independence.

Farmers felt perplexed. They were unable to decide whether to rely fully on family-
subsistence based food security or fully adopt cash crops based on commercial farming.
They perceived that the pressure of commercialization of agriculture (with whatever
diversified cropping pattern) on them was increasing and they were as yet not adept at
carrying food-grains cultivation partly/wholly for market with their existing predominant
approach of subsistence farming.

Under the recent scenario of great emphasis being given generally on twin dimensions,
viz., “income” and “market”, in popular/policy discourse, the farmers in sample villages
tended to presume that even food-grains cultivation by them has to be oriented
primarily to the needs of the market (as in states of Punjab, Haryana, etc.). This scenario
becomes a cause of concern for the farmers who are hitherto satisfied with the existing
traditional system of: (i) subsistence-based farming of food-grains with (ii) subsistence
approach. In the matter of “food security”, not only “subsistence farming” but also
“subsistence approach”, both are important for the farmers in sample villages.

Market-based food security of the farmers may pose threat from another corner, i.e.
global market. The combination of “commercial farming” (activity) and “commercial
approach”, is most likely to bring farmers in risky global market (not just domestic/
national market), marked by high fluctuations in prices of food-grains, which may
eventually impact these farmers’ food-grains production system. Not only income but
also family subsistence, shall be impacted adversely by such reliance on market-based
(global market based) production of any crop, including food-grains. “Market
approach” or “commercial approach”, since both are same (part of export and national
markets), are concomitant with rising indebtedness of farmers in the region (as
elsewhere), which is often ignored in economic literature. One-sided emphasis on
“market” (which implies sustained continuity of “capital” infusion/investment)
approach, with respect to “food-grains”, is expected to be threatening for the “food

177
security” of the already indebted farmers in sample villages. Not “food security”, but
endangered and unsustainable food-security, could be the outcome if “market based”
approach is adopted by the farmers to address food-grain needs for family.

11. Cash-in-Hand and Money-Management

Even British Government of India struggled with effecting “monetization” of rural

economy (farmers’ economy) before Independence, which was followed by Government
of India facing the same problem of lack of “monetization” long after the Independence,
as reported by NSSO surveys of 1950s and 1960s.88

Cash-money circulation and access, have been perennial problems of villages common in
India. While circulation/popularity of money as medium of transactions, by
reluctant/uninclined villagers, was the problem carried over during the early decades
after Independence, the problem in sample villages currently relates to the desired
access to cash based on earning/saving capacity (farmers desire cash but it is elusive
mostly).

Problems reported in sample villages highlighted problematic aspects of cash/money:

(i) cash-in-hand by control on cash-flow; and (ii) money management (by savings).

Cash-in-hand is an indispensable kind of cash need of the farmers.Normally, or most of

the times, farmers are seen without cash in hand (pocket), or without easy access to it,
as and when they need it.When they need it the most, they don’t have it.Moreover, the
inflow is invariably less than the outflow, or at the most they are equal (rarely). Thus
quantum of inflows and outflows of cash normally do not match. Frequencies of inflows
and outflows also do not match; however, quantum of inflows and savings are most
important (even if frequencies do not match) in order to run the farm household
smoothly. This is not happening.

(i). Farmers’ cash-needs are felt too often, varied, and increasing. In farming
operations, they needed cash money, for payment at different moments of buying/
hiring/ renting, for example: Ploughing field by tractor; seeds and chemical fertilizers
(first spray);wage-labor for sowing; chemical fertilizers (urea) and micro-nutrients after
sowing; buying pesticides (4-5 times); wage-labor for pesticides (4-5 times sprayed); wage
labor for plucking/harvesting (4-5 times); transportation of cotton to market (on tractor);
transportation of toor to market; transportation of soyabean to market; going bank/
town/ city (at least twice a month) for agriculture related tasks; carpenter for repair of
bullock cart;manual implements buying/repair (twice a year); visiting veterinary center
(3-4 km, at least after every two months); etc. In household needs, farmers have to arrange
cash-money, for payment for buying/ hiring/ visiting,at different times of: Grocery items
from city/town (4 times a month); stationary/book/ school items for children; school fee
of children (each month); buying school uniform for children; diseases and common

88See, “Money and Credit”, The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.2, 1994, eds. Dharma Kumar
& Tapan Raychaudhuri, p.764.

178
ailments (district/general hospital,at least once a year); TV dish; house/hut
construction/renovation/ expansion/ repair (once a year); repair of motorcycle (once a
month); petrol for motorcycle (4-5 times/month); recharge of mobile phone/ smartphone
(each week/month); celebration of festivals (3-4 times/year); attending marriage
function (at least once a year); death occasion in nearby villages (approximately once a
year); youth(s) visiting college/senior secondary school in town (daily need); visiting local
weekly bazaar/“haat” to buy vegetables (weekly); wine consumption (almost daily);
buying PDS ration from store (once a month); repayment of loan amount/interest
payment to the informal source (4-5 times/per year), etc.

Farmers’ inflows of cash from own income, are on the occasions of payments received: (a)
after selling cotton (twice a year); (b) after selling toor (once a year); (c) after selling
soyabean (once a year); (d) after selling a goat or two (once a year); (e) and after sellingox
(once in four years). There is almost no other occasion of receipt of cash, exceptloan (from
bank i.e. rare or friends) by the farmers.

(ii). Farmers’ weakness in “money-management” is depicted by their general

problem of “deficit budget” i.e. expenditure exceeding income, or outflows outweighing
and outpacing inflows, on regular basis. In nutshell, farmers are unable to save money
though they may be very good at producing and earning. Farmers’ cash-management is
the “Achilles Heel” of existence of farm households. Over 90-95% of the farmers have
bank account after JDY Scheme was implemented yet they do not have personal savings.
Only 5-10% farmers reported having bank savings of Rs.5000 to 10,000 each. It could be
that farmers keep some money or women farmers/women members of household make
little savings which is not revealed to the outsiders/ other villagers/ study team, yet by
observing their perennial problems of finance and money, it is obvious that farmers’
saving attitude is a problematic proposition for their farming, particularly in the current
scenario of capital-intensive agriculture. In each of the sample villages, 2 SHGs of men
have been established but it may take some years to inculcate in them some discipline of
money matters. There are 4 SHGs of women in one sample village (Harankhuri) and 20
women SHGs in second sample village (Devnala); however, their money saving habits
and scale of savings, are yet to pick up the level desired to match their investment needs
in family farming.Individual farmers’ greater problem is related to savings, not income.

(iii). Farmers’ “excess money”, if any or if unreported, is channeled into buying gold,
as gold investment is thought as safe avenue to cope with adversity. Almost all or many
farm households buy whatever quantity of gold, which has dual purpose: ornaments for
household women and its potential role of coping mechanism in fighting adversity.

12. Reinforcement of Semi-/Subsistence Farming by Preference to

Informal Sources vis-à-vis Banks (for Loan & Repayment)

For dealing on matters related to the external source of finance, farmers give first
preference to the informal sources (friends/ fellow farmers/ villagers/ retail merchants)
as compared to the banks, both with respect to loan (borrowing) as well as repayment of
loan. The only exceptional case of farmers preferring bank loan arises when they expected
state “loan waiver scheme”, after natural calamity/ drought/ drastic fall (complete loss)

179
in production due to crop disease, etc. The adverse/regressive (or neutral) impact of the
farmers’ borrowing behavior (inclined relatively more towards informal sources) is
manifested in the strengthening and reinforcement of subsistence/semi-subsistence
farming system in sample villages (as seen elsewhere in the country).

Reasons for the farmers’ greater affinity to the informal sources of lending, were
observed as under: (i) compatibility; (ii) customary/necessary tradition; and (iii)
limited number of instances/repetitions of government’s loan waiver schemes.

(i) The production system of farmersis subsistence-based (or semi-subsistence based)

characterized by Karl Marx as “simple reproduction schema”, which is perfectly
compatible with and suited to the money-lending system of the informal sources
(primarily local moneylenders, though currently professional money lenders have
been replaced by casual/unprofessional lenders like, friends/ rich fellow farmers/
wealthy villagers/ retail shopkeepers/ traders, etc.). In the farmers’ production
system of “simple reproduction schema” (or subsistence farming), economic
surplus (or surplus produce for market), is just sufficient to cover their production
costs, with little/ negligible/nonet profit, so that farmers’ ruthless over-
dependence on the informal sources of lending, retains its continuity during next
season and next year and so on. Such subsistence production system very well suits
the operators of informal sources of finance (and their objective of existence) in
villages, and has been popular for hundreds of years in the region; so its popularity
in sample villages is self-evident and obvious. Farmers (in need of money for ever)
and moneylenders or other informal sources (ready to supply money for ever)
continue to maintain their systems of production and lending, respectively,
“compatible” to each other. This is the secret of existence of informal sources of
finance in villages (including sample villages).

(ii) Moneylenders and other informal sources of finance, have traditionally operated
in sample villages, as a matter of customary practice since inception (when these
villages came into being). One or two moneylenders and/or some upper caste
Brahmin landlord (who owned hundreds of acres of land and wealth) always
existed in villages though this custom/necessity has gradually faded down in some
villages but their place was filled by other such informal sources (as in Harankhuri
village while other sample village Devnala still has one moneylender). Villagers in
general and farmers in particular always wish to maintain this borrower-lender
relationship intact for the posterity as a reminder of the historical fact that such
informal economic relations were the foundation of old society (economy) based
on local informal finance. Moreover, informal sources have special features of
flexible terms of lending (variable amounts –petty or big, variable period of loan,
variable interest rate, variable extension of period, easy renewal, no aim of
permanent land alienation by confiscation, automatic continuity through
generations, mutual dependence and felt need, any-time loaning, personal
monitoring of loan by lender, personal relationship based on loan relation, overall
patriarchal protection by lender, etc.), which cannot be similarly matched by the
formal banking institutions.

180
(iii) After enjoying one or two “tranches” or instances of “loan waiver scheme” of the
government, farmers expected next “loan waiver scheme” in near future. Common
logic would have suggested that after getting one or two benefits of such schemes,
or lured by further continuation of “loan waiver schemes”, farmers shall be
attracted towards institutional sources of finance (banks) and make a beeline in
front of their branches. However, both farmers and banks equally understand that
such repetitive loan waiver schemes cannot be the normal reality. They have
started understanding that while informal sources of lending are most likely to stay
and be a reliable consistent source of money with flexible terms of lending, the
institutional sources of finance (banks) shall not be there for always providing
them subsidized credit or waiver benefits too often. With this informed
understanding of the future reality, fewer farmers in sample villages (in smaller
number) are actually attracted to the banks to establish a long-term relationship
of banking with them. Moreover due to their past defaulter behavior (since 7-10
years) has led bank branches not to issue any Kisan Credit Card (KCC) to the
farmers. Very few farmers (negligible) get the benefit of Interest Subvention
Scheme (ISS) on crop loans of banks; still lesser number of farmers expected “loan
waiver schemes” in future as they do understand that such waivers are very difficult
to be repeated for reasons which may or may not be fully known to them or
understood by them. In these circumstances, farmers actually, repelled by
unsustainable future loan waiver schemes, tend to be with informal sources of
lending in sample villages. “No one says I don’t need loan waiver and everyone
expects it, but ground reality defies such sentiments and expectations”, exclaimed
farmers in sample villages. “Since repayment of loan is imperative, why not better
borrow from friends/informal lenders than banks?”, quipped farmers.

A visible impact of the above kind of borrowing behavior (inclined towards informal
sources of lending) has been the continued presence of subsistence/semi-subsistence
farming system in sample villages. Informal lending system has reinforced and
strengthened the persistence of subsistence farming, at least with regard to food-grains
production. Even cash crops are currently cultivated with subsistence approach
(mindset) though money is the objective, which seems paradoxical. This paradox/
peculiarity, of cash crops cultivated for commercial farming by following subsistence
approach, may be explained by farmers’ long history of (centuries old) practices of
cultivating land based on family subsistence approach. Farmers were born in an
ecosystem of subsistence and wish to continue as such. For them capital and investment
in agriculture (whether borrowed from informal source or bank) has to follow the rule
of “subsistence first”; it comes into conflict with the state/banks’ perspective of “market
first”. Informal source has vested/historical/narrow interest in perpetuating
subsistence approach to farming with a mindset of family subsistence.

13. Absence of Real Freedom and Lost Control on Objective Conditions

Farmers in sample villages gave conflicting perspectives on the issues of experiencing

real freedom and exercising control over conditions by them within the ecosystem of
private property in land. Freedom of individuality turns out to be, not genuine or true,
but myth.

181
In appearance, individual farmers felt that private ownership of agricultural land provides
them freedom as a monopolist owner-operator. Individualism is freedom for farmers. No
“autonomous” farmer thinks or chooses to intervene, ask, share, exchange, question,
doubt or be one/united with other farmers during the process of agricultural production,
starting from plowing, sowing and up to marketing of produce. Each farmer owns,
operates and struggles like “Robinson Crusoe” on a secluded island of private land in the
sea of agriculture. When the sea of agriculture is in turbulence and caught in prolonged
crisis, then individual farmers fail to find solution to the problem of turbulence of this sea
of agriculture, since each of them serves one’s individual interest in the inputs market, in
the output market and during the production process. Each individual owner-monopolist
farmer has to find individual solution to a larger problem that has engulfed the entire sea
of agriculture. In crisis, an autonomous farmer’s freedom is lost; one’s over-dependency
encroaches and makes onslaught on one’s individual freedom. Freedom appears myth,
not reality, during the crisis. Farmer loses reasonable minimum desired control over the
situation and conditions of the ecosystem. Individual owner-operator finds himself in a
situation when it becomes imperative as he feels bound to listen to all the entities,
agencies, rules, guidelines, policies, and above all market, sermonizing individual farmers
on perils of private individual operations (not ownership) and “economic benefits” of
collectivization in the form of producers’ “company” constituted by farmers under state
guidance and carried with banks’ finance “support”.

The question arises why farmers’ individual freedom suddenly starts appearing to them
problematic? A clue to the answer lies in understanding current practices and mode of
development of agriculture by individual owner-operator farmers:

Institutional Chain: A small owner-operator, sometimes on almost daily basis, has to

deal with the following long chain of entities (perceived as exotic/ alien/
unapproachable/ encumbrance/ scarce/ constraint), which often impact the farmer’s
agricultural production system due to his mechanical over-dependence
within ecosystem, characterized by paid or free services (irrespective of type of role
performed – positive, negative, neutral/sterile/negligible/valuable – by these 61
entities):

1. Tractor-owner (hired) who plows his field

2. Irrigation water supplier (owner of open well) in nearby village
3. Drinking water supplier (nearby village) for his cattle
4. Village youth hired for cattle grazing
5. Wage-laborers for agricultural operations (sowing, plucking/harvesting)
6. Hired tractor-based haramba thresher service,from outside of village
7. Sarpanch (Head Gram Panchayat, GP), Deputy Sarpanch for many works
8. Patwari (Village Record-keeper Office)
9. Revenue Department for crop-yield estimation (‘annawari’)/relief/compensation
10. Ration store for cheap price food-grains supply (under PDS)
11. Food Supplies Department for issuing new ration card
12. Mobile tower operator telecom company (dysfunctional/absent)
13. Forest Department for using pasture/ control over threat of wild animals

182
14. Action Research Fellow (CM Fellow) staying in village
15. Private seedstrader
16. Private pesticides dealer
17. Private/other pesticides company (Polise/ Gayatri-Perfect/ Lancer-Gold): for on-
farm demonstration on pesticide-use
18. Private fertilizers trader
19. Private commission agent in agricultural market
20. Private wholesaler in agricultural market
21. Regulated Market Committee (APMC) for stay in market-yard during visit
22. Private informal sources of lending in village (friend, landlord, big land owner)
23. Professional moneylender in village
24. NGO-KJBF: guidance on ‘zero budget organic farming’/ Producers’ Company
(PC)/ solar irrigation pump set
25. NGO for STs (Pandarkoda Adivasi Vikas Mahamandal) for training
26. Krishi Vikas Kendra (KVK) for pink ball worm disease of cotton
27. Private transporter/tractor-trolley owner for transporting cotton to market
28. Commercial bank branch credit service
29. Cooperative Bank (DCCB) credit service
30. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS)
31. Insurance company/ weather station under WBCIS for crop insurance
32. Irrigation Department for constructing village pond
33. Agriculture Dept. :pink ball-worm disease/ATMA training-exposure/ soil testing
34. Gram Sevak/ Agriculture Assistant (Agriculture Department) –monthly visit
35. Public Health Engineering Department for safe drinking water
36. Peon of GP for piped water supply scheme (bleaching powder; motor on-off)
37. Ruikar Trust for agricultural land allocation
38. DRDC for SHG activities
39. Village ‘Volunteer’ for identifying BPL households for SHG membership
40. Members of Gram Sabha (GS) for issues in GS meeting held in other village
41. Rural Development Department for assistance under “PM Awas Yojna”
42. Court and lawyers for higher compensation on land acquired for village pond
43. Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (Vidarbha People’s Revolutionary Committee)
44. Reliance Foundation (under ‘Village Social Transformation Foundation’) for PC
45. Veterinary center (3-4 km) for cattle disease/ailment
46. Primary Health Center for farmers’ medical and health care that affects agriculture
47. Aanganwari Center for children’s mid-day meal scheme in village
48. Carpenter-ironsmith (from nearby village for plows and manual implements)
49. Land lessor who leases-out agricultural land in village
50. Supplier of agro-machinery (DG set, electric motor)
51. Electricity Department for power connection to electric pump setin farms
52. Skilled mason workers for digging open well in farm land
53. Skilled workers/contractors for digging bore well in farm land
54. Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University –State Agricultural University
(SAU) for free distribution of “Krishi Samvadini” book on standard agricultural
crop practices (SPOP)
55. Progressive/Agriculture Graduate Farmer: for demonstration on “chofuli” method
of cotton sowing, Bt cotton adoption, pesticides spray method

183
 56. Agriculture Exhibitions/Fairs in city organized by district administration as source
of learning new techniques in farming/ dairy (Pashu Samvardhan)
57. Bank giving specific Jan Dhan Yojna (JDY) Service
58. Petrol pump service of fuel supply for agriculture
59. Tractor/vehicle repairing service station benefitting agriculture
60. Political class/elected representatives: basic facilities, infrastructure, other issues
61. Other agencies/departments (not included above) implementing schemes or
acting as service providers

A farmer’s real freedom is lost by way of over-dependence on long chain of 61 entities/

agencies/ suppliers/ service-providers (listed above), which are meant for
providing comprehensive/holistic support to the agriculture –often without optimal
outcomes. Over-dependence is maximum and outcomes are minimum. Over-
dependence on monsoon rainfall is as yet not included in the above list of dependencies
(since nature is not part of the institutional socio-economic/political system) though
dependency on nature (particularly timely and adequate rainfall) is supreme. Over-
dependence on modern “supply-chain” service-providers is also as yet not included
under the current state of semi-subsistence agriculture, since such modern “chain” of
supplies is not involved in the agriculture of sample villages. Conditions and entities of
ecosystem exercise a complete control over farmer’s farm operations yet same farmer
is not enabled to have at least some minimum desired control over his surrounding
conditions.

14. Mental Stress Overtakes Joy of Farming

Operating within an ecosystem of such a long chain of at least 61 agencies/entities, to

undertake his agricultural operations, a farmer is bound to feel mental stress in
farming.

Study team discussed with the farmers, “whether they felt joy in farming”. A common
reply suggested that though joy was there, mental stress also accompanied it. So, it was a
case of “stressful joy” (joy tapered by stress) and “joyous stress” (mental stress tolerated
joyously). At one moment they experience joy yet next moment they become stressful.
Feeling of joy and mental stress keep recurring throughout the day/week in repeated
cycles concurrent with feeling of trade cycles of commercial agriculture. No other element
gives them as much mental stress as social necessity of commercial approach to farming.

Mental stress affected young farmers more as compared to elderly farmers. Within
youths, landless tenant farmers were more at the risk of mental stress as compared to the
stress felt by owner-operators. Owner-operators mostly lived in the illusion of joy of land
ownership until mental stress outweighed this joy of land title. Young tenant farmers were
often perturbed by thoughts of arranging money for rent of land (though small), crop loss
due to disease of cotton, loss caused by the intruding wild animals from adjoining forest
(neel gai, pig, deer, etc.). Young tenant farmers did farming casually and not as regular
perennial activity (they took gaps); still they felt that if it was imperativeto live with the
list of 61 agencies as over-determinants of farming activity, then such over-dependence
to cultivate small land, was beyond comprehension to them.

184
In general, mental stress on farmers evolved in the following conditions of ecosystem:

1. Social necessity to cope with listed 61 agencies/service-providers, individually

2. Pressure of “commercial farming” to generate profit and income
3. Feeling isolated in “autonomy” and privacy of “private” landed property
4. Tug of war continued between “subsistence approach” and “commercial approach”
5. Small yet common causes of stress:
a. Untimely rain e.g. at the time of ripe crop (especially cotton)
b. Poor rainfall during monsoon
c. Deterioration in quality of crop due to e.g. late harvest of soyabean
d. Diseases outbreak, e.g. pink ball worm (“bondadi”) of cotton in 2017
e. Lack of access to routine inputs and facilities on continued basis

In one sample village (Harankhuri) farmers felt less mental stress yet in second sample
village (Devnala), the farmers experienced extreme mental stress, which even drove them
to suicide (10 farmers committed suicide during the past 1½ years till January 2018).

Farmers expressed practical helplessness; they were not using any coping mechanisms to
mitigate mental stress and deal with its adverse impacts. They expressed that no one could
control nature (rainfall). Further, control over human ecosystem was also felt to be
minimum/negligible by the individual farmers.

To break persistent absence of control on nature (rain), farmers could think of Water
Harvesting Structure (WHSs), like ponds of different size that could be constructed at
village level to store water. To break consistent lack of control over human ecosystem,
farmers could think of association and collectivization of individual farmers (according
to them “self-centered” and “self-stressed” attitude caused mental stress).

15. Access to “Nature” for Possession/Use as “Resource” and Its Impact

In any case, farmers’ normal labor activity of “agriculture” presupposes his full access to
objective nature –nature as objective reality accessible to him.Farmer could always use
nature as his “object” for labor directly –without intermediation of “ownership” or
without taking nature to be first appropriated as (economic) “resource” before working
on it. That state existed in primitive society.

It may be relevant to mention that regime of “private ownership” of land emerged in India
around the year 1900 when British Government of India introduced private property
rights in agricultural land. Wide-scale commerce in agriculture was the subsequent
development; even land became “commodity” for trade and sale-purchase by private
owners.

Such a regime of appropriating and “owning” nature as “resource”,though not very old
(117 years old) in India, has become an obsession with the farmers in sample villages. In
the existing framework of capitalism and a paradigm of private property characterizing
this ecosystem, nature has been converted into a “resource” for private appropriation/

185
possession/ use. Nature is accessed by him as “resource” i.e. available for possession,
appropriation and ownership. This state exists in sample villages in current year (2018).

State is the ultimate protector of “resources” of nature (land, forest and water) used by
whosoever. In 2017-18, in sample villages, the farmer’s “object” of labor i.e. nature, is no
longer “object” but appears as (economic) “resource”, accessed and appropriated
indirectly through varied forms of ownerships, described as under:

Sr. Nature’s Objects Legal Appropriation Direct Use/

No. Ownership Indirect Use

1 Agricultural land Private individuals Private individuals Indirect

2 Forest land State State Indirect

3 Pasture land State Private individuals Indirect

(free “gairan” forest)

4 Common land - - -
(village shamlat)

5 Rainy nallah water State Flows down wasted

6 Monsoon rain Nil Private individuals Direct

& State
7 Solar light/heat, wind, Nil Private individuals Direct
humidity and entire & State
climate

Indirect use => Intermediated by “ownership” (in any form –state or private)
(-) implies not applicable as non-existent as resource

Agricultural Land: The regime of private property in agricultural land, owned by

individual farmers, is concurrent and concomitant with, the following problematic and
disquieting observations on farm-households, in sample villages, as facts:

(i) Obsession with private entitlement (land fetishism)89

(ii) General dislike/apathy for overall cooperation/ association/ collectivization
(iii) Over-dependence on village moneylender and informal sources of lending
(iv) Lesser dependence on bank’s credit
(v) Subsistence/semi-subsistence farming (by individual choice)
(vi) Subsistence approach/ subsistence objectives
(vii) Commercial farming (by policy/politics)
(viii) Tug of war continued between subsistence farming and commercial farming
(ix) Mental stress, “estrangement” of mind, and schizophrenic condition (in
conflicts and contradictions)

89Sociologist Daniel Thorner in 1960s in Indian context, called it farmers “clinging to land”. Following
Karl Marx, hitherto it is characterized as land fetishism (on lines of his concept of “commodity fetishism”
described in Capital vol.1). A fetish, in anything, is something imagined to have godly, miraculous,
mystical powers to ameliorate one’s problematic condition.

186
 (x) Wine addiction90
(xi) Youths’ addiction with idleness, loitering, gossips, playing children’s games
(ludo, snake & ladder, “chosar” type game) whole day
(xii) Indebtedness
(xiii) Exclusion, isolation, alienation (connect with state/private ownership concept)
(xiv) Lack of self-confidence, lack of free thinking, lack of control on
objective/external conditions
(xv) Suicides

The ecosystem around agricultural land in both sample villages, is woven and
characterized by individualization, separation, confidentiality, secrecy, privacy,
private entitlements, privation, deprivation, independence, autonomy, exclusion and
alienation. The ecosystem is in supervision and legitimate control of all state
departments concerned with rural and agricultural development. For almost each and
every matter on agriculture, farmers when not looking towards the sky for “god’s
intervention in clouds and rains, look towards state departments for state intervention.
If rain gods are annoyed then state authorities are expected to confer relief and
compensation. Each and every aspect of farmers’ agricultural life is socially dependent
on the ecosystem where state has predominant presence. Farmers are happy to be
monopolists of land (landless “Kolam” tribal farmers envy them) but beyond this
monopoly they have no real power, true freedom or effective voice in the ecosystem. As
a result, the same ecosystem of which these individual owner-operator farmers are a
part, appears to them as exotic, external and alien. Their idleness implies they are
inclined to go away from nature (land) for agricultural activity though rhetoric and
assertion suggests they do not want to exit from agriculture. Their roaming free and
loitering on street corners and gossip sessions implies they are no longer interested in
crop seasons. Their “land fetishism” and subsistence farming implies they feel insecure
about physical “survival”of family while going into the future. They are least interested
in “progress” as adoption of commercial farming continues to face tug of war and stress
from subsistence farming approach. The result is mental stress. Amid conditions of
private property, their minds have also become sort of privatized and fail to see the
necessity of association/cooperation with other farmers who are similarly the victims
of private mentality and estranged minds developed under private ownership regime of
agricultural land. Private agricultural land rights under legitimate protection of state
create an impression that state apparatus/departments shall offer them strategies for
freedom and emancipation from scarcities/deprivation/poverty, but it turns out to be a
mythical perception formed under their monopoly of land-fetishism.

Forest Land: The hundreds of hectares of forest land is in private ownership of state.
On this land, one sample village (Devnala) has right to enter and manage its protection
from loss, etc. (by Forest Protection Committee, FPC of village) while in second sample
village (Harankhuri) there is no such arrangement of FPC. However, effective protection
and management of forest resources is not in the hands of villagers/FPC in none of the
sample villages. A small limited portion of the forest land is accessed by the villagers as

90 Loan addiction, loan-waiver addiction and wine addiction seem to go together

187
“gairan” (grazing land for cows as pasture land) free of fee/charges in both the sample
villages. It was reported that this system existed in all villages in the region/state.

The question is whether forest land is put to optimum use as state ownership? The
economic inquiry on this question suggested that due to poor management of
forest/forest land, a potential source of substantial revenue, has been squandered without
any social benefit to the villages/communities concerned. Teak/Sangwan trees planted
in forests or tendu leaves or grass could generate greater income by better usage by the
community concerned in both sample villages. Fire breaks out yet it goes uncontrolled.
New plantation with greater density of tree cover could be achieved but it does not
happen. Forest Department has limitation in management and local villagers have
apathetic interest or no effective free will to manage it directly. “Ownership” appears to
be an issue in itself, as per the observation of study team based on discussion with
villagers; if state forest department as “owner” of forest could be envisaged to pay a sort
of fee/ tax on ownership of land under forest, then such pressure of tax could induce the
department make its optimum use in any manner socially beneficial to the community.
In absence of such incentive (land tax as incentive) forest land is not hitherto utilized
optimally for any productive use as may be perceived by community in both sample
villages. For example, in Devnala village, farmers suggested that “Neelgiri” trees could be
planted in forest plantation. It’s a medical use plant, ignored both by the Forest
Department as also villagers. The village is 150 years old. They perceived that since 150
years, potential benefits of “Neelgiri” plantations in forest have been lost. Similarly, a
village pond (50 acres size) around the flowing rainy ‘nallah’, situated partly on forest
land and partly on Irrigation Department’s land (purchased from villagers in Devnala),
is still incomplete since the past 25 years! A norm/rule in vogue of the productive use of
all lands (including forest land) could have induced timely completion of this village pond.
With the introduction of annual land value tax (LVT) applicable to all lands including
forest land, based on new proposed policy/Act that may be introduced by State
Government, such innovative measures could be implemented at the earliest without
further loss of time. Community empowerment in this connection could be of maximum
benefit even as LVT on forest land could be managed/controlled by local community/ GS/
GP for local financial autonomy and financial decentralization. Forest Department, as
owner of forest land, could pay the new proposed LVT on implicit market/money value of
forest land, each year to the community (GS/ GP) of the village concerned. If tax is paid,
productive use becomes incumbent. The absence of proposed (mandatory) LVT causes
sub-optimal use or underutilization of forest land.

Pasture Land: Around 10-15 hectares of forest land in lower portions of forest is allowed
by the Forest Department to each of the sample villages, for use as pasture land where
farmers could bring their animals for grazing, free of fee/charges. Despite thrust on
commercialization of farming, commercial use of forest land is somehow not encouraged.

Farmers, in each of the two sample villages, have over one thousand animals. They use
pasture land free of cost/fee payment to the Forest Department. Whatever grass or leaves
or bushes are available for animals (cow, buffalo, ox, goats), villagers are content with that
quantity since their objective of animal rearing is not purely commercial.

188
Moreover, practically villagers overlooked intrusion and sneaking-in of animals in
higher/denser reaches of the forest lying above pasture, for their grazing. Since “owner”
of forest i.e. Forest Department may not be able to monitor it, villagers continue with the
malpractice year after year, which often causes damage to the forest property/
plantations/ land (may be due to overgrazing, landslides, land cutting in rains, etc.). If
community/village owned this forest land, better land use could be expected, or within
the given framework of Forest Department owning forest land the new proposed system
of LVT on forest land, may induce somewhat better/optimum use of pasture land, which
is not happening.

Rainy ‘Nallah’ Water: As usual rainy nallahs flow on state land (forest land, fellow
land). In sample villages also, there are one or two rainy nallahs. However, their water is
hardly used for irrigation or storage purpose in optimal way. Almost entire water flows
down untapped in to the far flung river or wasted without usage in the villages concerned.
This fact was particularly more pertinent in Devnala village.In this village, farmers could
not succeed in getting the authorities in Irrigation Department complete village pond of
50 acres on both sides of this nallah in a span of past 25 years. Ideally, such water flowing
in nallah is owned by State Government. From this perspective, rain water flowing in
nallahis wastage of water by State Government even as the precious resource is allowed
to be flowed down without tapping its usage, which is estimated to benefit the entire
requirements of the village, i.e. irrigation, safe drinking water (after treatment) for human
consumption (350 households) and drinking water for more than 1600 animals. While
the village is ruthlessly over-dependent on nearby villages for its drinking water
requirements for 3 months (after monsoon season), its own rain water flowing through
nallah goes down as waste.

Keeping in view the availability of water resource (nallah) and available fellow/forest land
of State Government in village, the authorities concerned in Irrigation Department and
Public Health department, could have constructeda number of village ponds (say, 10-15
number of ponds) of different size, for use in different purposes. This initiative could have
resolved water shortage problem of village forever. Even low annual rainfall (as in 2017)
went filling nallah and its surrounding “valley” (20-25 m deep pond/low-lying area)
which went wasted after flowing down.

It shows that state ownership of any natural resource (water) is not a guarantee for its
optimum use in the interest of the community/village concerned. This problem of non-
utilization/ under-utilization/ sub-optimal usage of nallah water has two implications:

(i) Transfer state ownership/control of rainy nallah and surrounding land to the local
community/village, for better use; or
(ii) Levy new proposed annual Land Value Tax (LVT) on value of state’s owned land,
i.e. nallah and surrounding land, by enacting a law to this effect, for better use.

Measures at (i) and (ii) proposed above embody certain constraints in connection with
regimes of “ownership” and “land tax”, respectively, which needed to be resolved
through political will/policy reform.

189
Rain and Climate: Though space is normally a part of land surface/geography, private
property rights on weather and climatic conditions (rain, solar light, solar heat, humidity,
wind, etc.), are not yet specifically attributed to any entity for ownership anywhere in the
country, including sample villages. Even though open land surface/area is divided and
subject to different parcels of land falling in private ownership, space is/cannot be divided
in similar manner. For example, rainfall is a common resource. Similarly, solar light, solar
heat/temperature, humidity and wind are common resources. All these common
resources may be termed as, or what is popularly called, “public goods” and “public
services”. These are community assets. Community is the first/direct custodian of nature
i.e. its first stakeholder even as community people directly use it for life enhancement,
continuity and survival.

As such, no private/state/community form of ownership of rain and climate (solar light/

heat, humidity, wind) existed in sample villages. Having no ownership/ entitlement right
in any object, is not a problem; having ownership/entitlement often is.

Public goods of nature: (i) may be owned by state, (ii) may be owned by private individuals
(rights conferred by state), or (iii) may not be owned by any entity. Some goods of nature
or public goods can come in purview of international commons (sea waters beyond
national water jurisdiction/limit). The question of free access or commons, is as
important as ownership.Commons or free goods may not be owned by any entity.

In sample villages, it may be stated that farmers have free access to rain water, solar
light, solar heat, humidity and wind. In this context, appropriation/use is primary or
more important as compared to who owns it, or whether or not, and how/in what
mechanism, these natural goods are owned. But there is no doubt that these forms of
nature are used as “object” of nature directly –even currently (2018) as was the case in
primitive society of thousands of years ago.
The problematic aspect of free goods/ commons/ freely accessible goods such as rain
and climate conditions, is that there is gross under-utilization of these free goods/ public
goods/ commons in the sample villages. Since visible ownership rights in these natural
goods do not exist, or are not exercised with power/authority by state in these sample
villages, their absent use-pattern corresponds with absent ownership-pattern: No
ownership; no use or under-use.

16. Lack of Effective/Powerful Village Institutions or Real Empowered

Community

Both sample villages do not have a Community Hall; unwittingly this fact corresponds
with the absence/lack of any empowered community in these villages. “Empowerment”
and “community”, both these traits are lacking/absent in the sample villages. Having a
Community Hall infrastructure doesn’t automatically imply that “community” exists, and
is powerful/empowered. Infrastructure is different from organization and institution.
The latter (organization and institution) may be called, or what Karl Marx termed,
philosophical-ideological “superstructure”.

190
Community is based on and is part of “civil society” (instead of “state”). Although both
community and state are Marxian categories of “superstructure”, Community is expected
to be relatively free from the intervention of state in its affairs, activities and thinking.

Empowerment can be power conferred from outside by state, or it could be the internally-
driven force. Community is expected to draw its power from the within; it implodes with
power rather than exploding due to the outside factors (state).

“Sabha” is the structure/form that best captures the essence of community in village –
“Gram Sabha” –tobe more precise, accurate, correct and specific. All other structures
seen in village are, essentially speaking, not community, but state-sponsored entities
whose agenda and functional role is, state-driven (e.g. Self Help Group/SHG, Joint
Liability Group/JLG, Farmers’ Club/FC, Producers’ Company/PC, Farmers’ Producers
Organization/FPO, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society/PACS, Forest
Protection Committee/FPC, Community Resource Persons/CRP or Volunteers under
NRLM for SHGs, Water Users Association/WUA, Gram Panchayat/GP, etc.).

Gram Sabha (Village Assembly) Community is not representational form but direct
personal deputation by all villagers of themselves, each of them presenting in-person
themselves for participation.

Gram Sabha Community in both sample villages actually has different characteristics. In
Devnala village, Gram Sabha meeting was organized within the village even as many
villagers attended the meeting (some are mute watchers) though they could not enforce
and resolve the core issue of safe drinking water shortage and village pond (incomplete
since 25 years). In contrast, Gram Sabha Community in Harankhuri was characterized
by participation of few representatives and its meeting was organized outside the village.
This problem is analyzed here.

In Harankhuri village, people are not keen to organize Gram Sabha meeting. First of all,
there is not any specific space/community hall in village earmarked for organizing Gram
Sabha meeting. People’s indifference and even nihilistic attitude does not help. Even
study team met villagers groups for field study (data collection) for four days in the
verandha of a private house of some farmer located at central place in village. It could
accommodate maximum 20-25 farmers on the floor while some of them were standing
around the boundary. There are 350 persons (including children) in the village; except
children all adult persons (men and women and all youths, so around 200 persons) are
expected to participate in the Gram Sabha Community meeting. However, actually this
is not done. Two “members” of Gram Panchayat (GP) –a totally different structure with
different content – join with 3 other persons from village and go to nearby village Nirgudi
situated 4 km from Harankhuri each month for Gram Sabha meeting. The Gram Sabha
Community meeting is held on two more occasions, viz., Independence Day and Republic
Day. In these Gram Sabha Community meetings, information on government’s
development schemes and their guidelines are discussed. The peon of Gram Panchayat
or Gram Sevak calls five persons, viz., 2 GP members and 3 villagers (and sometimes
others) or puts notice in the village at a prominent place, informing them about date of
going to Nirgudi for the meeting. In the meeting, important issues of immediate concern,

191
viz., unemployment, poverty, “supportive” activities/occupations, household industries,
etc. are never discussed. Politics of self-interest, lobbying for next local elections and
personal favors, is reportedly the main agenda of discussions. The spirit of meeting is
narrowly political and Gram Panchayat type where electoral gains and personal favor to
select scheme beneficiaries are focused.

“Political Community” (Extension of State), Not Real Human Community:

Therefore, essence of (Gram Sabha) Community turns out to be pure “political” in nature
and of maneuvering type. Strategy, tactics, push and pull, tug of war, etc. characterize the
nature of Community. So, psychological factors also play a role. Economic and financial
benefit aspects play a separate role. Social aspect (caste/tribe) of Community comes to
the fore at critical junctures like Gram Sabha meeting or other occasions; until then it
remains subterranean in day-to-day life. Five farmers in Devnala village received
differentiated price for agricultural land (same quality) acquired from them for
constructing village pond. Social caste and personal-political factors influenced this fact:

Name of farmer sold land to Irrigation Dept. in Devnala Caste Varying Price/acre
(Rs. lakh)
Manik Thool SC 8.00
Shyamrao Mandokar OBC 2.80
Ramesh Mandokar ST 1.92
Lakshman Mandokar ST 2.71
Babarao Khunkar OBC 1.80
Average - 2.85

“Political community” is what exists there in villages: An organ and extension of “state”.
The most disquieting aspect about the “political community” in sample villages is about
absence of full participation: It’s not participatory community. Villagers as a
Community do not discuss, debate or raise unequivocal voice on issues of leading a
contradictory life where one is compulsively “doubling” oneself. These issues arecausing
a “complete breakdown” of “human personality” into “double life”: one for state (as a
“social being”in “farmers’ producers’ organization”/company) and one for “civil society”
(“egoistical individual”, or “owner-operator’). Farmers perform commercial farming
for state (or market) and carry subsistence farming for the individual family or at the
most for sharing-selling locally (“local community”). An individual farmer in “political
community” is torn apart by tug of war between these double aspects of life, which Marx
called “duality” and Freud called “doubling”. The total break-down of human
personality of farmers is followed by the emergence of fearful ethos of “dread and
psychosis” (e.g. mental stress, wine consumption, addiction, suicide linked to wine
drinking, suicide linked to irrational borrowing and indebtedness, fear of physical
survival, fear of food security, illusory and false needs, excessive consumption by
excessive borrowing,irrational/conspicuous expenditure on “social functions” like
marriages, ruthless over-dependence on ecosystem of 61 entities/agencies for facilities
in agriculture, etc.). It looks disturbing state of individual farmer, seen in state’s
“political community” as a “community being”.

192
Agenda of “political community” is narrow. It renders individual farmer truncated as one
of the following notions (tag holder) at one moment, and something else (another tag) at
another moment:

 “Community being”: Tag of SC/ ST/ OBC/ tribal/General

 “Social being”: Member FPO/ Producers’ Company/ PACS/ SHG/ JLG
 “Political being”: False consciousness asright/“Voter”/Member Panchayat
 “Economic being”: Homo-economicus; pursues profit/“doubling income”/ owner
 Financial being: Bank or institutional borrower/KCC holder/ JDY account holder
 Demographic being: Aadhar Card holder
 Wage-Employee being: MNREGA Card holder
 Owner being: Private title holder of land/ “life king-size as owner (malik)”
 Welfare being: Recipient of welfare benefits albeit meager

With these multiple “cards”, “titles” and “identities” in hand/pocket, individual farmer in
“political community” imagines for a moment that he is “free”, “autonomous”, and
liberated. A farmer appears as “illusory social being” from the dominant perspective
of “political community” (state). So far as farmer is over-dependent for 61 facilities/
supplies (mostly on state) on “political community”, he is an “imaginary member of a
fictitious sovereignty”. Everything (farmer, political community/state) appears as
illusory: Farmer, because his autonomy contradicts with over-dependence; state,
because its power/authority/sovereignty, is actually too much limited to ameliorate the
condition of all farmers. Farmer is indebted; so is “political community” (state), with its
“fiscal deficit” and scarcity of resources. Empowerment of both appears illusory, unreal
and myth. Neither individual farmers (“beings” in separated forms/ capacities) nor
their “political community” (state) could address the problem of farmers’ distress and
suicides.

17. Access to Government Agencies/Institutions (including Banks)

Out of 61 agencies/entities listed earlier which make farmers over-dependent with regard
to their functions of agriculture, around 50% are in the realm of state in various forms.
Therefore, easy and effective access to such institutions/agencies becomes imperative. It
was reported that their services are not up to the mark or satisfactory, which is natural
because these agencies themselves, as organs of state, function within numerous
constraints, limitations, deficits, paucities and scarcities.

(i) Patwari (Village Record-keeper) Office

For Harankhuri village, Patwari had office in Samudrapur (8 km). As many as 7-8
villages were allocated to Patwari. He normally did not visit Harankhuri. When a farmer
went to his Patwari office in Samudrapur to get some document related to land or crops
or any other administrative necessity/certificate, chances of meeting him were not much;
it was never certain that Patwari shall be available as he would keep moving in other
villages or busy for any other work assignment. His work load was supposed to be reduced
because land title statement of “7/12” (ownership/survey no.) has been digitized in Tehsil

193
office since 2011 and made available online since June 2017. However, data are not
updated annually; old data is useless for farmers as they have to submit a copy of the land
title document to the banks, Panchayat Samiti (block), etc., which do not accept old 2011
digitized data. However, Patwari regularly visits village to collect “land tax” (“vaeyda”)
on behalf of Revenue Department, which is Rs.10/acre91. Patwari collects information on
crops of farmers over telephone from his office in Samundrapur as he has limited time to
visit each and every farmer to inquire personally in 7-8 villages each season.

In Devnala village, its Patwari is in-charge of 10 villages. Besides routine works (crop
data, annawari, land records, income certificate), he has to perform election duty, track
farmers’ suicide cases, collect “nazool” tax, employment cases, education cases, collect
agriculture/fruits marketing tax92 (after survey of area), etc. Patwari visited village after
every 2-3 days, so that farmers did not have any problem. He promptly visited Panchayat
office to provide land related data to the study team on Sunday/holiday.

(ii) Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS)

Farmers of Harankhuri village were members of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit

Society (PACS), which was set up 40 years ago (1978). This Society has members from 3
villages. Most of the farmers were big farmers; some are tribals. Currently, this Society is
closed; few big farmers had siphoned-off money and they did not repay loan. All other
farmers/members, however, made loan repayment; average loan amount was Rs.10,000
to 20,000 per farmer. All members were borrower-farmers. In 2016, District Central
Cooperative Bank (DCCB), Wardha, went into loss, and was closed; many Societies
similarly appropriated funds and all of these (including PACS of Harankhuri) were
closed. All these Societies used to do marketing and supply of seeds and chemical
fertilizers also to the farmers, besides doing credit business. Currently, entire business is
closed. Farmers face problems. In Devnala village, PACS is set up in Jormoh village (3
km). Total 6 farmers from Devnala are members of this PACS. This Society is functional
and provides crop loans to the farmers. Overall, a large majority of the farmers in both
villages did not have credit facility of PACS –either due to Society being loss-making/
closed or due to non-membership of farmers. The overall scenario is not encouraging.

(iii) Bank Branch

Both the sample villages do not have any bank branch within village. Farmers of
Harankhuri village, go to Samudrapur (8 km) in SBI and BOI branches, and for Devnala
village there is a branch of Bank of Baroda (BoB) at Johmora (3 km). In both the villages
farmers have not been issued Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for crop loan, because almost all
the farmers (with few exceptions) are defaulters and not eligible for bank loan. Their first
transaction with bank branch for loan was reported 40 years ago. Thereafter, their
relationship with bank branch was based on occasional repayment, delayed repayment or
part payment besides few of them sometime making full repayment. Thus cycle of

91“Land Tax” or “Land Revenue” is basically not tax on land, but crop/output tax (and it is nominal/
negligible) as historical tradition. It may not be confused with Land Value Tax (LVT), which is annual tax
on market value or rent of land –also called Geo-Tax.
92 Rs.25 /ha for urad, black gram (agriculture tax); Rs.80/ha fruit marketing tax against issue of receipt.

194
repayment and non-repayment characterized their past loan behavior. Farmers’ working
relations with bank branch are not very encouraging for future growth; for this reason
they were more dependent on informal sources of lending including moneylender,
friends, relatives, fellow farmers and big land owners with any other source of money
income. All the farmers had received the facility of loan waiver from bank after online
submission of their applications. However, farmers of DCCB Yavatmal were received
mobile phone messages that due to some incongruities they shall have to come to the bank
for removing discrepancies even as farmers felt little annoyed after getting messages from
the bank.

(iv) Irrigation Department

Villagers led a delegation/representation several times to the Irrigation Department,

Yavatmal, for completion of village pond (50 acres) around rainy nallah that has been
left incomplete for the past 25 years (1992/93) in Devnala. However, their meeting with
the department bore no fruit even as decision of the court case for higher compensation
to 5 farmers took long time due to petitions submitted by them –so Irrigation Department
was constrained to stop further work (beyond check dam and earthen bund). However,
after the closure of case in August 2017, there has been as yet no action on re-starting the
pond construction work. Villagers expressed that they shall once again approach
Irrigation Department, Yavatmal, with the request to immediately arrange for
completion of village pond before monsoon season begins in July 2018.

(v) Forest Department

Farmers in Devnala faced the problem of wild animals (pig, neel gai, deer, monkeys)
attacking their fields day and night, and destroying valuable crops (cotton, toor,
soyabean). Some farmers had come under mental stress and one of them committed
suicide due to over 50% of their cotton crop getting destroyed by wild animals. Villagers
were yet to approach Forest Department as they were unaware about its solution.
Installing live electric wire around their farms, with mild flow of current, was thought by
them as solution but they could not afford to make capital investment without bank loan.

(vi) Panchayat Office

Panchayat office is the center of consciousness of village, which aims to influence the
direction of electoral representation, electoral politics, strategies, tactics, and with a view
to solving the problems of villagers. Panchayat office is sort of mini “political community”
of welfare state. Villagers have a fetishized view that Panchayat is center of political
emancipation. Youths and other villagers daily visit Panchayat office in the morning to
meet Sarpanch. Sarpanch is cooperative. Some certification or attestation is required by
them for office/institutional purposes of different kind, for which Sarpanch is their first
destination. Panchayat office (Devnala) seemed to be unaware of preparing a shelf of
projects (potential works) or wish list of demands of villagers for works that can be
initiated in the village after submitting proposals to the department concerned (Rural
Development & Panchayats) and getting the same sanctioned from competent
authorities. Sarpanch of Devnala village was seen making all-out efforts to get a bore well

195
dug in village through contractor agency, during the period of field study, for drinking
water facility, which is the core problem of this village after monsoon season. Panchayat
office under the leadership of Sarpanch, Devnala is now also determined to pursue the
case of incomplete village pond, and get it completed before monsoon season started in
July 2018. The study team sensitized the Panchayat, during the course of field survey, to
get the problem of shortage of drinking water and irrigation water, solved on long-term
basis by getting this village pond (50 acres) completed at the earliest. Earlier also,
Sarpanch and members had led the delegation of villagers several times, to make
representation before the Irrigation Department in this connection. DevnalaPanchayat
is proactive. A visit to Harankhuri Panchayat office could not be made because it was
located in other village, Nirgudi. However, it was reported that Panchayat had done some
works like construction of pucca village streets.

(vii) “CM Fellow” under “Chief Minister Fellowship Programme-2017” in

Devnala Village

“Chief Minister Fellowship Programme”, is implemented by the Directorate of Economics

and Statistics, Department of Planning, Govt. of Maharashtra, since 2016. This is a drive
to rope in young graduates in the administration. The objective is to gain from youthful
energy, passion of technology and fresh perspectives of the youth. In return, the “Fellows”
earn valuable experience of working within the government. These fellows are commonly
termed in the field as “CM Fellow”.

Fellow, appointed to Devnala village is required to stay in village (full time). Fellow is
science postgraduate (M.Sc. Chemistry); as per field perception gathered, he is expected
to assimilate with villagers, understand their requirements and problems, so that action
could be initiated by him promptly by taking help of the departments concerned in
District Office, Yavatmal, or himself coordinating all actions. Noted development
economist Samir Amin had validly asserted that lack of coordination is the major problem
of underdevelopment and absence of development often seen in the backward areas of
the Third World; in view of this fact, deputation of Fellow is a pertinent step in the
direction of accelerating the pace of amelioration of problems of Devnala in time bound
manner –in fact on prompt basis.

A few observations on interventions made by Fellow may be pertinent as observed by the

study team during the course of field survey in Devnala for 5 days. As advised by District
Planning Office (DPO), Yavatmal, he helped as translator of information (received in
Marathi language) for initial two days between respondents (villagers) and study team.
His interventions were helpful in facilitating communication and eliciting information;
some general data on crucial socio-economic, demographic and land related parameters
of village, was readily available which was shared by him during interaction with farmers.
From third day, he needed to visit district head quarter, Yavatmal in connection with
some digitization project (for Panchayat office) and preparation for Republic Day at
Panchayat Office, Devnala. There is need for greater sensitization and involvement in
village. Some critical issues like village pond (50 acres), incomplete since past 25 years,
were not in the awareness of Fellow. Villagers and respondent farmers expected his
greater role in taking up the issues of development and work for coordination/resolution

196
through his more intensive efforts as it was felt that a lot of potential of Fellow has been
unutilized or is sub-optimal.

18. Yield Loss of Bt Cotton: ‘Pink Ball Worm’ Pest (“Bondani” Disease)

Only one sample village (Devnala) was more adversely affected by crop loss of cotton in
2017, particularly due to the disease/worm, commonly called “bondani”or “pink ball
worm”.

(i) Devnala Village

Farmers are using Bt-3 cotton seed in Devnala village for the past 10 years (2007). All
350 farmersof Devnala, on 404 hectare land, are using Bt-3 cotton seed. Prior to 2007,
farmers were using desi variety of “Nanded” cotton seed (average yield 3 quintal/acre).
They also used “1007”variety of “desi” cotton seed before 2007.

Awareness creation about Bt-3 cotton seed was done by Agriculture Department. Initially,
Bt-3 cotton gave higher yield but gradually each year yield was declining. At the time of
demonstration, farmers were given assurances that yield will be higher and income will
increase. After good first year by pilot farmers (who led in its adoption), all other farmers
were attracted towards Bt cotton seed. During 2017, almost all the farmers (except those
who used Farm Yard Manure) in Devnala faced decline in crop yield/loss, to the extent
of 50 to 100%93.

Prior to 2017, Bt-3 cotton seed gave a pattern of fluctuating and declining average yield
(rough/approximate)94. In initial year (2007) cost of cultivation of Bt-3 cotton was less
but gradually it increased. Average cost of cultivation of Bt-3 cotton in 2017 was
Rs.20,000 per acre or even reached Rs.22,000 per acre95. If there is small physical crop
loss, the existing price made them suffer significant economic loss.

Some farmers are now aware (on their own), or they are informed by some sources, that
Bt cotton seed introduced in Devnala in 2007 was “3rd generation seed” while in the world
agriculture, advanced technology of “7th generation” Bt-7cotton seed has been introduced
and being adopted by farmers, e.g. in Brazil, USA, etc. This old technology of Bt cotton
seed (3rd generation) sowed in 2017, according to them, was destined to be outdated and

93 In Telengana state, pink ball worm pest attack had appeared earlier --3 years ago (in 2014/2015).
94Initialyear (2007) yield was 8 quintal/acre; then 6 quintal/acre; 7 quintal/acre; 4 quintal/acre; 10
quintal/acre; 6 quintal/acre, etc. In 2017, average yield was 2 quintal/acre, or up to 50 or 75 or 100%
crop loss/failure in individual cases due to “bondani” (pink ball worm).
95 One farmer used inputs for Bt-3 cotton cultivation as per “money available at hand” (this rationale is

not uncommon in farmers): His total cost of cultivation of Bt-3 cotton was Rs.5000/acre, as under:
Seeds : Rs. 1000
Initial dose of DAP: Rs.1000
Urea: Rs.1000
“Bondna” (picking): Rs.5000
Pesticides: Rs.1000
TOTAL: Rs.5000

197
prone to “pink ball worm” disease. Some farmers purchased second generation Bt-2
cotton seed.

Nonetheless cost part is critical. Each packet of Bt-3 cotton seed (450 gm) costs Rs.950.
Farmers purchased 2 packets for each acre (Rs.1900 or say Rs.2000 per acre). Before/at
the time of sowing Bt-3 cotton seed, as initial dose, farmers used chemical fertilizers (18-
18-10 or DAP or 10-26-26 or 0-0-13 or 12-32-16). Individual farmers used such type of
chemical fertilizers for initial dose as was suggested by his private dealer/trader even as
“Fellow” opined that private dealers have “experience” of chemical fertilizers and soil
type. However, farmers asserted that without knowing soil type of farmers (35% farmers
did soil testing), dealers cannot prescribe chemical fertilizers: Simply, available stock of a
particular fertilizer induces private traders to prescribe such fertilizers, as some farmers
expressed grievance during field survey.

Farmers used these kinds of pesticide spray: “Mono Croto Phos”; “Avant”; “Confider”;
Essay Top”; Endosulphan”, “Polis” (very dangerous and can cause human death); “Hu La
La”; “polo”; “Lancer Gold”; “Trishul”; “Korajan”, etc. The “combination” of pesticides
spray (type and quantity of mix), was also prescribed by the private dealers. In a bid to be
more “effective”, dealers prescribed concentrated or “deadly” combination/mix of liquid
in unscientific proportion; after reaching household farmers made the liquid/solution
more “deadly”/“unscientific” by changing proportional mix of pesticides, which really
created trouble for humans (farmers spraying it). Sometimes farmers used pesticides for
Bt-3 cotton by reading guideline from copy of Krishi Samvadini book of State Agriculture
University (Akola) distributed by Agriculture Department though it did not have a
prescribed combination/mix for Bt cotton crop. Sometimes farmers used mix of
pesticides on Bt cotton (or other crops as well) by discretion (“apne dil se”), i.e. purely
unscientifically. Each farmer did liquid spray of pesticides average 2-3 times on his cotton
crop.Doing spray on time was also important though farmers could not follow this
schedule due to cash crunch.

Agriculture Assistant/ Field Officer of Agriculture Department normally comes as per

“routine” of once in a month to sit on village “chavri”/“choupal” (central square), and give
information on, e.g. cotton diseases/worms (but still “pink ball worm” happened to Bt-3
cotton seeds in 2017). Farmers informed that no officer from Agriculture Department
(Field Officer/Agriculture Assistant) or from Krishi Vikas Kendra (KVK)’s Assistant
(though expected) came to their village even for once during 2017 (when disease
appeared). However, officials visited the village in January 2018 when it had become
commonly known to all farmers that disease of “pink ball worm” had acquired serious
proportion.

(ii) Harankhuri Village

In Harankhuri village, Bt-3 cotton seed was introduced in 2007 (10 years ago).Before
2007, farmers used “Nanded”, “44”, “H-4”, “Neemkar”, “Bhuri”, etc. “desi” varieties. In
this village, yield of Bt-3 cotton followed a particular trend during past 10 years, with
fluctuations in yield, such that it declined after each 2 or 3 years. Some farmers witnessed
crop loss/decline in yield 3 years ago. Since money accessibility was a problem throughout

198
the year for farmers, they could not follow the prescribed schedule of pesticides sprays (3
times). Cotton (Bt-3) was totally dependent on rain; this factor also went against this crop
as right schedule of watering could not be followed. Bt-3 cotton needed rain water
monthly 4 times for 4 months (which was not possible as objective reality” of nature
cannot be controlled). Otherwise, yield will decline or worm/pest/disease attack will
happen. This has been happening exactly due to variation in practices followed
triggering/accelerating such crop loss/yield problems. In Harankhuri it was cyclical
declining/fluctuating yield which tormented farmers more, rather than “pink ball
worm” posing problem of complete crop failure or substantial loss of crop in 201796.

Farmers of Harankhuri complained that while cyclical fluctuation in yield of Bt-3 cotton
wasthe norm in village, intensive use of labor in picking (5-6 number of picking/plucking)
was also a major problem; they did picking from cotton balls in 5-6 stages after 15 days
gap each time. They were aware that in Brazil farmers using B-7 (“7th generation”) of
advanced seed technology practiced one-time picking/plucking of cotton. Further,
chemical fertilizer-use (3 times), weeding (2 times) and spraying (3 times) were an added
encumbrance felt by them.

19. Marketing Problem

A major change that has occurred in marketing of produce is that while earlier farmers
used to go to the market on bullock cart, passing through forest area, with threat of wild
animals or theft, necessitating group movement and staying at market yard for 4-5 days
(average) or more and incurring unaffordable expenses before getting their produce
disposed-off, currently they have no such problem of transportation or costly long stay at
market yard. Today, their problem of marketing is related to the remunerative price.

Currently, farmers’ major crops brought to the market for selling (through commission
agent), expecting at least ‘Minimum Support Price’ (MSP) are: cotton, toor, soyabean,
chana (black gram).

(i) Harankhuri Village

For marketing of their produce farmers of Harankhuri go to Samudrapur (8 km).All four

crops, viz., cotton, toor, soyabean, chana, faced the problem at the time of purchasing by
wholesale trader. It was reported that wholesale trader purchased directly from seller
(farmer) as there were no commission agents to play the role of market functionary.

There was not much problem in selling cotton even as price received was more than MSP;
but other crops, viz., toor, chana and soyabean faced the problem of procurement at MSP.

96Average yield of Bt-3 cotton in Harankhuri in 2017 fluctuated between 4 quintal/acre (minimum) to
10 quintal/acre (maximum/extreme case) though one extreme case had witnessed 30 kg/acre.
“Normal” yield, farmers perceived, should have been 5 quintal/acre, in 2017.

199
 Sr. Crop Actual price MSP in 2017* Price
No. (Harankhuri village) received in 2017 (Rs./quintal) Problem
(Rs./quintal)

1a Cotton (long staple) 5250 4320 No

1b Cotton (medium staple) 4000-4300 4020 Part yes
2 Toor^ 5050 5450# Yes
3 Chana (black gram) 2700 4400$ Yes
4 Soyabean 2200-3000 3050& Yes
*Source: MoA, GoI’s website http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/MSP-Rabi2017-18-Eng.pdf
^: Toor was procured by National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED)
#: MSP = Rs.5250, bonus = Rs.200
$: MSP = Rs.4250, bonus = Rs.150
&: MSP = Rs.2850, bonus = Rs.200

Except in 2017, cotton in earlier years was sold at below MSP by farmers of Harankhuri.
For long staple cotton they received Rs.5250 per quintal as against MSP of Rs.4320 per
quintal. For medium staple cotton, farmers received between Rs.4000 and 4300 as
against MSP of Rs.4020. Toor was purchased by National Agricultural Cooperative
Marketing Federation (NAFED) at Rs. 5050 vis-à-vis MSP of Rs. 5450. Farmer selling
Chana (black gram) was the most sufferer: he received price of Rs.2700/- per quintal as
against MSP of Rs.4400/-. Farmers reported that cost of production of soyabean in 2017
was Rs.3000 per acre. Actual price received was Rs.3000, which is Rs.50 less than the
MSP. Therefore, soyabean farmers could not cover their cost of production.

The system of selling cotton reflects some deficiencies. For auction, at least 15-20
truck/trolleys are assembled and kept waiting together in the market yard97. Already
farmers are anxious and desperate which makes them accept price below MSP; yet when
50% of unloading has been done the wholesale trader or ginning mill’s “checker” cites one
or the other defectin produce (cotton) on account of color, humidity, purity or any such
fault. Then price falls down further by Rs.200 to 400 per quintal. Farmer is compelled to
sell at whatever price because he cannot take his produce back to farm household.

(ii) Devnala Village

Farmers of Devnala village had been facing a problem of actual price of cotton being
below MSP for years e.g. 2014/ 2-015/2016, but faced no problem as such during 2017.
For cotton (long staple), during 2017, they received actual market price of Rs.5000 per
quintal against MSP of Rs.4320. For cotton (medium staple), they actually received

97This marketing practice in Samudrapur market (faced by Harankhuri farmers) resembles marketing of
apple in Azadpur wholesale fruit market of Delhi where long queue of hundreds of trucks could be seen
on road outside the market-yard gate even as commission agents took their own time to dispose-off trucks
loaded with fresh apple, and small sellers/apple growers who accompanied with trucks (and/or truck
drivers/transporters of growers) felt desperate to sell quickly so as to return to their home in Kashmir
valley. Their urgency and desperation caused by long lines of trucks for several days, triggers dampening
in price of apple even as small growers are mentally influenced to sell produce immediately/at the earliest.
A NABARD report (2012-13) in J&K state has highlighted and analyzed these facts in a study on
marketing of apple by small growers in Kashmir Valley.

200
Rs.4500 per quintal vis-à-vis MSP of Rs.4020. For other crops (toor, soyabean) data are
somehow not available/collected for the sample village; however, farmers informed that
they actually received price below MSP in case of toor and soyabean both.

Sr. Crop Actual price MSP in 2017* Price

No. (Devnala village) received in 2017 (Rs./quintal) Problem
(Rs./quintal)

1a Cotton (long staple) 5000 4320 No

1b Cotton (medium staple) 4500 4020 No
2 Toor^ NA 5450# Yes
4 Soyabean NA 3050& Yes
*Source: MoA, GoI’s website http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/MSP-Rabi2017-18-Eng.pdf
^: Toor was procured by National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation (NAFED)
NA: Not Available
#: MSP = Rs.5250, bonus = Rs.200
&: MSP = Rs.2850, bonus = Rs.200

20. Indebtedness, Wine Addiction, Farmers’ Suicides

It was reported that indebtedness of farmers was a big problem in both the sample
villages, particularly in Devnala (Yavatmal district). This generation and its previous one
both reported the problem of indebtedness since 40-50 years as experienced by them in
their farm households since their young age. It is not a case of simple borrowing but being
in state of deficit financing throughout the year (literally each of the 12 months). Farmers
need cash/money each month throughout the year. Debt goes up to Rs.1.50 lakh or 2.00
lakh.

On moneylenders’ Debt: When it is moneylender’s debt or any other informal source,

then purpose of loan does not matter (productive or consumption) –virtuosity of use is
out of question even as use of loan (consumption, production) may not be categorized
by value judgments of “good” or “bad”. When ultimate aim of farm household is
subsistence of family, then there is no difference between debt created for production
and debt created for consumption. Moneylenders’ lending system keeps the cycle of
farming going even if it is perennial trap of debt. Farmers do not perceive debt as
perennial trap but “support” provided by the informal source in sustaining farming
activity which makes physical survival of the family and farm possible. The same farm
lets informal sources of lending survive. That is why the system of moneylending by
informal sources has not vanished. It is like continuing to have farmers’ indebtedness to
ensure compatibility of farming system (subsistence-based) with informal lending
system. Inter-generational indebtedness, observed in both the sample villages, is
evidence of mutual suitability of farmers and lenders to each other. What matters is
compatibility and suitability which lets both survive, not “indebtedness’ as a problem.
Farmers’ perspective on indebtedness is different from economists in this respect. For
farmers, their “indebtedness” to moneylenders/traders does not lead to destructive
consequences in any form –be it farm or household. Debt renews itself (even if
multiplies); farmer becomes fresh; and farm gets fresh dose of informal credit, not only

201
next year but next generation as it has happened in village history; lender’s loan lets
farmer survive, even if it is with a load of debt, but nonetheless life is more important than
debt.

On Bank’s Debt: Sample village farmers’ borrowing from banks started around 40-45
years ago. Only a small proportion of them today borrow from banks. It has never been a
regular year to year borrowing. Pattern of repayment fluctuated. Ultimately, many of
them reported non-repayment and “default” cases enhancing since past 8-10 years.
Defaults were since long term and perennial but it acquired a serious proportion in recent
past. Banks’ loans have become largely unmanageable. Only few cases depicted due
diligence of repayment or even “no keenness” to borrow from bank. Such minority of
farmers works with owned funds (savings) and never thinks of borrowing even for farm
expansion and new investment. Banks’ loan gives farmers the most discomfort. It was
observed from their discussions and facts. While they shall readily repay and renew old
loans of informal sources/moneylenders, the banks’ loan would be kept in abeyance as
debt mounts. Average amount of debt (mainly crop loan) is Rs.50,000 or in few cases
Rs.1.00 lakh. Recurrent loan waiver schemes (ongoing and expected) keep the farmers in
greater strain than moneylenders’ lending.

On Cooperative’s Closure: In case of one sample village (Harankhuri in Wardha),

PACS and DCCB have been closed; so, it’s not the farmers who suffered but agricultural
credit cooperative. Nonetheless only few farmers (5-7 each) had joined PACS in both
sample villages, so the closure of PACS did not matter much to the villages. A few
influential farmers siphoned-off funds and didn’t repay. Therefore, farmers’ relentless
attitude of non-repayment (minority) as well as indifference (majority of them not
members or borrowers) may have adverse consequences for PACS and DCCB. The
situation is not rosy in the functioning PACS and DCCB (Devnala, Yavatmal) either.
Farmers’ indifference and apathetic attitude to membership of cooperative signifies
poor state of cooperatives the foremost.

Comparing Trinity of “Moneylender, Bank and PACS” with Farmers’ Debts:

In sample villages: (i) Moneylender—farmer relationship is most comfortable though
over-dependency is there; however, informal indebtedness is not yet dispensable or in
sight of being dispensed with by farmers. Informal indebtedness is going to stay/survive,
reinforce subsistence farming, and scuttle commercial farming/approach (even if crops
are cash crops). (ii) Bank—farmer relationship is the most uncomfortable. Bank loan
gives farmers the maximum strain. Loan waiver policy (temporary measure) makes their
relationship uncertain and more fragile, rather than sustainable. The future of their
relationship appears bleak. Farmers’ indebtedness to banks though deliberate and
transitory, is highly stressful and destructive –even politically. (iii) Cooperative—farmer
relationship is the most indifferent kind of economic bonding. Cooperatives are
indifferent to the farmers (and their needs for adequate finance ever since 50 years ago)
and so are farmers who are apathetic to the health of PACS (and DCCB): A minority of the
farmers only becomes member (5-7 out of 50 or 350 households) which shows apathy and
a minority of them (or more) misuses funds to weaken the PACS (and DCCB); the majority
of the farmers who do not join PACS, basically weaken PACS (and DCCB) or “cooperative
credit movement” by not becoming it members.

202
 Farmers’ indebtedness to informal moneylender: It does not weaken farmers.
 Farmers’ indebtedness to commercial bank: It weakens farmers.
 Farmers’ indebtedness (non-repayment) to PACS: It weakens PACS.

Wine Addiction: Wine addiction is on the rise in both the sample villages. Wine
addiction as “culture” is a part of the growing “consumerist culture” worldwide. A part
of this culture was brought from the world sites outside of the village; a part of it is largely
internal, coming from within the village. There is a vicious-virtuous cycle in operation in
agriculture of sample villages, which initially induces, attracts and then forces them to be
drawn towards wine addiction. Low income (due to low price) combined with high cost of
production triggers borrowing to sustain high (and increasing) household expenses; to
add to it the expenditure on marriages.Such high expenditure beyond income pushes
them towards confusion where no solution is in sight. There is no solution is sight
because mind becomes “reified” (estranged”) and “irrational”. Such irrationality is caused
by growing use of money, cash, capital, finance, informal borrowing and loan-capital of
banks. Irrationality of commercial farming carried with subsistence approach is the basic
one. Need for accumulation of capital (principle of capital begetting capital) and need for
accumulation of gold (main saving type) and money in house (domestic saving for family
adversity) make them more irrational as contradictions and trade-offs appear. Growth of
“family” welfare comes into conflict with growth of “farm”. Expenditure on family needs
comes into trade-off with investment on farm. Such confusions and contradictory
purposes/objectives in farmers’ minds and their actions drive them towards wine
addiction for “comfort” as capital offers them no comfort but stress, strain and distress.
The next step is: Wine addiction.

In sample villages, youths are the most victims of such confusions, paradoxes and
contradictions as they have to lead a “double life”: subsistence culture inherited from
family farming but and commercial culture imposed by market (overseen by state).
Youths standing and gossiping whole day on street corners or playing kiddy games or
loitering aimlessly (sometimes on motorcycle) is a symptom, not disease of the still
greater problem of tug of war going on between traditional subsistence approach (to
farming) and “modern” commercial approach to farming. The tension between the two
approaches is the root cause of “estranged mind” of raw youths that cannot withstand the
pressure of contradictions. In Harankhuri village (Wardha district) a whole family
became wine addicted; all 5 brothers took to wine consumption that made them even
“drunkard”; four brothers died due to wine consumption; and fifth brother has cut-off
from farming and has leased-out land to have a continuous source of money to buy wine;
he occasionally goes to work for casual wage labor on construction site. Families are in
trouble; so are farms. In same village Harankhuri, the only son of a farmer borrowed
money of Rs.25000 or so from “undisclosed sources” (it could be bank as well as father
suspects), then immediately took to wine (as finances could not be managed) and soon
after committed suicide in 2016. Father suspects more loans and indebtedness of his son;
wine or even drug addiction is suspected by father. Out of Rs.25000 loan, son had given
Rs.20000 to his father (for farming) as he himself was getting disinterested in work and
started withdrawing. Many such cases go silent even within the village (not to say
reporting in media or government statistics) due to stigma attached with all such

203
phenomena. In other sample village (Devnala), similar cases and similar stories of wine
addiction exist which can be linked to the estrangement of mind under conditions of tug
of war between the subsistence and commercial approaches.

Wine consumption based on liquor extracted from “Mahua” flowers processing, was a
traditional cultural practice of villagers (particularly tribal people and more specifically
forest-dwelling tribal people like “Kolam” who were “rehabilitated” a few years ago
(Devnala village in Yavatmal district) by allotment of land and starting farming). Despite
the fact that wine extraction is “illegal” by state law (some sections perceive illegality as
loss of human/personal freedom), forest tribals were practicing it. They did it at home
amid forests (for joy since capitalist stress was as yet non-existent), and it went unnoticed
and unchecked by law. In literature, there are references to Mahua wine extraction at
home by tribals during the pre-British era in states like Jharkhand, parts of West Bengal,
Odisha, etc. Field studies have also reported the practice and history of this culture before
British Government in India made it prohibitory (so that they could buy it using wages
earned from wage labor system which should flourish). After “rehabilitation” of Kolam
tribals, e.g. in this field study, these tribals in Devnala sample village, have started
purchasing it from undisclosed illegal wine extractors (basically petty traders) who supply
this liquid to them at fairly high cost (as per alcoholic and unknown “poisonous” content
mixed in wine that brings heightened mood). What once used to be a source of plain
rustic forest “joy”, has become a tool/medium/mechanism to remove stress and strain
caused by commerce and commercial approach to farming. Few ofKolam tribal youths
in Devnala village appeared highly agitated, on brink of being violent, as observed in
interactions during the course of field study since they had consumed Mahua wine
(around noon) procured at price from the above source (dubious unknown trader). Their
new farms and family are in disarray due to disruption in old traditional culture of
home-based extraction and consumption of Mahua wine.

Farmers’ Suicides: The phenomenon of farmers’ suicides existed in both the sample
villages. Since it was associated with stigma it could not be discussed openly even within
the village. However, protracted and long discussions helped in self-confidence in farmers
and trust for outsiders in respondents, which made it possible to reveal the information.
In Harankhuri village, one suicide death was reported. The only son of a farmer borrowed
money of Rs.25000 or so, from “undisclosed sources” (it could be bank also as father
suspects), then immediately took to wine (as finances could not be managed) and soon
after committed suicide, 1½ years ago (2016) by consuming pesticide. Father says reason
of death could not be ascertained. He used to do farming along with his father. He was
married for the past 7 years. Father suspects some more loans or indebtedness by his son;
wine or even drug addiction is suspected by father. Out of Rs.25000 loan, son had given
Rs.20000 to his father (for farming) as he himself was getting disinterested in work and
started withdrawing from farming.

In second sample village Devnala, during 3 months of October and December (2017),
total 3 farmers’ suicide deaths were reported. It was one suicide death each month. During
past 1½ years (18 months), from June 2016 to December 2017, total 10 farmers in the
village ended their life by committing suicide. Suicides were a long term phenomenon of
the past, told farmers, but due to the “propaganda of loan waiver scheme” more farmers

204
may have been influenced to get post-death “benefit” for their family. Two factors were
common: (i) wine consumption; and (ii) indebtedness. The triggering agent of suicide was
thought as banks’ indebtedness; the accelerating agent was wine consumption.

New Perspective on Farmers’ suicides; Why Farmer Ends Up Taking His Own
life?; Why No Woman-Farmer Ended Life By suicide? Problem of “Human
Emancipation”: Private ownership of land is “land fetishism”just like “commodity
fetishism”. Land ownership reinforces patriarchy. Patriarchal farmer thinks that by virtue
of owning land in private domain, he acquires a mystical power that is capable of
ameliorating his economic condition out of dire poverty or economic losses. Farmers in
sample villages have obsession with land ownership and they can’t think of leaving its
possession at any time or for any venture like, for example, FPO (even if FPO does not
require divesting with ownership of land held in private hands). FPO is mere “contract”
arrangement of supply of produce and doesn’t require “land pooling”. But “fear psychosis”
in farmers’ mind is that they will lose private ownership or “others” may take its benefit.
Such obsessive and clinging attitude makes farmers’ land ownership being thought of as
having “godly” and “mystical” power to liberate him out of his micro economic dip and
depression. Competition and sense of exclusion among individual farmers, due to
separation of farm production processes, is the marked feature of this system. Separate
land ownership; separated production. Farmer’s over-exposure to his private owned land
over very long period of time individually and in history (private landed rights have 117
years old history in India) makes farmers’ class as a whole over-dependent on land rather
than depending much on fellow farmers. Farmer ‘X’ interacts least with farmer ‘Y’ and so
on. Land differentiates one farmer from another. Land is everything (“fetish”), fellow
farmer is not much of value or importance.

Each farmer contemplates (incorrectly) that he is capitalist owner. Fellow farmer

becomes mere tool for him, a means to be used like any other means of production. Since
fellow farmers similarly own land and think similarly, each one of them becomes a
means/tool, not much meaningful or human for the other98. They lose sense and
sensibility of being “species being” –beings of same species called Homo sapiens. Each
one is Homo economicus for the other as all individual farmers are equal “owners”. Each
one is to be in the pursuit of profit and enhanced net income. “Economism” takes over
their mind and it becomes “estranged mind”.Narrow “economic” or profit view does not
permit farmers to think that Nature ought not to be “owned” in “private” domain as
Nature is public good: Private land ownership is such abnormal and unnatural idea.
Nonetheless it’s in vogue and practice since year around 1900/last decade of 19th C when
British Government of India introduced legalized individual private property rights in
land in India. Law of private property and legalization overruled the law of nature. Land
was divided for “private” individualized domains. It happened 117 years ago.

Dilution of private “ownership” principle starts taking place as soon as the question of
physical survival arises. Mere “ownership” does not guarantee farmer any more means of
subsistence as the hunter and gatherer society provided him more than 10000 years ago

98See Murzban Jal, section The Politics of General Human Emancipation, “On Understanding the Decline
of the Established Indian Left”, Economic & Political Weekly, June 16, 2012, Vol. XLVII No.24.

205
before organized agriculture started. He realizes he has to labor and work out his means
of subsistence. He must produce. From a self-imagined state of “no dependence” on any
person (that monopoly of private ownership had promised him) he realizes, during this
process of production, that there is a series of more than 60 agencies/ entities/ suppliers
of “service” providers on whom he (sample farmer) has to often depend and fall back
upon. “Objective reality” of society makes him ruthlessly “over-dependent” on so many
agencies even as very few actually help him out in streamlining the production process.
Multiple agencies create a “chain” of dependence rather than resolving farmer’s
difficulties and problems which increase day by day. From an initial state of “autonomy”
and “independence” (fictitiously empowered by “private ownership”), patriarchal farmer
faces the real world of dependencies and over-dependencies.

In sample villages, individual farmer does experience these polarized situations: From
feeling absolutely “autonomous” to being “over-dependent”; from being “pure owner” to
being “owner-operator” and then working as “wage-laborer” is same fellow farmer’s farm!
In one sample farmer’s case (Harankhuri village) a farmer whose joint family owned 90
acres (dry, infertile, rain-fed land) 40 years ago, had to work as “wage laborer” in others’
cotton farms for picking/plucking cotton on wage basis. In this case, family operated 5
acres out of 90 acres even as 85 acres area was non-cultivable (arid, dry, rain-fed). In
same village (Harankhuri), another farmer whose joint family owned 95 acres land
(including hilly arid, dry, sloppy) 50 years ago, had to work as landless bullock-cart
owner-cum-operator (despite family/parents being land owner) in Nagpur city as he
engaged himself as cart transporter (loader & unloader) for 40 years before he could
return to his village and work as full time farmer. Personal/family reasons led him to this
condition. However, amid these extreme cases, there are innumerable cases where almost
all farmers in village work on one another’s farm for doing wage labor (sowing and picking
cotton). Therefore, each individual private “owner” of agricultural land virtually
becomes “owner-operator-laborer” in the current condition of hiring-out and hiring-in
laborers (as means) for farm job completion during the processes of sowing seeds,
spraying pesticides and harvesting/picking cotton, all of which involves over 6 months
wage labor job for a “person” during a year; sort of “laborization”99 of “person”
(owner/farmer) takes place:

“Owner”“Owner-operator”“Owner-Operator-Wage-laborer”
(“Laborization”)

Farmer’s decline and degeneration now starts with, what is understood here as
“laborization” of owner. “As a private individual he regards other men as a means,
degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers.”100 Which

99 This report understands and proposes “laborization” term as an ongoing process in current society in
the villages wherein individual landed “owners” and “owner-operators” are increasingly turning into
“wage laborers” for physical survival.
100 see, The Politics of General Human Emancipation, “On Understanding the Decline of the Established

Indian Left”, Economic & Political Weekly, June 16, 2012, Vol. XLVII No.24., p.56

206
are those “alien powers”? Are these the same 61 agencies/entities (individual and
organized) which make farmer’s production process in agriculture over-dependent?

To check whether sample farmer’s mind experiences a state of “human emancipation”,

the following questions referring to objective reality, need to be posed as criteria:

1) Is farmer dependent on “absolute” state (alienation) for existence?

2) Is farmer over-dependent on 61 agencies/entities for agricultural production?
3) Is farmer part of “political community”with essence ofpure “politics” (Gram Sabha)?
4) Is farmer isolated from “species being” (world citizen) and cornered in remote village
characterized by falsified reality of “rural--urban” gap?

It may be noticed that answer to all the questions (1)-(4) is in affirmative, which means
“human emancipation” of sample farmers, is not yet realized. Sample farmer is not yet
voluntarily inclined to associate and form cooperative association with fellow farmers
devoid of cognizance of “private” property in land ownership; even forming a small sized
quasi-capitalist Producers’ Company (PC) with mechanical “membership” of all farmers,
is found to be a “herculean” task by a reputed NGO “Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj
Foundation (KJBF), Wardha in Harankhuri village. Such individualism betrays “human
emancipation” but reinforces human “alienation” of sample farmers in both villages.
Sociality and socialization in sample farmers is taken over by politics and politicization.

Thus says Marx:"Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and of human
relationships to man himself. Human emancipation will only be complete when the real
individual man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual
man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his relationships, he has become a species-
being; and when he has recognized and organized his own powers as social powers so
that he no longer separated his social power from himself as political power.”101

How does “laborization” of farmer lead to his “degradation”? The sample farmers’
“degradation” takes place in two ways: (i) by politicization102; and (ii) individualization.

"Laborization" Politicization
to ---->
"Degradation" Individualization

101
See Wolfdietrich Schmied-Kowarzik,“Karl Marx as a Philosopher of Human Emancipation”,
https://www.thur.de/philo/emanc.htm
102 Political intervention/state intervention in the agricultural and day-to-day life of villagers

207
As wage laborer (working in others’ cotton farms as hired laborer on daily wage basis or
as “saladar” i.e. “farm servant” for full-year on salary), his social status degrades from
“owner of private property in land” to an “owner of private property in own labor-power”
i.e. “owner of himself”. He owns himself; he himself becomes his own private property.
He becomes an object. He loses his subjectivity and gains objectivity. Subject in him
becomes an object. He objectifies himself by being wage-laborer. Thus all farmers appear
as objects: individual objects, independent objects. These objects are “independent”
(means unreactive and separated) because they cannot relate among themselves as real
individuals or “species being” (by forming association, by forming real community, by
forming real unity of free individuals –free of binding of any form of private property).
Each one of them remains “individual” i.e. “political” whose aim is “self-interest”, and not
“social”or united: Individual private “owners” cannot be associative social (part of
“species being”), but “political” (part of “state” perceived as “political community”).
Farmer, as wage laborer, appears to live not in community of free associated and
united “real individuals” cooperating one another in the aggregated produce, but as
“individuated individuals” tied by falsified/fictitious social necessity of exchanging labor
(for money). This necessity of exchanging labor for money is forced by “commercial
farming” as suggested by “market” and “state” policy. A “political community” of
“individual” laborers is created who are not “real individuals” (parts of “species being”).
Thus “laborization” process,carried on cotton farms for months together, makes it
possible to create expanded space for political state, public policy, state intervention,
enhanced (and at times silently pressured, if not directly coercive) presence of state
apparatus (including “market” as agricultural market, inputs market, labor market)
and emergence of unreal/ fictitious community in villagethat Marx calls “political
community”, of which “individual” (not as real individual) farmers become de facto
members (not part) while the agenda of this “political community” is “alien”:
commercial farming of cash crops with commercial approach. The only social
community, available or developed historically, in village is “Gram Sabha” (Village
Assembly/Council), which in actuality, does not exist as a force, unity, oneness,
association of villagers –allof which are farmers. This community barely meets;
farming is barely the agenda. This concrete community (Gram Sabha) is overtaken by
another abstract “invisible-hand” community, which Marx termed, “political
community”, whose task is to serve state’s political objectives/agenda, policies,
programmes and expectations. Community/village society is hijacked by
state/market/political objectives; downfall of village society takes place.

Politicization = Downfall of society

Individualization = “Own powers” not recognized/organized as “social powers”

Why politicization and politics by “individual”farmer leads to his self-annihilation

(suicide)?103 Understanding the act of suicide necessitates critique of society,

Farmer’s suicide in general resembles case of suicide by a person “understood as property” in the
103

analysis of a noted French researcher, police administrator, archivist, writer and editor of Dictionnaire

208
particularly village society, where these acts take place. Referring to social critique of
French society, afflicted with series of suicides in 18th century (after French Revolution),
thus wrote Marx: “With Jacques Peuchet104 as with many French practitioners there
appeared a critique of the existing property, family, and other private
relationships (of private life) as the necessary consequence of their political
experiences.”105

Main observations on critique of French society in terms of Freud’s psychoanalytic

approach and generally applicable to any society-in-decay, excerpted from Peuchet on
Suicide with Marx’s interpolations relevant to this study, are presented in Appendix-7.1.

Articulating Farmers’ Suicides in Sample Harankhuri Village and Devnala

Village:
This report attempts to understand farmers’ suicide problem in sample villages as under:
[I] Decaying health of farm (production); [II] Decaying health of farmers’ mind; and [III]
Decaying health of farmers’ body.

Social Downfall  Suicides by Farmers

I. Decaying Health of Farm

Harankhuri and Devnala villages in Wardha and Yavatmal districts, respectively, have
been growing cotton (called “white gold”), as whole of Vidarbha region does, for the past
minimum 100-150 years, i.e. ever since the villages came into being.

Four historical developments took place simultaneously around 100 years ago: (i) British
Government of India introduced private property rights in land; (ii) monetization of rural
economy was just introduced for money exchange-based economy; (iii) cotton cultivation
was started (which meant commercial farming for market, including export market of
England where textile industry required increased supplies of cotton); and (iv) tug of war
between subsistence and commercial farming.

The tug of war that ensued 100 years ago whereby subsistence farming approach came
into direct conflict with commercial farming, has continued since then up to the present.
These four developments brought internal social relations in villages, communities,
families, individuals, cultivators, etc. into mutual tension and stressful environment.

Universel de la Geographie Commercante (Jacques Peuchet 1758—1830) who wrote “unsettling” case
histories on suicides. Marx translated French analysis, making few interpolations and transforming this
“unsettling” case history into “serious social critique” of French society. This was first published in 1846 in
a German journal Mirror of Society and is available in English in article “Karl Marx: fromPeuchet on
Suicide”, posted at website The Ethics of Suicide Digital Archive, managed by Archive Librarian, May 24,
2015. https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/selections/karl-marx/
104 Jacques Peuchet (1758-1830) was social researcher, high ranking police administrator (investigating

suicide cases), chief archivist, and writer of repute, in France during and after French Revolution.
105 Karl Marx, “Peuchet on Suicide” p.3, https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/selections/karl-marx/

209
 Fig. 7.1: Social Downfall “Harms” Farmer’s Production
(Decaying Farm Health)

Private "property" rights in land introduced: "equal

Social Downfall under the British

right to liberty" for all individuals

(100 years ago)

Monetization of rural economy started

Cotton cultivation (cash crop) started

Tug of war between commercial farming and

subsistence farming approaches began

In 21st century, predominant discourse of development, is “empowerment” and

“empowering” individuals. However, 100 years ago, development discourse was about
freedom, independence and liberty. British Government of India wanted farmers to have
liberty of property106. Independent farmer was the hallmark of freedom. Farmer’s
property was supposed to ensure his independence. He felt “free” in selling and buying
his property (land). Even 50-60 years ago, for instance, one wealthy Brahmin “zamindar”
sold 300 acres land to various buyers in Harankhuri village. Therefore, practice of land
transactions had already developed in villages107. Land-as-“property” was deemed as
“commodity” which ensured “liberty”. The new regime of property-commodity-liberty

106 Property based liberty concept had its source in the French Revolution (1789) as this revolution
resulted in the downfall of feudalism and emergence of private property holders, i.e. a bourgeois (middle)
class, under the flagship programme of “liberty”, developing into equality and fraternity. The question
arises: Did this fraternity evolve in village society (or elsewhere)? Literature denies its
development. See, Charles Herr, “Marx on Suicide: New Insights on Human Relations”, News & Letters
(Theory & Practice). (https://kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-book-review-
marx-suicide-herr.pdf)
107 However, after the Independence, settlement of tribal households gradually had put legal prohibition

on land selling by the tribal farmers to the non-tribal farmers.

210
promised the farmer individual autonomy and independence that he had never
experienced before. Property in land meant prosperity and fortune. It got “value”.

Critique of “Property” Concept (Separate & Exclude “Others” as “Means”):

Village society of that era requires critique of private property. It is essential if one seeks
to understand why farmers’ suicides are taking place today in villages. The right of
property is the right to enjoy one’s fortune and to dispose of it as one’s free will without
regard for or intervention by other men and independently of society. Property is the right
of self-interest. This individual liberty of property and its application formed the basis of
new village society that evolved under the aegis of the British power. Individuals could
draw power and feel this power through power of property provided by the British power.
Those, who did not own property, had “labor-power”, which meant no other power –
individual power (inclusive of social power) or social power (inclusive of political power).
Power of property may have led every such farmer to see in other men (who didn’t have
such power of property) not the “realization” but the “limitation” of his own liberty.
Wage-labor in the form of “saladar” (full year farm servant) had just started and it co-
existed with share tenants of older era. The existing landless tenant and wage-laborer
was perceived as “limitation” or curtailment of independence of property owner.
Similarly, powerless landless laborer/tenant perceived property owner as “limitation”
of his own liberty. Land meant power. Land meant property. Land meant liberty. Man-
man relationship that was developing created two distinct classes: propertied and non-
propertied; powerful and powerless; independent and dependent; liberal and
subservient. In retrospect, all villagers were expecting “equal right” to property and
liberty, but it got distorted. “Fraternity” was naturally harmed108. It may not be ignored
that original concept of “equal right to liberty” meant that “every man is equally regarded
as a self-sufficient MONAD [not NOMAD].109” Was new notion of property-based-
liberty, inspired by French Revolution, holistic, all-encompassing, all-inclusive and
“emancipatory” for all mankind? The answer is, no.

Therefore, in sample villages, one finds that introduction of property and (presumed)
promise of “equal right to liberty” was deficient in terms of coverage. First, not all
villagers got this right; second, those select few who were conferred rights, were “self-
sufficient ‘monads’” –individualist, separated, self-interested, SELF-SUFFICIENT. Each
of them (whether property owner or not) was compulsively (due to property relation or
property separation) becoming self-sufficient, self-dependent, self-limited, self-seeking,
self-centered and “withdrawn into himself”. Property was limiting his sphere of
interaction. Property was limiting his circle of sharing and cooperating. Property was
triggering and enhancing his sphere of hired demand of others as “laborers” who shall

108 Caste system of still older era may have further accentuated class distinctions those developed under
the British. So, caste-class reality was evolving under the British during first decades of 20 th century. In
2017, Harankhuri did not have any SC household though Devnala had few SC households. Harankhuri is
predominantly tribal (100%) even as General Caste Brahmins have left the village and Devnala has
multiple castes (OBCs, SCs, STs).
109
Charles Herr, “Marx on Suicide: New Insights on Human Relations”, News & Letters (Theory &
Practice) (https://kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-book-review-marx-suicide-
herr.pdf)

211
agree to join him as “wage-laborers” (new concept), but not as cooperative share-
workers110 working mutually on each other’s farm. Currently during 2017, the practice
of hired wage labor in both the same villages (Harankhuri and Devnala) has increased
manifold and almost all farm households hire-in and hire-out wage laborers111. With the
introduction of “property rights”, the “relations” between villagers as human beings (or
“separation” between villagers)112 developed during the past 100 years in such a way
that these property” relations (or separations) gradually transformed villagers into
“property” of others (“wage-laborers”).

“Property Owner”  “Laborization”

“Laborization” is infringement of “liberty”. Laborization puts limit on liberty.

“Laborization” curtails and minimizes “liberty”. “Laborization” is against “liberty”.
More the “laborization”, more the loss of “liberty” of the farmer/ proprietor/laborer.

“Laborization”  Loss of “Liberty”

Critique of “Liberty” (“Not Harms Others”) Concept: Property-based “liberty” is

limited; it’s unreal; it’s fictitious. “Liberty” separates, not liberates113. Marx writes: “The
limits within which each individual can act without harming others are determined by
law114, just as the boundary between the two fields is marked by a stake [pole]. It is the
question of the liberty of man regarded as an isolated ‘monad’. Liberty in this view is not
founded upon the relations between man and man, but rather upon the separation of
man from man. It [property and liberty] is the right of such separation: The right of the
CIRCUMSCRIBED individual, withdrawing into himself.”

110 It may be interesting to note that traditional age-old ‘cooperative share workers’ system is still popular
in the villages of hilly district of Poonch in Jammu Division of Jammu & Kashmir state. A study conducted
by NABARD Regional Office, Jammu (2013-14) on Coping Mechanisms Adopted by Marginalized People
for Survival against Adversity in J&K, highlighted this phenomenon. In this system, each farmer in the
village helps the other during monsoon season, for cutting/harvesting grass in family’s grass-fields for
a week or so each year (without charging money or goods) on mutual help basis. It’s cooperative
sharing. This is missing in Vidarbha sample villages.
111 Such high incidence (spread) of “wage labor” (almost 100% households doing wage labor) may not have

been experienced byany pure capitalist system anywhere in the world. Reasons for property owners
doing “wage labor” (and becoming “owner-operator-laborers”) are disquieting, and deserve a social
critique of this strange and “estranged” process of, so-to-say, “laborization” in villages.
112 When talking about “property” one basically talks about “separation”, not “relation” as property divides

and separates rather than establishing relation, connection, association, etc.

113 Marx sharply critiqued the bourgeois (capitalist) concept of “liberty” “as the right to do everything

which does not harm others” since this concept was borne out of the French Revolution of 1789
(Charles Herr, op cit). New propertied class, which came to power after destroying power of feudalism in
France, had no intention to “harm others” (landless). In the context of present study, it is to be
analyzed how property-based “liberty” can “harm others” or cause death by suicide.
114 Law will determine, decide and limit the extent to which such “liberty” of “property” will

NOT “harm others”because ultimately property rights are governed by law enforced by
political state. For example, “Land Acquisition” policy of state as per law, can undertake
actions which “harm others”. See Charles Herr (op cit)

212
The foundation of “liberty” is “property” which separates, excludes and divides. Then
question arises how such “liberty” will “not harm others”? Loss of liberty is, no doubt,
harmful but presence of such liberty is also harmful! A village by ay acquiring the rights
to acquire “property” for individual “liberty” unwittingly happens to acquire also the
rights of “separation”. Separation and exclusion is inbuilt in “liberty” as its basis is
“property” whose principle is to divide and separate, and not relate the individuals.
Acquisition of “liberty” leaves behind traces of individuals who are constrained
individuals, restricted individuals and truncated individuals.

The act of acquisition of “liberty” now-a-days has to counter powerful act of “land
acquisition” by state’s law. Land acquisition defeats “liberty”. “Liberty” based on
“property” does not induce individuals to come forward, “fuse” together and associate by
extending hands of cooperation. The tendency of the propertied men of “liberty” is to get
separated more and more everywhere including agriculture. That is why individual
property owners in Harankhuri village were not willing be members of Producers’
Company even though it did not involve parting with landed property for a while or during
the course of functioning of the Company.

“Liberty” appears as = “Loss of liberty”

Liberty/loss of liberty during the 20th century in villages meant that farmer was to abide
by state (British) policy of cultivation of cotton as “cash crop”. Supply of cotton as raw
material not only ensured the growth of textile industry of Britain (at home in England)
but also in domestic market of India as new textile mills were set up in the region
(including Bombay State and present Gujarat, in Surat). Monetization (though limited)
had limited the power of farmer because dependence on “wage-labor” dependence (hence
loss of liberty). Within the farm household, stressful intra-unit competition between
subsistence farming (based on mutual support and other’s sufficiency) and commercial
farming (based on “self-sufficient” individualist/ “monad”/ separated farmer) was
growing up, which still continues even after 100 years as no solution seems in sight.
Farmers’ genuine freedom has, in fact, been “harmed” by such “liberty”.

Liberty (loss of liberty) = “Harms” Real Freedom

II. Decaying Health of Farmer’s Mind

“Free Mind” is First Victim of Loss of “Real Freedom”: The natural conditions
under which farmers work, has little chances of their mind getting affected any way by
those natural conditions. Normally such conditions prevailed in India, before emergence
of individual property rights in land. The “zamindar” or state, during Pre-British period,
may have exercised some control (by way of land revenue/rent pressure) but it did not
affect tenant farmer’s mind as much as free ownership/property rights had affected his
thinking during British period or even during Post-British period as India got
independence.

213
One could say that free property rights in land in Independent India, made mind of the
farmer unfree to a greater extent. Farmer had to wade through various policies and
expectations of state which took its own independent “initiatives” and introduced a
series of interventions/measures related to “land” and agriculture including, land
reforms (farmers depending on state regulation), Green Revolution (farmers depending
on state support), agricultural marketing (farmers depending on state regulation),
rural banking (farmers depending on state support), loan waivers (farmers depending
on state support), various development programmes including flagship programe of
MNREGA (farmers depending on state support), etc. ‘Green revolution” in sample
villages (Harankhuri and Devnala) came late (1992/1993). In all these ways and
measures adopted by state, farmer was also expected to “adopt”. Farmer did not develop
anything on his own –be it “idea” or innovative “technique” as he was invariably always
dependent on thinking, planning, policy-making and implementation processes of state.
“Superstructure” of polity and policy (outside mind) overtook the “base” of economy
(farm households). Farmer did as was expected of him. This pattern of functioning of
farmer relying on state has continued for 70 years during the Post-Independence period.
For this purpose the tool/mechanism to enforce state’s direction was private “property”
rights in land protected by state’s another important legal instrument termed as law.

As soon as nature (land) becomes private property and individual “liberty” is lost, it
influences farmer’s MIND. It becomes “estranged mind”. It thinks others are “means”
for his objectives. Just like land is an “object of labor” of farmer to work upon (or sell)
so also other human beings appear to him as “objects” or “commodities”. Land as
property (permanently possessed) renders human mind possessed by the idea of
“property”. This idea of property wrecks havoc in relation between man and man. This
state is called “reification”115. An “exaggerated subjectivity”116 of mind makes it
irrational; in that state of “reification” or irrationality, humans appear as “objects” or
“means”, and owned “land” acquires “autonomous” objectivity that is not dependent on
owner (subject). Ultimately, owner himself who is actually “subject” becomes object:
object of his irrational mind’s creation. Such mind (under grip of “property”) is capable
of creating “autonomous objects”. He himself and all fellow men (farmers) appear to
him as “object”. In “reified” or irrational or “estranged mind”, land becomes an object
of worship/ object of power/ object of prestige/ mystical object that has godly power to
ameliorate the condition of owner –hence termed as “fetishism” of land. Thus property
owner becomes obsessive and acquires obsession for land, which he does not want to
part with117.

115 For concept of “reification” see, Lukacs, Georg 1923 (1967): “Reification and the Consciousness of the
Proletariat” in History & Class Consciousness, Merlin Press
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm)
116 Murzban Jal, “The Irresistible Science of Karl Marx”, Social Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 5/6 (May-June

2010), pp. 22-34, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27866708

117Daniel Thorner’s notion about small farmers in India “clinging to land” may have been influenced by
such attitude of farmers who perceive land as “fetish”, having mystical powers e.g. to remove poverty or
cause prosperity merely by virtue of being “property” or symbol of “liberty” and power. Sample farmers
in Harankhuri and Devnala in Vidarbha also depicted such mindset of land fetishism.

214
 Fig-7.2: Social Downfall “Harms” Farmer’s Free Thinking of Mind
(Decaying Mind Health)

Land "fetishism" (obsession with property)

Social Downfall During Post-British Period

Mind in conflict between subsistence farming and

commercial farming

Doing commercial farming of cash crops with

(1947 - 2017)

subsistence approach/attitude

Withdrawn into himself

Detests idea of association and cooperation

"Dehumanization" by insistence on subsistence:

Subtle "masochistic" and patriarchal coercion on
household youths for persistence and continuation of
family farming as hereditary occupation

The old tug of war between subsistence farming and commercial farming remains
unresolved in reified mind which sees land as property. This conflict in mind continues
because ancestral/hereditary objective of subsistence of family comes into conflict with
modern property rights (whose objective is trade, commerce and market). The former
presumes family subsistence approach (mindset) whereby increasing productivity is not
much important; instead employment of family adult male members is more important
objective than enhancing yield. Such approach to farming was based on rent-in-kind (no
money rent, hence no market sale of produce). Therefore, whatever yield or total
production was received was deemed sufficient as a fixed proportion of it was paid as
rent-in-kind. But in commercial approach, an opposite nature of mindset was required.

215
Farmers could not resolve the dilemma; hence they continue to adopt subsistence
approach even for commercial farming of cash crops (cotton, soyabean, etc.). If there
were no landed property rights, farmers would not face such oppositional situation i.e.
still unresolved in their mind after the elapse of over 100 years.

Farmer tends to “withdraw into himself”118, being unable to resolve himself the
contradiction of subsistence approach/mindset applied to commercial farming (state
cannot resolve this except by coercion as under “collectivization” by Josef Stain’s USSR).
It is worth recalling that “property” had made him “self sufficient” to gain “liberty”; so
amid contradictions facing him, the farmer “withdraws into himself”. His mind that was
“estranged mind” (irrational) becomes constrained and restricted. Unable to find a
solution even during past 100 years, he loses all connections whatsoever except “wage-
labor” relations (basically separation) and input/output market relations (basically
separations) as he has to buy everything, including paying cost for extension services that
comes from private trader. Every person he faces is private owner or proprietor, even
labor service provider (not sharer, cooperator, associative). Amid multitude of
“stakeholders” (“stake” = pole, depicting separation and boundary between
two fields), farmer feels alone, aloof, separated and isolated in a corner of his mind.
Even when “into himself” he is alienated from himself (self-alienation: He is “individual”
and a “wage-laborer”; he is “individual” and a “property” owner; he is “individual” and
separated and away from individual. His mind starts losing a sense of individuality –
being individual (at the most he is “circumscribed” individual). “Liberty” of “property”
brought him here at this stage when he doesn’t understand in his confused mind what
he is: property owner/ wage laborer/ subsistence food grower/ commercial farmer; but
in no capacity to feel himself as “real individual”. Farmer feels alienated from a “genuine
human community”119, which is concerned about him and wants him to live, except as
cotton/food-grains/pulses grower for “impersonal market”,and in which each farmer is
“a really individual community being”120.Farmer feels alienated from his own powers
(power to be social, associated, sharing, mutual helping in community without “wage
relation”), from himself and from village community; in “hodological” sense,his mind is
impelled to look towards distant market, city market, national market/impersonal
market (e.g. e-marketing121) as nearer or closer than his own village community or
“weekly haat” & “bazaar”122.

118 Alienation from others/ individuals/society felt in mind, was a major factor in the suicides of women in
France, described by Jacques Peuchet in 18th century (Appendix-7.1). Recall his expression: “there was
not a single person in this crowd (society) for whom she could think of being alive”.
119 Charles Herr (op cit). Instead
120 Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Progress Publishers, Moscow
121 e-NAM: Electronic-National Agricultural Market (NAM), marketing by online network.
122 For example, the farmers’ association with weekly “haats” was limited merely to buying vegetables

from nearby Jormoha village at 3 km from Devnala sample village in this study. Beyond this limited
linkage, there was no connection with the effervescence of local “haats & bazaars”. Similarly, in sample
village of Harankhuri, farmers’ association with “fairs” was limited to bullock cart race in a nearby village,
organized at the most once in a year. Rajni Bakshi (2009), in Bazaars, Conversations and Freedom (For
a Market Culture Beyond Greed and Fear) has illustrated the significance of local “haats & bazaars” and
“melas” (fairs) in the life of villagers and communities, by citing an example from Maharashtra state even
as village and small town people from all over converge through Varkari “yatra” towards temple town of
Pandharpur, each year by walking, singing, dancing and enjoying life in monsoon season. This lively
space is getting constricted and circumscribed for farmers in many places, including sample villages.

216
“Property”-based-“liberty” and the autonomy-independence of agricultural production
process, brings each individual farmer to a stage where his mind/attitude starts detesting
cooperation, association and joining together with other farmers for any human
(social/economic) endeavor including, production, processing or marketing. Even
cooperative credit is not popular in both sample villages (Harankhuri and Devnala). In
Harankhuri village, the NGO (Kamalmayan Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, KJBF) failed
to convince farmers (after “herculean efforts”) about the benefits of joining the Producers’
Company (PC) that was set up by taking 400-500 members from nearby villages even as
not more than 8-10 farmers could be roped in to join the PC. As regards Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACS), only 4-5 members were the members of
this PACS and that is also defunct and closed now. In second sample village Devnala,
PACS is working but only 5-6 farmers (out of 350 total farmers) joined it; others were
indifferent and apathetic to these cooperative credit institution. Only a couple of SHGs of
men farmers were formed in sample villages. There is no Farmers Club “(FC) in villages.
Why cooperative institutions and producers organizations are not found attractive by
farmers? Actually farmers do not feel “empowered” or recovering their “own powers”123
by associating themselves with such institutions/ organizations/ companies, most
probably because such institutions in their history have vested more powers in themselves
(by being political-hierarchical) rather than let members/ grass-root people feel
empowered. It is notable from Appendix-7.1 that in human history both “paganism”
(ancient institutions) and modern institutions were conceived as structure of power.
Political state got more empowered through these “institutions” and became “grandiose”
(though people as “real individuals” were not feeling empowered). Farmers in sample
villages are aware and they remember in their mind the fact that “politicization” is
outcome of almost all institutions and community (Gram Sabha), not “human
emancipation” (genuine freedom). Einstein had also emphasized on “mental education”
of people for their socialization124. Thus Marx observed, on outline of the future society:
“When communist artisans form associations, teaching and propaganda are their

123 Charles Herr (op cit)

124 Ideas and Opinions, by Albert Einstein

217
first aims.125 But their association itself creates a new need – the need for society126 –
and what appeared to be a means has become an end.”127

If “impersonal market” is dehumanizing, so is persistence of “family subsistence” mental

set up of farmer. Both these approaches/attitudes constrict farmer’s liberty and choke his
freedom. The former (market) pushes him too far in an uncertain world or impersonal
world (e.g. world cotton market through national market), the latter (family) constrains
his existence, throughout his life, within a narrow little compass box of “family” where
new prime rule is landed “property” and all sorts of properties which are “possessed” by
each and each one is possessed by (affinity) for property. Thus trinity of “family”,
“property” and “state” moves together128. This deadly combination, antithetical to
human mind of the farmers, cannot be overlooked when one tries to understand the
reasons behind the act and fact of farmers’ suicides. What happens is that youths have
no virtually choice beyond their mind adopting family farming as hereditary occupation,
since it had been “ancestral” activity since thousands of years. What is ancestral, appears
inter-generational and hereditary; and what is hereditary, becomes individual and
personal. Thus 10,000 years old activity of agriculture that started in primitive era
(Neolithic age) can be seen carried out currently as hereditary and personal activity by
continued and incessant adoption by each generation of individuals wading through
highly complex family tree of genealogy/lineage of innumerable ancestors. This burden
of human history, unchanged and carried as such, with almost similar objective (physical
survival and subsistence) becomes encumbrance on minds of youth who barely speak
against this tradition. The evening scenes or all-time scene of village youths idling away,
roaming free with smart phone in hand, riding aimlessly on motorcycle, or gossiping in
street corners of village, or playing long sessions of children games under tree shade in
groups of 10 or 20, etc. are symptoms of thecrisis of “subsistence agriculture” which
constricts “human resource development” of youths in free conditions or what Marx
called, “development of productive forces” of men. Not only capitalism but “subsistence”
mindset itself constrains free growth of personality. While it is true that children in young
125 In contrast in sample villages when groups (SHGs) are formed the members’ “first aim” (ultimately) fed
into their constitution/mind is “micro enterprise” or “economic activity” or “marketing” for which state
even provides periodic support in the form of Exhibitions and Fairs organized throughout the country.
Even traditional “fairs” of society have come within ambit of state and state policy/functions. Even
individual farmers’ taught “first” and ultimate “aim” is “marketing” for which a “grandiose” set of APMC
regulated markets has been set up since 1960s. Although presently “regulation” of “markets” is now
proposed to be withdrawn regularly, there is a plan to actively intervene and upgrade 22000 rural “haats”
by central government. See, “Will Develop And Upgrade 22000 Rural Haats Into Gramin Agricultural
Markets, Says Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley” (https://www.bloombergquint.com/union-budget-
2018/2018/02/01/will-develop-and-upgrade-22000-rural-haats-into-gramin-agricultural-markets-says-
finance-minister-arun-jaitley). State has no plans to withdraw. In contrast, different view emerges from
Karl Marx that (instead of seeing individual farmer “withdrawn into himself”) state should “withdraw”
into itself. The role of state requires wider discussion.
126If one sees closely, avillage is not society or community (of real individuals) but only “political

community” (of political individuals and individuated individuals possessed by “property” idea)
governed under state which has its distinct objectives, not coinciding with primary aim of society.
127See Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.
128 The evolution of these three forces is illustrated in Frederick Engels’ book The Origin of Family,

Private Property and the State (In the Light of Researches of Lewis H Morgan, Progress Publishers,
Moscow. It depicts how under capitalism (based on principle of “equal right to liberty” and rule of
“property”) state evolves with property and protects it against those who do not own it.

218
age of 10 or 12 years (in 5th or 6th standard of school education) start taking part in family’s
farm operations by observation, direct listening, learning, hearing, overhearing,
witnessing, participating (e.g. going with father to field on bullock cart, family talk, small
but useful instructions) etc. they develop interest in farming which is natural and since
it’s natural kind of activity, making individuals be in “unity” with nature. However, when
these children become young (18 or 20 0r 22 years) whether educated or not, they’re
invariably always expected and assumed by the head of the household to be the extended
carriers of family-subsistence farming as their sole occupation. This “over-dependence”
of youths is submissively accepted by these youths who barely speak or go against this
decision of the family head. In extreme cases (5 to 10%), youth who has got opportunity
(by chance) to move out of village for higher education, decides to stay away from family
farming (more by circumstances). Otherwise, the general dominant trend is that 99%
youths are expected to replenish the pool of family farmers after the elder farmers have
retired or are on the verge of retirement at 70 years of age. The declining size of family
farm after partitioning and apportionment (due to marriage and separation or due to
division of land among brothers/sons) is not a deterrence to family the farming because
“allied support” of “wage labor” is ready for them in “labor market” to support their
compliance to enforced decision of family head to “adopt family farming for subsistence”.
Unwittingly, MNREGA wage-labor guarantee has aided the youths in adopting
subsistence farming combined with wage-labor under MNREGA. If not MNREGA, then
some other casual labor on road/house construction sites, contractor’s sites, blast-mines
(as in Harankhuri village) or such kind of wage-labor opportunities facilitate continuing
with traditional subsistence farming by youths on truncated plots and diminished
holdings though they are not totally interested in what they are doing or being forced to
do. Such kind of cruel, crude, rude, manly, surreptitiously “masochistic” and
subterranean patriarchal control over the youths’ mind by head of the households is
detrimental to the mental health of youths hitherto half-heartedly engaged in farming
currently in sample villages. Interestingly, one farmer amusingly lamented the fact that
intrusion by dish TV, mobile phone, smartphone, internet games, electronic “tab”, laptop
and exposure to the outer world has made even children of 10-12 years age, least
interested in farming matters of home/field/bullock-carts but more interested in
electronic gadgets of modernity! A change in mindset is in the offing but “impersonal
market” could lure youths disillusioned by “family farming” in its lap and “laptop” culture
of idle-network searching, instead of thinking of forming associations of youths for future
productive society through mutual cooperation and association. It’s also the threat of
“social business” and “social agri-business” by outside youths (of cities) that is keeping
youths of sample villages (as also other villages) still glued (temporarily) to the existing
family farming structure for the time being. This period of “transition” is the most difficult
to handle by youths’ mind in sample villages.

There are only two cases of youths (out of total 580 youths129) in both sample villages
that came to light during field survey, suggesting that educated youths could be

129Total number of 500 youths in Devnala village and 80 youths in Harankhuri village (with 50:50 ratio
of males : females). Therefore, two youths interested or voluntarily deciding on free basis to go
beyond “subsistence-family farming” implies 0.4% youths in sample villages were allowed freedom of
mind and free thinking for taking action based on voluntary decision. This is a worldwide phenomenon:
Youths (dis)regard farming as rolling dust and “back-breaking” occupation of no charm. In Kenya, one

219
VOLUNTARILY interested in family-farming AFTER higher education (though on “agri-
business” lines) by transcending subsistence approach and growing beyond mere physical
survival attitude, and moving ahead for progress and advancement. Both these cases
were located in Devnala village (Harankhuri had none). These two cases of two youths
suggest that if genuine freedom of thinking is provided, youths can take voluntary
decision to be retained in family farming on agri-business lines (both can be compatible).

Freedom to decide implies truly free mind; genuinely free mind to decide cannot be
abode of suicide; rather, free mind becomes home of free life to reside.

In first case, one 36 years old youth Hiranand Gaikwad (“Bodh”/Scheduled Caste) in
Devnala village is science post-graduate, M.Sc. (Horticulture) educated, from a college at
Nagpur under Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (State Agricultural
University), Akola. He is currently cultivating 25 acres of land allotted by one RuikarTrust
for nominal annual fee (not rent)130. He started farming on full time basis after completing
science graduation B.Sc.11 years ago (2007). After some time, he went back to higher
education and completed M.Sc. and then joined as science lecturer in M.C.V.C College,
Nagpur, under “Kiman Koushnyavar Aadharit Abhyasthum” Scheme, at monthly salary
of Rs.32,000. After sometime he left this teaching job and rejoined farming voluntarily
where he earns and saves around Rs.2 lakh per year (which he invests further for capital
accumulation131). His wife is Arts graduate and trained nurse though she does not choose
to work on farm normally, which is a sign of freedom and exercising of free thinking in
free mind.132His mind is tuned, as “duty bound”, to go to field twice daily (morning and
evening) without miss for monitoring his farm so that it “does not harm others” anyway133.
Marx says this would not be possible in the long run as such freedom shall be ultimately
limited by others’ failure in society. For example, this “agri-preneur” guides ALL other
fellow farmers in the techniques of production (as standard package of practices (outlined
in Krishi Samvadini” book), adoption of new technology, use of fertilizers, preparing
combination/mix of pesticides for spray, etc. He made a demonstration on “chofuli”

woman youth has changed her modeling profession to adopt “agri-business” to be a role model for the
world youth to feel inspired by her vegetable cultivation profession (albeit for market). This is an example
of “individual change” or “professional change” with free mind. See, “Can you did it? Reality show draws
youth to farming”, The Hindu, February 15, 2018. Marx talks about, going a bit ahead and different:
“social change” through “social institutions” for “new society” by way of free association and cooperation
of individual youths/farmers/ entrepreneurs. Rabindrnath Tagore’s “Where the Mind is Free”, is truly
applicable on youth farmers.
130 In the USA, phenomenon of “black bourgeoisie” had evolved in the 1970s and 80s to signify a world of

progressive bourgeois (capitalist) development. On similar lines, one dalit (SC) youth taking up large-
scale farming with “agri-business” approach/mindset in Devnala village could be termed as an example of
“dalit bourgeoisie” emerging as model of free progress for village youth cutting across social caste system.
131This is one step ahead of traditional subsistence way of life. Farmers need going still one step further

beyond these “entrepreneurial communities/individualities” (so-to-say) and towards real communities

and associations of such individuals to create a “new society”.
132 While majority of other farm households (almost 90 or 100%) have women farmers working on-farm

with head of the household, in the present case wife is FREE to decide, which is a mark of free mind not
incapacitates by circumscribed mind.
133 Term “does no harm” is the assurance of the “liberty” promised by the “property” regime after victory

of bourgeois (capitalist) French Revolution in 1789. Within capitalist (property) framework, individual
entrepreneurs (individual farmers/ agri-preneurs) vie for “liberty” that gives “does not harm others” yet
benefits oneself.

220
(square plot) method of cotton sowing in Devnala village. The point is: Even successful
“individual” entrepreneurship does not make universal progress possible in agriculture
in same village; some minority becomes “leader”; the rest (majority) is “laggard”.
Society does not progress; one or two or ten individuals make a mark which is Marx’s
concern. What the village witnesses is minor “success stories” as “showcase” or positive
“case histories”; community/society’s development remains behind partial/individual
entrepreneurial development.What’s the reason? Partial freedom is no genuine
freedom; without genuine universal freedom, no social (universal) development of all
350 farm households can be possible since Devnala’s collective mind is not free though
one or two individual’s mind may be free. In the above case, young agri-preneur had lost
his both the parents (father and mother) and was, therefore, naturally free. He was fond
of literature and read progressive ‘dalit’ literature including Marxism and Dr.BR
Ambedkar’s writings; he has good collection of books and a small library at home in
Devnala village. He had also the opportunity to have able guidance of his teacher in
college for whom he translated his drafts in Marathi language and other editorial/literary
assistance, which really opened this young man’s horizon to unlimited possibilities. Free
from routine farm job, he spends daily some time in reading and writing. His farm
household in Devnala was de facto (really) a “Shantiniketan” –abode of peace and
mental freedom; the onlyanomaly/paradox was his Shantiniketan household having a
parrot in cage, a sign of contradictory process of development in all its manifestations
in universe (nature, society, thought) where two “opposites” within same “unit” or
“entity” coexisted in “dialectical” (conflicting) way –so that future progress continues
through disequilibrium/ conflict/ struggle between the opposites (e.g. subsistence versus
commercial mindsets). Perhaps this internal contradiction of young farmer’s
entrepreneurial freedom coexisting with his owned parrot’s slaved caging in small cage,
shall be a constant reminder to him as also to entire village (350 farm households) that
freedom is supreme –be it freedom of mind or freedom of body.

In second case, Abhilash Neet, 25 years old son of a farmer (Barabharu

LakhshmanraoNeet, 54 years old, doing farming with COMMERCIAL APPROACH) in
Devnala village belongs to “Teli” caste (OBC). Normally “Teli” caste persons are not
agriculturists, but traditionally engaged in oil extraction occupation in village. Therefore,
doing farming with commercial agri-business perspective is not only individual initiative
and innovation by Barabhau, but also a freely accepted challenge. In this challenge, his
background experience of freely decided and acquired skills of electrical wireman
(learned from Yavatmal city), ration shop business under PDS since 2007, private
‘karyana’ (grocery) shop business in village since 30 years, and recently added business
of tractor ownership for service of hired cultivation, helped him in acquiring and using
business skills for agriculture. His agri-business in farming is based on cultivation of 11
acres of owned land. The only son (Abhilash) is science graduate, B.Sc. (Agriculture) from
State Agricultural University, Akola. He is currently studying for degree in Master of
Business Administration (MBA) in Agri-Business Management (ABM). His aim is to use
this knowledge for household’s farming to expand on agri-business lines. This is an
example for freely decided, committed, focused and dedicated approach towards family
farming without any pressure but voluntarily chosen occupation and new approach.A
specimen of innovative thinking of young graduate son of free agribusiness entrepreneur
is depicted by his suggestion (that he has been offering to the villagers) that they should

221
start plantations of “Nilgiri” plant (a medicinal plant) which grows and matures in 7 years
(instead of only “Teek”). But he feels sad in saying that no farmer is listening to him even
as he is aware that “all of them are focused and paying attention to one crop i.e. cotton for
the past 100-150 years”. Further, he is aware that turmeric can be grown as Devnala
village has red soil. He laments on constricted mentality of village farmers, 65% of whom
never got their soil tested. This young prospective agri-business entrepreneur son of a
free farmer has free perspectives on all aspects of family farming and business, which
is rare to be found in sample villages. Such free thinking farmers do not need to take up
bigger challenge of committing suicide either even as they have taken up normal
challenges of agri-business approach in family farming with fair success. Above all, this
young prospective agri-business farmer’s family is FREE FROM NECESSITY OF
LOANS. They earned and saved Rs.1.50 to 2.00 lakh each year. So, they never needed
bank loan even in the past. They saved money from farming and side business and
invested it from own source, so that over-dependence on bank loan is self-negated.
During 2017-18, this free farmer (free from over-dependence) spent Rs.1.00 lakh on
household consumables, Rs.0.50 lakh on education and Rs.2.00 lakh on farming. In
2015, they spent Rs.4.00 lakh on daughter’s marriage –all without borrowing from any
source. This is one of the very few farm households in Devnala village which have
registered farm land in the name of women equally (mother’s name 3.50 acre) while
all/most of the other farm households are yet to transfer ownership deed (“7-12”
property document) in the name of women/wife of head of households in their respective
families reportedly “due to poverty and lack of money for registration”! This shows
patriarchal mentality and petty narrow feudal mindset of villagers vis-à-vis above
household’s conscious effort made successfully towards family women’s right granted
by “equal right to liberty”.Mindset matters a lot in altering the economic lot and fate of
the farmers.

III. Decaying Health of Farmer’s Body

So long as state’s mind kept governing individual farmer’s mind (through policy inputs)
and farmer’s mind ruled youth’s mind (through patriarchy, manly masochism,
suppression of women’s rights, etc.), the system was working well and suicides of
farmers did not become a big issue (till 1990). The farmers’ suicides became an issue
after 1995, when policies of withdrawal of state (liberalization, privatization,
globalization) were introduced as part of new economic policies of state (itself governed
by necessity of new global economic order imposed in the world after 1990. It took 5
years for the new “liberalized” economic order to influence the villages and farmers. By
1995, the reports of farmers committing suicides had started appearing, and Punjab and
Haryana were the two states where first studies on farmers’ suicides had been conducted
in/around 1998. The study on farmers’ suicide in Punjab was conducted by the Institute
for Development & Communication (IDC). The team leader of present study in Vidarbha
had the opportunity to work as field investigator in the Punjab study. Sample villages
(both are tribal) in this study in Vidarbha experienced intensive technological application
(chemical fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, new pump sets) under Green Revolution in 1992.
That was the period when farmers’ suicides in other parts of the country (mainly Punjab
and then Andhra Pradesh) had been coming into report.

222
State’s sudden and later on gradual withdrawal from regulation made farmer and
youth “withdrawn into himself” after 1990, and their physical/bodily health started
getting deteriorated, leading to routine sickness, serious diseases, various ailments,
health issues, drug addiction, wine addiction, nutritional issues, then even food-security
issue, issue of physical survival due to falling incomes affecting family
subsistence/health, and ultimately desperation and anxiety leading to suicides.

Fig-7.3: Social Downfall “Harms” Farmer’s Body

(Decaying Bodily Health)

Curses and insults by annoyed family head and

elders affects growth in personality

Drudgery of daily wage-labor with family farming

Social Downfall During Post-Reforms Period

Wine addiction, drunkard behavior, falling health

Harshness and arbitrary/punitive action by

quality inspectors, market functionaries,
institutions, banks
(1990 - 2017)

Excess/conspicuous expenditure on consumption

and social functions with low income causing
indebtedness

Sickness, serious diseases, poor family

healthcare, poor hygiene in house: physical
survival at stake

Moneylender/informal sources as lenders of the

last resort ultimately cannot offer lease of life

Isolated farmer seeks freedom from alienation to

find "peace in nothingness" by self-annihilation

223
If 99.6% of youths, in both sample villages (Harankhuri and Devnala), do not feel free,
or their mind experiences submissiveness to an external force that governs them and
they still continue with life, then health of physical body is bound to be adversely
affected. Even in “circumscribed” freedom, youths/farmers has to live; but such life is not
fully lived. A part of life daily gets harmed and bodily health gets deteriorated. Daily
curses, scandalous name calling and complaints by head of family and elders, scolding,
tormenting of youths has adverse impact on youths –whether engaged in family farming
(half heartedly) or wandering idly. On the one hand, youths’ mind is gripped and is
incapacitated to think freely beyond family farming based on subsistence farming
(supported by ration shop supply equivalent to 6 months survival while 6 months’ life gets
support from farming). On the other hand, new opportunities are shrinking under global
market scenario of liberal capital and technology that replaces labor). Existing set of
family farming is highly dependent on casual labor at odd places (roads, house
construction sites, blast mines, stone breaking, etc.). Industrial sector is not that much
developed in Wardha and Yavatmal districts whch could absorb large supply of
unemployed youths from sanmple villages (Harankhuri and Devnala) which have
nonetheless poor skills of youths to be absorbed in industrial manufacturing jobs. The
only recourse to employment is in agricultural wage labor, mostly for cotton cultivation
on others’ farms (sowing, weeding, spraying, harvesting/picking, etc.). Almost all farm
households have one or two agricultural wage laborers for survival of household.In this
way, their economy of cotton cultivation is integrated on lines of hired wage-labor (but
not beyond that to sharing or cooperation or association), which further “separates” these
households on “property” principle rather than uniting them to form association or real
community of real individuals. They remain (as hired wage laborers) in the end,
“separated” individuals (as landed “property” owners) who are further “separated” by
“wage labor”. Ultimately, village becomes a pool of “separation”, not association.
Everything in village appears divided: fields, properties, families,
individuals, minds, hearts, opinions and last, existence.

Drudgery of wage labor takes a heavy toll on health even as responsibility of owned farm
also cannot be ignored. Farmers in Harankhuri village informed that since 50-60 years
ago, while they would work whole year as “saladar” (farm servant) attached to their
master/zamindar, they would also steal some time (with permission of
master/zamindar) to work at their own farm for some time for its economic management
in each crop season, particulary in Kharif during monsoon rains. Therefore, “back
breaking” hard work on farm has been a fact in the sample villages by farmers since long
time, particularly after cotton cultivation was started and it worsened after the
Independence, and more particularly after liberalized reforms of 1990. Farming really
became drudgery for farmers in sample villages (as elsewhere)134. These facts drive
farmers towards anxiety and desperation when coincided with the fact that markets
generally did not function in farmers’ favor. Then its disruptive and disastrous
consequences were inevitable for farmers.

134Lierature on evolutionary economics (EVONOMICS) also suggests that as compared to hunters and
gatherers, modern peasants worked more hard and had less leisure time (for fairs, functions, ceremonies,
get together, celebrations, association in community, etc.)

224
Next logical (and practical) step is excessive dependence on wine consumption to forget
(albeit momentarily) the drudgery of “back-breaking” (and now heart breaking) farming
occupation. Farmer is involved in farming half heartedly and with least interest. Thus
entire being and well-being of body of farmer is affected: farming becomes “back
breaking”, “heart breaking” while “mind” was already gripped and ceized by alient force
(patriarchal family, intervening state, hostile market). Whatever little a farmer could do
on farm, fetched him unremunerative price (particularly cotton, except in 2017) generally
for all produce, viz., toor, soyabean and cotton. Disquieting aspects of marketing of cotton
were already indicated –how it was purchased at below MSP on pretext of its poor quality.
As one looks all around while traveling in Wardha and Yavatmal districts in the
interregnum of Monsoon season and winter months, one finds only one crop
predominantly on vast landscape of farms: Cotton plants. Naturally, value (price) of
cotton has come down with multitude of small producers. So, value (importance) of
farmers also comes down. Even involvement of NAFED (cooperative federation) in
purchase of toor didn’t help. Farmers in sample villages received prce that was lower than
MSP.135

With rising costs and falling incomes, net profit of farming was bound to be falling and
negative. In Devnala sample village, it is borrowing from informal sources of lending
that has been keeping farming alive. And, it is farming that keeps moneylenders ticking,
going and continuing. When daily consumption needs suffer due to declining income,
family comes on the brink of starvation if moneylender/traders’ lending does not save it
from such plummeting levels of consumption. This fact is totally ignored by mainstream
economic discourse. Institutional discourse keeps heaping high appreciation and praises
on institutional credit, ignoring that it is the moneylender’s and informal sources’ lending
that makes farmers’ families survive physically. Farmers find no coping mechanism
available at their disposal in adversity, other than moneylender and informal sources
of lending; but ultimately they are “lenders” of money, not lenders of lease of life. When
moneylender is out of the equation of lending money to the farmer, even banks do not
come forward to lend money for household consumption (grocery, clothes, education,
healthcare, medical expenses, daughter’s marriage, house repair, etc.). Then it’s the end
of road for the farmer whose “lender of the last resort” was informal
source/moneylender/trader, not bank.

Social Downfall causing Private Farm Decay, and vice versa, in Villages:
Farmers reported several cases where medical expenditure on serious/routine illness was
common. Even entire family had been in the grip of diseases. Society/social structure is
indeed flawed and defective, and it needed complete “reorganization” on newer principles
(which can be abolishing private property in agricultural land, which was now getting
trucncated/ apportioned/ partitioned/ fragmented). Cursing, torturing, abusing,
reprimanding, annoyance, scolding, scandalous name-calling, punitive action,
sickness, ill-health, partition of land, disinterest in farming, declining income, rising
expenses on consumption/ marriage/ dowry/ conspicuous consumption/ consumption

135The fact that even NAFED could not stop exploitation of toor farmers in Maharashtra, has been
reported in print media in recent times (2016/2017). It reveals how private wholesalers fleeced the
marketing system to main gains of thousands of crores of rupees but farmers lost their money and lost
they way too ironically in going towards “cooperative” direction of NAFED.

225
supported by borrowing, high expenses on medicare, SELF INTEREST, property-
caused separation (of hearts, houses, plots, individuals), question of “physical survival”
looming lage, etc. are correlated SOCIAL attributes in sample villages, which caused
decay of farming and the falling farmers’ health. Misfortune of farmers’ suicides may
occur in whosoever’s households but SOCIAL downfall is common and it has contagious
effect:

Harankhuri village:
1) Farm household of Balchand Tukaram Kudmute (83 years) witnessed social downfall
of family (though rose on economic ladder by buying infertile/hilly land, 95 acres in
five, ten or twelve acre plots) 50 years ago. His father insisted on son marrying his
(father’s) maternal niece but mother insisted him marrying her maternal niece. There
was huge dispute and brawal in family. Father’s niece was having serious illness
(tuberculosis) so so did not agree. He rebelled and married someone else. Father
scolded him and cut-off his social/family relation with son and continued to stay with
other 4 sons in village. The rebellious son (today 83 years old) migrated to Nagpur and
purchased a bullock cart for transport (loading cement, iron, stine, wheat, etc.) activity
for survival and stayed in city for 40-45 years with his wife; he returned 20 years ago.
Father continued to have dispute in house with mother. Both fell ill. Land got divided.
Other four brothers gave relatively more infertile/hilly portion to the rebellious
brother where wild animals did more damage to crops. Despite 95 acres of owned land,
all five brothers lived life in poverty! This rebellious son (now elderly man of 83 years)
has one son who has purchased a tractor for hiring out service for plowing/cultivation.
Their model of economic/social development was to buy land (with saved money),
mortage out the same for borrowing money. Even to buy tractor, land was mortaged-
out. Three of his brothers moved out to city for job (8th educated) by leaving farming.
One them returned as survival was difficult in city; it was not easier in village either.
Ultinately, 95 acres land could not be managed by 5 brothers since past 50 years; one
brother is shephered and rears goats. Farm of big size (95 acres) got divided and
decayed; fortunately no farmer suicide ensued but misfortune or mismanagement of
property caused decay of 95 acres farm in 50 years.

2) The only son of a farmer (Ganga Ram) borrowed money of Rs.25000 or so from
“undisclosed sources” (it could be bank as well as father suspects), then immediately
took to wine (as finances could not be managed) and soon after committed suicide in
2016. Father suspects more loans and indebtedness of his son; wine or even drug
addiction is suspected by father. Out of Rs.25000 loan, son had given Rs.20000 to his
father (for farming) as he himself was getting disinterested in work and started
withdrawing. Many such cases go silent even within the village (not to say reporting
in media or government statistics) due to stigma attached with all such phenomena.

3) Family of Naneshwar Jhinguji (46 years age) had 5 brothers. Four brothers died due
to excessive drinking; 5 acres land of joint family got divided and now it is leased-out,
by each of the 5 brothers/sons separately. Each of them got 1 acres, which yields petty
rental amount. Fifth brother is also having heavy drinking habit. Even during field
survey discussions, he was drunk fully and fellow farmers helped. Entire amount of
income earned (Rs. 1.00 lakh) is devoted to household consumption expenditure and

226
 wine drinking. When not drinking, he works as farm laborer, stone breaker, picking
cotton, construction site laborer, etc. So, 5 brothers; all habitual of wine drinking; four
brothers died; one just able to make both ends meet; farm of 5 acres decayed; so was
family health, on the brink of difficult physical survival.

4) Family of Dayal Champatrao Madavi (age 65 years) starts life each year from “zero”
(as head of the family himself put it) during past 40 years when this farmer became
head of the household after marriage/partition. Neither father could manage money
nor he, himself could learn about it. He says: “this custom of onetary mismanagement
is continuing”. Now in 2018, he faces the “problem” of daughter’s marriage after
having elder daughter got married few years back. Marriage expenditure involves
Rs.1.50 to 2.00 lakh, mainly for dowry. If groom is in government/private service, then
dowry is fixed at minimum Rs.1.00 lakh. Thus social downfall in village has
perpetrated.

5) Family of Kishor Balchand Kudmethe (age 46 years) had 90 acres agricultural land 25
years ago with 5 brothers. Today it is divided in such a way that this farmer owns 2.50
acres received after voluntaryapportionment (the rest is with his father).136This family
has the distinction of having worked in marginal farmers’ cotton fields as wage laborer
“without shame or hesitation” (as head put it). The idea was to earn money and save
maximum. Father always has the fear that sons may sell out entire land. Today he
leases-in 3 acres land (@Rs.3000 per acre) for physical survival of family. Subsistence
is the principle around which even land accumulation grows, but subsistence objective
is never abandoned. Farm stagnation culd be attributed to subsistence, fear, security
objective, conventional attitude, etc. “Want for money” is something that this family
experiences throughout the year, as put by farmer. Survival by farming is ensured for
only 6 months; for rest of the year, ration supply takes care of their food security. The
family is a typical case of expenditure exceeding income.

Devnala Village:
Total 10 farmers committed suicide in village during past 18 months (June 2016 to
December 2017), of which 3 farmers died during past 3 months (October-December
2017). Indebtedness and wine drinking were common factors. Farmers opined that in
next 10 years, 1/4th (25%) of farms shall be decayed and vanished in number.
Borrowing from informal sources/moneylender in village is the lifeline of farmers.

6) Family of Uttam Haridasji Gaikwad (age 41 years) owned 25 acres land 15 years ago.
Today (2017), he has 16 acres even as 9 acres has been sold away due to “excess land”,
“no working hands in family”, “poor quality of land”, etc. The family is bogged down
by household expenses, particularly on buying vegetables. He is the only son
(technically educated with dpiploma in technical education). Farming is done half
heartedly. Farm has got decayed due to apathy and indifference, as farmer could not
exercise freedom to quit farming for his interest in technical job.

136 It shows that voluntariness and love for freedom has its cost: patriarchal father doesn’t give full share
of landed property. Thus the mind of youths is controlled under regime of property (which claims offering
equal right to “liberty”).

227
7) Family of Bhaskar Devraoji Thumre (age 42 years) is heavily dependent on
moneylender borrowing. Income and expenditure is equal (Rs.1 lakh), means no
savings. This state of zero savings has existed for the past 20 years. If elder brother
(who migrated to Yavatmal for electricity shop business) did not help with money and
inputs, this farm household (3 acres) cannot survive year after year on its own.

8) Family of Basantrao Shravanji Khonde (age 65 years) cultivates 6 acres of allotted

land, and is characterized by annual income of Rs.2.00 lakh and expenditure Rs.1.80
lakh. One son died in military service. Subsistence of 6 members in family is very
difficult even as bank’s loan of Rs.1.00 lakh is yet to be waived off (as in January 2018).
He started taking loan from DCCB Yavatmal, with “occasional defaults”. While his
need is Rs.1.00 lakh, he gets loan maximum Rs.30,000. It’s natural. Farm is
stagnant/decayed.

9) Family of Dadaraoji Shyamrao Mandokar (age 55 years) cultivates 5 acres of “allotted”

land. The hereditary land of 5 acres received from father has been sold away to the
Irrigation Department which planned to construct a village pond for all farmers. This
farmer had long years of litigation with the department due to low price/compensation
received by him, as he reported. The central concern of all property relations in
patriarchal families, i.e. selling away father’s land, is evinced by this case study (sold
5 acres). Thus private landed property and farm has greater likelihhod of economic
decay. The family head rued about constant shortage of money throughout the year.
He has bank saving account for the past 12 years (2011) but it doesn’t have any money
deposited. Farmers says, he keeps borrowing money for physical survival of farm and
family. He is borrowing incessantly since past 40 years from informal sources. Bank
does not provide him loan since ineligible due to default. His debt from informal
sources (as on 23 January 2018) was Rs.2 lakh.

10) Family of Purushotam Madhavrao Mandokar (age 51 years) cultivates 5 acres of

allotted land (on nominal fee). But food security is their major issue even with
subsistence farming objective; ration shop food-grain supply comes to their rescue.
For the past 30 years, informal oan is their life line. If child is sick for one week, then
mother gets ill, then father is sick; they need to be taken to hospital sometimes. As on
date (23 January 2018), this family had debt of DCCB Rs.70,000 and indebtedness
due to informal source Rs.2.00 lakh. “White gold” (cotton) has produced nothing but
poverty, for the past 100-150 years, he rues.

11) Family of Ganesh Vasantrao Khonde (age 38 years) owns and cultivates 5 acres land
allotted by Ruikar Trust. Family’s owned 23 acres land (hereditary) is leased-out for
the past 7 years (@Rs.2500 per acre; Rs.50,000 received as rent in total)., of which 12
acres belongs to Ruikar Trust (that cannot be “leased-out”). He met with accident and
hence cannot cultivate all land himself; same year he had took loan of Rs.35,000 from
DCCB Yavatmal, which became default. He is having pain in back and remains “idle”
throughout the day. Now he complains DCCB calls him daily by SMs message to come
to bank branch but he hesitates to go, after filling online application form for loan
waiver. The farmer who gets a certain fixed income of Rs.50,000 per year as rent of

228
 land, is unable to pay Rs.35,000 loan for the past 7 years. Strange, but it may be
termed as decay of farm, farming and household –social downfall.

12) Family of Subhash Jemarao Rathod (Banjara caste, aged 47 years) cultivates 12 acres
of “allotted” land (against nominal payment of fee (“hazi’) of total Rs.900 per year).
During 2017, his income from sale of cotton and toor was Rs.1.44 lakh and 0.24 lakh
earned by wage labor. Against total income of Rs.1.68 lakh, expenditure was Rs.4.00
lakh (medicine expenses for family Rs.2.00 lakh; cultivation expenses Rs.1.50
lakh; and household consumption Rs.0.50 lakh), leaving annual loss of Rs.2.32 lakh.
His first ever loan taken from Bank of Baroda (Rs.60,000 in 2009) was waived in 2017
until which he was unable to repay. He says he is disinterested in farming now.
Informal debt is Rs.1.50 lakh as on date (22 January 2018). In June 2016, he got his
leg fractured which caused expenditure of Rs.1.50 lakh. It led to putting a break on all
other expenses by proverbial “tightening of belt”. Every time someone in family is sick.
Daughter is mentally impaired. Wife is mentally sick and is also on medication
(Rs.2000 per month is inevitable expenditure). Father keeps wandering throughout
the day in village, he says, and suffers from fever and “fits” of depression almost daily.
Farmer became sick of daily being engaged in expenses incurred on treatment of
sickness amid decaying farm. Affinity for “property” is quite strong: His father got 10
acres of allotted land (out of 12 acres) transferred as “7-12” possession” documented
land from Ruikar Trust (against payment of what amount, was not disclosed by
farmer). Thus with or without “owned” / “possessed” land, farmers’ economic crisis
and physical survival question always remains in tact, with slow death of farm,
farming and household.

IV. Farmer’s Journey From “Being” to “Nothing”

In spite of right to “property”, right to equal “liberty”, freedom, commerce, cash crops,
etc. introduced by state’s institutions for farmers, their savings, accumulation of money,
wealth, or capital investment, etc. are generally witnessed not beyond “self-sufficient” or
subsistence level in two sample villages (Harankhuri and Devnala). Even basic condition
of house is not attractive, colorful, neat & clean, or appeasing to eyes. A village should
normally display signs of affinity to life by its cleanliness, hygiene, aesthetics (beauty),
from first appearance; that basic aspect is missing in both the sample villages. There was
no real economic development visible in two villages. Neither agriculture nor industry has
made capitalist development in districts during the past 100-150 years of existence of
villages. Neither subsistence farming could sustain nor was commercial farming
profitable in general. Both have failed. Farmer trapped in this conflict would naturally
withdraw himself and be confined to house, with household members, and in the
surrounding of house/walls where he lived his life in the past. After cutting off from the
outside world as “nothing” in this plethora of institutions could protect him from potential
destruction, he turns inward, towards family and house. There also he finds “nothing”
appealing which could offer him peace amid turbulence of life. Entire society and
community including family (that rests on principle of patriarchy and private property)
offered him liberty or freedom to think, decide and act. In retrospect, he finds whatever
he did for the farming or the family, was done under the conditions of over-dependence.

229
“Nothing” ultimately came to his rescue. He found freedom in nothing. “Nothing” in
society came to his rescue yet he would seek peace in “nothing”, finally.

The life journey of farmer until death by suicide, may be described as under:

1) Farmer emerges as property owner in given society. Although institution of private

property has historically evolved across different countries, farmer’s emergence in
sample villages (Harankhuri and Devnala) follows existence of regime of property
relationships in the country since last decades of 19th C and early 20th C (as explained
earlier). Landed or any “property” and “equal right to liberty” convince the farmer that
by being “self sufficient monad” he will get desired freedom. Farmer works under
private property regime with this conviction. After some time he finds loss of liberty
only. His property cannot feed him well. He must work for other land owners as wage
laborer in cotton farms. This dependence on others for work, wages, livelihood and
employment reduces his freedom to act as he would have wished. This happens to
almost all the farmers. Even many “big farmers” cannot escape this tormentation of
dependence on wage labor.

2) Property makes him imagine (or makes him think so) that he is “self-sufficient”. He
thinks himself as “monad”. He is self seeking. He has to think about self-interest. A
“monad” is individualist to the core. Like a “single celled microorganism”, farmer has
to imagine that he has to be “self interested”: To think of one single person i.e. he
himself alone. Since all others are also thinking likewise (including owners of private
property of “labor power” and landless quasi-wage-labor tenants), all of them
individually imagine that they are capable of having “equal right” to achive “liberty”.
In these conditions, farmer is walways/first supposed to be self-survient, self-
centered, and self-seeking. Landed property or labor property makes one powerful
enough to think only of oneself. Farmer is not supposed to share his fruits with other
farmer or wage-laborer without having something equivalent from them. The dictum
of “self-sufficient” farmer makes him adhere to exchange principle, not cooperative/
sharing principle. Like an “atom that has valence [power] of one”, a “self-sufficient”
farmer has only one power invested from outside in him i.e. power of “property”.
Likewise a wage-laborer has only one power invested in him i.e. “labor power” or being
owner of private property of labor. Like an “indivisible, indestructible unit, a basic
element of reality and a microcosm of it”, a farmer owning property cannot lose or
destroy his status of “property power”: If landed property is lost then still he will have
“labor power” since wage-labor is his “property”.

230
 Fig-7.4: Farmer’s Transcendence From “Being” to “Nothing”
(Decayed Existence)

1) Historically evolved property-being (owner)

2) Farmer expected to be self-sufficient "monad" to

experience equal right to liberty and freedom
Farmer's Transcendence From "Being" to "Nothing"

3) Farmer expected to seek help from "nothing" because

"self sufficient"

4) Tug of war and trade-off faced on all fronts of life

(including mind and individuated social ecosystem)
(1990 - 2017)

5) "Nothing" appeared in society to save farmer's "being"

6) Detested association and cooperation as coping

mechanism and as foundation of new society/ecosystem

7) Indebtedness and aggression (directed toward himself)

8) Aggreived, intoxicated farmer "withdraws into himself"

9) Gives up egoistic mind of "property" (land, individuals):

Becomes "species being"

10) Seeks peace in "nothing" by losing sight of "being":

Transcends "property-being" forever

231
3) After getting landed property right to work with, “self-sufficent” farmer imagines, he
is like a character Robinson Crusoe of novelist Dfoe who can survive in turbulent sea
on a secluded island by himself without outside support, help, assistance, cooperation
coming or expected from any corner of the earth/mainland. In short, landed property
expects farmer to be isolated, separated and alienated from others/society or state. If
support is conferred upon him, then well and good; otherwise farmer is not supposed
to expect anything; he can expect “nothing”. “Nothing” (no institution) can save or
rescue him, if farmer be in adversity –this rule is implicitly inbuilt and inherent in
property principle.

4) The first tug of war farmer faces is: conflict between family-based subsistence farming
and state sponsored/market-induced commercial farming of cash crops. The strange
aspect is that he is accustomed to doing commercial cultivation of cash crops with an
approach or mindset that is characterized by subsistence-based farming.
Subsequently farmer faces the contradiction of his being landed property owner yet
working himself as worker on his own land. But he feels satisfied that at least he has
independence and autonomy of carrying his farm production process separated from
others.Thus “separation” makes him satisfied with (false spirit of) contentment and
“equal” right with others who are likewise landed proprietors as he is. In essence,
feeling of separation and aloofness from other farmers and wage laborers in village
(all fellow humans) based on property is no insignificant contradiction from the
perspective of “human emancipation” of all. Other conflicts are also witnessed within
family like disputes of property, apportionment and partitioning of household with
landed property. Fragmentation of family property coming into conflict with economic
viability of commercial farming is also notable. The most significant contradiction
appears in the form of farmer’s semi-/subsistence-based farming system being
“incompatible” with commercial (or any bank’s) banking/lending system (which is
commercial or “expanded reproduction” system based). This absence of “suitability”
between the production system and banking system creates serious crisis. It is strange
(and also somewhat paradoxical) that economic literature condemns moneylenders’
lending activities which are perfectly compatible with farmer’s subsistence-based
“simple reproduction” system under which farmer has to depend again on
moneylender/informal source of lending for part of his money requirements which
are easily available year-after-year and in each crop season. Personal conflicts,
contradictions, differences and differentiation drive all farmers within family and
within village from each other. Mainstreaming gender in agriculture has a pertinent
issue of property rights for women (which is resolved in Harankhuri but yet to he
resolved in Devnala village). Since foundation of “property” is “separation” (not
association), therefore, differences and disputes are bound to persist in farming. Each
farmer is deemed (or acts as) “limitation” of his own “liberty” by others. Each farmer
acts as constraint in freedom of the other. Property of each farmer is like a “stake”
(pole of boundary) between two fields. Division on all aspects is the distinct feature of
village life of dfarmers. Mind of farmers faces the biggest conflicts; his mind is the
biggest site of accumulation of all sorts of tension, strain, stress and “exaggerated
subjectivity” that causes all irrationality in mind. One can say mind’s “reification”
starts working: a sense of false objectivity emerges. In fact, the idea of obsession with
land/property is another serious contradiction of farmers since land “fetishism”

232
 emerges from such “reified” mind that makes farmer imagine that landed property has
automatic virtue of amelioration of his all sufferings as if landed property were
invested with mystical/godly power. Land power/ property power is mystified with
godly power.

5) Amid several conflicts/contradictions and divisions (of self-interest), tired farmer

forgets that he was supposed to be “self sufficient” atom-like atomist and truncated
unit, and not expected to have expectation of help from any institution, agency or
external force. He expects, he expects every thing (going beyond the atomist principle
of “self-sufficient monad”). However, he finds to his utter dismay that desired support
is not forthcoming. None of the institutions, organization, agency, law, scheme or
prgramme acts in his favor to stop turbulence in his mind and physical environment
surrounding his “being”. His “being” in society appears to see “nothing137” working
for him. The conflicts, contradictions, trade-offs, and tugs of war continue to exist as
before. Whether it is market functionaries or state agencies or extension institutions
or private units (traders, dealers, wholesalers, suppliers) –entire “chain” of more than
60 entities (listed earlier for farmers in sample villages) appear to offer no meaningful
support and assistance toward making farmer’s act of agriculture any way easier and
more comfortable (relatively). Farmer’s ruthless overdependence on an array of
suppliers and service providers makes no perceptible difference to hismisfortune.

6) When “nothing” appears to work, there was an opportunity for farmer to think freely
(as out of bound of dependence on 61 entities which declined to offer optimum
support). But it’s an irony or tragic for the farmer that his mind is rarely free from the
problem of “land fetishism” or obsession with property –manifesting his incessant
attraction for property. Property separates, not unites. Due to this travesty of property
“relation” (in asctuality “separation”) a foundation was already laid, since inception,
for keeping farmers srparated, isolated and alienated from each other. If there were
any association of farmers organized on the basis of common pool of land (as land, not
“property) then they would face the organized power of market functionaries, markets,
industries, agencies/supplier entities including private traders, in a similar organized
way. However, it is the principle of property that at the basic level deters any form of
collectivization or association of farmers. In sample Harankhuri village, NGO
(Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, KJBF) had made “herculean efforts” in
organizing the 50 farmers from this village to join as members in a producers’
company of all other farmers from nearby villages. However, only 5-6 farmers could
be induced for joining; their reason for not joining was their fear of losing land. In
second sample village (Devnala), farmers could not retain themselves due to
immature attitude and avarice of few leading farmers in producers’ company launched
by the “Reliance Foundation” beyond first year. The state of PACS (cooperative credit
society) is also in similar doldrums even asHarankhuri farmers are devoid of this
facility of cooperative credit society (since closed) while only 5-6 farmers are members
of PACS for Devnala village. One hardly thiks about cooperative farming (where land
could be pooled together). In this situation of “reified” minds of farmers, need for

137It implies none of the “grandiose” and “mindless” institutions of modernity and “political community”
of individuated individuals fit to save and rescue farmers. Marx (op cit)

233
 cooperative/associated effort could have saved farmers from potential disasters. It is
irony that SHGs of farmers (2 men SHGs in each sample village), like other farmers,
have little emphasis on teaching and propaganda of social association as their “first
aim”. As usual, their emphasis would be on savings habits or micro enterprise (which
should not be a big issue) instead of their socialization (farmer to farmer relation by
overlooking landed property) in cooperative farming. In fact, such cooperation and
association (without obsession of retaining property possession) would have laid the
foundation of new society where individual farmer is “a real individual communal
being” –member of genuine community, not “political community” (of Gram Sabha
type which is politicized). It is meant to say that farmers are devoid of the opportunity
to completely reorganize their village society on new grounds of farmers’ associations
and cooperatives by transcending property relations.

7) Present village society is a sort of “political community” of “individual” farmers (not

socialized farmers) as their basis is individuated property relations. As “individuated
individuals” (not real individuals), farmers are over-dependent on moneylenders and
informal sources of lending. Indebtedness is the salient feature of both the sample
villages. In fact, in retrospect their memory record suggests that farmers in these
villages have personally experienced the taste of indebtedness of village moneylender
since 40-50 years, and indebtedness of bank since past 30-40 years. The trend and
incidence of indebtedness of informal sources (moneylender, friend, big farmer,
rich/wealthy villager, relative, etc.) has been increasing over the years. It reached up
to Rs. 2.00 lakh per farmer (in case of moneylender’s debt). In case of banks,
indebtedness was Rs.50,000 to 70,000 maximum. Almost all the farmers were
ineligible for further bank loan and none of them had been issued Kisan Credit Card
(KCC) for this reason. However, farmers are least worried about indebtedness due to
informal sources of lending; their biggest concern is indebtedness due to default of
bank loan (including commercial bank and DCCB). Bank’s loan creates most stressful
and depressing condition in farmers’ households. Irrespective of loan waiver schemes,
farmer’s first priority is informal credit which is certain, adequate and tmely and
involves least amount of transaction costs. Nonetheless farmer’s indebtedness and
constant dependence year-after-year is symbolic of violation of “self-sufficient
monad” characteristic of property right. Farmer began his journey from being a “self-
sufficient” farmer yet reached at a stage where there is maximum dependence and
expectation from moneylender or other informal source of lending irrespective of
indebtedness (bondage) created in the process. Ironically, property sought to
“separate” the farmer as holder/possessor of power of property from other entities
(including moneylender, as owner of money/finance power). However, what appeared
is the other way round: established a strong “relation” of “indebtedness” (virtually
inseparable) between farmer and moneylender. The persistence of subsistence/semi-
subsistence farming is largely due to the relation of indebtedness and regular
borrowing from moneylender.

Indebtedness sustains the continuity of farming but restrains the growth of

personality of farmer: Farmers become irritated, anguished, stressful, aggressive and
agitated. His anger and anxiety are also the direct outcomes of indebtedness. After
Independence (post-1947), it is rarely seen that farmers vented out their aggression to

234
 others, particularly moneylenders or even banks. Conversely, farmer’s aggression
was directed towards himself; it was internalized and absorbed. Such aggression
which is directed toward oneself essentially triggers the thought of harm to oneself,
self-destruction, self-annihilation, or suicide.Frudian psychoanalytic observation on
self-submitting / self-negating aggression largely explains the reason behind
farmer’s suicide.

8) When aggression is internalized, absorbed and directed toward himself, grief stricken
farmer is “withdrawn to himself”. He cuts off from the outer world. His first
detachment appears in the form of losing interest in what was of his greatest interest,
i.e. farming. He loses interest in farming activity; he stops going to the field. He
becomes indifferent to the outer world, including his farm. This is the stage when wine
drinking reaches at peak. In the state of intoxication, he remains mostly at home,
inside dark corner or any secluded place where others do not disturb his mind. His
mind becomes a bit relatively free; free from the slavery of all those entities which
made him ruthlessly over-dependent on them; he starts thinking about their
meaninglessness. His heart becomes filled with greatest sensitivity and sensibility of
either detachment or altruism –but definitely not any feeling that does harm to others.
He realizes that while the regime of “private” property was doing harm to others
(contrary to its claim) by impoverishing the majority, he acts freely on lines of not
causing any harm to others. Tenderness of heart and feeling of good for others replaces
earlier feeling of avarice, “economism” (self-seeking economic gains) and greed. If
farmer has to withdraw into himself, he thinks he must convert his mind and heart
into abode of peace by overtaking aggression and agitation through effort, self-control
and sublime feelings. The first act of transcendence and transformation he realizes is
one of transcending all forms of “property” that he previously considered his
“possessions” (land, materal goods, wealth, wife, children, etc.) which are no more
thought asprivate property to be possessed any more, by him.

Aggreived and withdrawn into himself, farmer transcends in “time of the now138.”
Such time “now” is free from attachment with material gains, idea of personal or
private objects, property, possession, etc. that has to be immediately dispensed with
and transcended as mark of practical human action. Farmer thinks he must act “now”.

Farmer began his journey from “self-sufficient” being (property owner). From “self
sufficient” being, he becomes free from being “sufficient”. What remains is, only “self”.
He realizes “nothing” is “sufficient”: Neither state is “sufficient” nor he himself is
“sufficient”.

“Self-sufficient” being  Free from being “sufficient”

Withdrawn into himself, what is left with farmer is, his “self”; farmer returns to
“himself”.

138This is Walter Benjamin’s concept, which implies doing away with the notion of “circular time” of
capitalism in the wall clock that moves in order to exploit wage-labor for maximizing private gain as per
the principle of “commodity production”. See Murzban Jal (op cit)

235
 Farmer = Self

9) Farmer gives up his egoistic mind of “property”. He is pure “self” now (not selfish, not
self-interested, not self-sufficient, etc.). Property, which once gave farmer assurance
of being “sufficient”, is discarded out of his mind “now” as he is withdrawn to himself.
Land and all forms of property (individuals) that he once sought to “possess” and
“control”, aregiven up and transcended. He realizes that the life of property was “the
unlived life” as submissive son, as authoritarian father (head of the household) and
as envious neighbor of other farmers. He realizes he is now truly “species being” –
human realization and recognition of “being” whose “species” is real
human being, not any other being of property power. The question arises in
his mind: Shall other individuals in society accept him as “species being” (since all of
them are still immersed in thoughts of being “property being”)?

Farmer feels he is again isolated as “species being” while all other farmers around him
are “property being”. This thought once again agitates his mindwith aggression (but
aggression is kept inside). In the “time of the now”, he has to decide what he is going
to do as “species being”. Should he continue to be “species being” or return to his
original artificial status in society full of individuals as “property being”? This last and
final “tug of war” again agitates his mind. Last social struggle of his tormented life
(that started with social downfall) and the countdown now begins, for final resolution
and synthesis of all antitheses.

10) Farmer now decides to meet “nothingness139”, and be “nothing140”:

Farmer= “nothing”

Self = “nothing”

“Self” negates itself to be “nothing”. Farmer is to do this last act of “negaton” of

himself.

Farmer’s aggression within his mind resurges. What should he do with aggression in
that condition? Should he turn aggression “toward others” or should he keep it
“directed toward himself”, is the question faced by him now. Reason for turning
aggression “towards others” is that farmer thinks “others” should also become/feel
like him as “species being” (beings of same species i.e. humanity), not “property being”
(beings of same property). Would farmer be capable of inspiring all “others” to feel
the change as he himself feels now? “Now” is the moment of great difficulty as
aggression within could possibly make him “violent” toward “others”. This “violence”
would be necessitated as he feels he cannot live in such a society where innumerable
“property beings” are more powerful than one “species being”.

139 Neil Levy (op cit)

140 Here term “nothing” means transcendence and end of “being”, its antithesis.

236
Farmer decides, he shall resist his temptation to be violent toward “others” (who are
“property beings”) as also his temptation to be “property being” once again and to be
one of them once again. Self control has no better alternative; he shall resist to persist
as “species being”, and not be “property being” once again. His seclusion and
withdrawal already left a message for others though they did not suspect what is that.
Moreover he is aware that nature already left so many messages and
opportunities/chances for these individual farmers to associate and cooperate as
“species being” though none of them listened. Therefore, he thinks rationally (finally
now when intoxication of property relations is transcended) that others may not listen
to his message/suggestion when he is neither in the realm/world of the living (beings
of “property”) nor in the realm of the dead, but oscillating between the two
possibilities.

Farmer thinks if he, as “species being”, returned to the world of social alienation, he
may not be able to live that kind of life ruled by “property”; and simultaneously others
may not be able to shed their “property” so instantaneously as to transcend to recover
the new world of “species being” where human association and cooperation replaces
the dehumanizing private property.

Farmer thinkshe has lost gradually all control over “self” –neither he can have control
over “self-interest” nor he can exercise control over “self-annihilation”/ “self-
negation”. “Nothing” is in his “possession” now. He “possesses” “nothing”
and “nothing” “possesses” him. He is “nothing”.

But finally, to be “nothing” – and realizethat he is “nothing” – farmeris necessitated

to take “possession”,for “now” i.e. the last moment of his time, of any “means” in
society of property (e.g. pesticide, poison, kerosene, sickle, rope, other implement,
river, etc.), which could assist him (for the last time) in what is to appear as “self
annihilation”. Otherwise without possessionof such “means” farmer cannot realize the
goal of “nothing”. He takes no time; he takes “possession” of a “property” (say pesticide
bottle) and lets such “possession” (pesticide bottle) take him and possess him, for the
last time. The property (pesticide bottle) possessed by him is metaphor for possession
of “evil of private life”.

Private property is an “evil of private life” that grips the mind of farmer so that he can
never think about better life. Urge to own property is so strong that it is difficult to
turn and look back. Urge to end life (suicide) is also so strong that it is difficult to turn
and look back. Farmer cannot control any of these, rather these two (property/self-
interest and self-destructive urge) annihilate the farmer. If farmer doesn’t take this
“extreme” step, any way property relations destroy and kill farmer’s “human nature”
and “human essence” “daily, hourly and bit by bit”.

Farmer’s suicide is a symbol of power of “possession” finally taking his

life. His silent yet subtle message left behind the farmer’s death is: A form
of “property” in “possession” took away his life. Always beware of all

237
 forms of “property” and its “possession”. Suicide is assassination
perpetrated by “property”141.

In negating his “self” or his “life” that was already a tormented “negation” (due to
pervasive social decline), farmer negates this negationby the act of suicide. From
farmer’s perspective, his act of “negation” by way of suicide, is positive act (as negation
of negation). It’s surely an act of “courage” and heroship, not cowardice. It’s an act of
liberation from slavery of property; and not absconding, or turning away, from life.
Farmer finally gets rid of property by choosing so. His act of suicide is not individual
but social, since he felt about himself as “species being” (being of world-society/homo-
sapiens).

Human Emancipation: Since the act of suicide has failed to inspire others/other
farmers to be vigilant and act and get associated/organized for doing farming on
cooperative/ associative/ joint basis, suicide isNOT an act of “human emancipation”:
Entire humanity/society or entire farmers’ class is NOT inspired to act toward
organization for the cooperative management of all agricultural operations.Farmer
negates the negation but fails to take the positive forward, at higher level of
consciousness; he poses “antithesis” to “thesis” but “synthesis” is not there as farmer
is not having higher consciousness or is not educated to think about organization of
farmers. This “synthesis” of opposition (“thesis” and “antithesis”) shall take place if
and only if farmers are inspired after suicides by other farmers, to think and act on
the line of organization of agriculture on associative and cooperative line. Negation
of “separation” (property) at individual level has not resulted in mass/universal
negation of “separation” (property) by all farmers in the villages. Therefore,
organization of existing individual farmers (property owners) is essential to get rid
of the problem of farmers’ suicides.

Why Women Farmers Did Not Commit/Cause Suicide in Villages?

1) Farmers’ suicides are linked to the fact of “property” (that is founded upon
“separation” and causes further “separation” i.e. farmer—farmer separation and
individual farmer’s alienation from himself); landed property is exclusively
owned/possessed/controlled by men (heads of households). Since women are
excluded from property relations, exclusion fortunately saves them from
“separation” (inter-farmer separation) and individual alienation, and hence
suicide.

2) Although joint ownership of property by women (wife of head of household) has

been practiced in one sample village (Harankhuri), it has resulted in the opposite
result: association (a step towards preventing suicides), and not “separation” (a
step towards triggering suicides). A few farmers (five to seven) have joined
“Farmers Producers’ Company” (FPC) in Harankhuri village, which is mainly due
to the reason of women having share in joint landed property. Women as property
141“Surely for anyone who does not reduce to its literal meaning the whole spirit of a word, this suicide
was an assassination perpetratedby the husband [authority], but it was also the result of an intoxication
of jealousy.

238
 owners are more willing to associate (and prevent separation/suicides) as
compared to men as property owners who are less willing to associate (and
increase the chances of committing suicide with mentality of “separation”). This
village witnessed one farmer’s suicide (male farmer) so far.

3) In contrast, in another sample village Devnala, no such FPC membership

(association) was reported and women have not been granted property rights for
joint ownership of land. Rather, one FPC launched by Reliance Foundation was
closed after one year. This village witnessed 10 farmer’s suicides (all men) during
past 18 months (June 2016 to December 2017).

4) Farmers’ suicides in villages are generally linked to patriarchichal society (besides

property relations). Men farmers as head of household are authoritative, punitive,
rude, scornful, control-freak, of “will-to-power” type, envious, etc., which is more
likely to hurt their young sons who become prone to suicide due to insult and
torments. In contrast, women farmers despite property owners may not be as
rudely authoritative or assertive, which may spare sons/youths of ignominy of
hurts, insults or torments, which often drives them to suicide.

5) Men’s property ownership in land is more conducive to the act of suicide vis-à-vis
women’s property ownership.

6) Women are yet to have exclusive private rights in property (land); hitherto they
are only joint owners (that too in one village, Harankhuri). Therefore, element of
“separation” of individual women farmers has less efficacy.

7) Women farmers are more inclined to form associative groups as compared to men
farmers’ tendency to form groups. In Harankhuri sample village, there were 4
women SHGs (who could take up any activity if properly educated, since already
they are individual women farmers in their respective farm households) and only
2 men SHGs. In Devnala sample village, women had formed 20 SHGs, and men
SHGs were only two. Greater tendency to form associative groups puts women
farmers in advantageous position of least likely to commit suicide in adverse
conditions, since more women have group as coping mechanism.

21. Shortage of Drinking Water for Human Consumption and Animals

Villagers in Devnala faced routine problem of undergoing acute water shortage, after
monsoon period is over, for next 3 months of the season for these requirements: (i) safe
drinking water for human consumption; (ii) other household-use water requirement for
human consumption; and (iii) drinking water for animals.142

142 Villagers in Harankhuri sample village relatively faced no such major problem of water.

239
 (i) Safe Drinking Water for Human Consumption

Extremely inadequate supply of safe drinking water to all the households after rainy
season was the major problem (“dhoop-kaal” problem i.e. “post-rains sunny season”
problem) faced each year by Devnala village. The problem arose each year after
monsoon season for next 3 months (October, November, December, and it could extend
even up to January month as this happened in 2018, and witnessed by the study team
during field survey). Total demand of safe drinking water by 350 households is 10500
liters per day. For this purpose, households have two sources of water supply available to
them: (i) piped water scheme in village; and (ii) 7 hand-pumps in village; and (iii)
borrowed open well in nearby village farm. There is problems-galore: The piped water
supply scheme of Devnala can supply maximum 3000 liters per day and hand-pumps can
supply maximum 2300 liters per day (as 5 hand pumps are totally dysfunctional, one is
semi-functional, and only one is fully functional). As a result, villagers started depending
on borrowed open well in nearby village farm where owner of the farm has installed an
electric motor with plastic pipe line to extract water for Devnala villagers on
humanitarian grounds in dry months after monsoon season. Over 200 villagers huddle
together to get last drop of water as owner runs electric motor for maximum 15 minutes
a day and it gives maximum 2000 liters water daily. Out of 200 villagers, only 20 are able
to get water. Sometimes scuffle starts and villagers start pushing each other which
enhances the danger of someone getting thrown in open well even as they were aware that
in one such incident in Yavatmal one person fell in open well and died. So total drinking
water supply is estimated as 7300 liters per day. Against daily requirement of 10,500
liters of safe drinking water, total daily maximum availability of 7300 liters gives
estimated shortage (deficit) of water supply for drinking purpose of humans as 3200
liters per day, which is substantial. Weekly and monthly shortage of safe drinking water
for humans is estimated as 22,400 liters and 96,000 liters, respectively. Water shortage
for drinking purpose by humans for the period of 3 months after Monsoon, is estimated
as 2,88,000 liters, which is substantial and an area of concern for the entire village as
water shortage problem is experienced by all 350 households similarly without
distinction and differentiation. Therefore, quantity of safe drinking water available is in
acute short supply. Villagers expressed another problem with regard to safe drinking
water supply for human consumption: i.e. quality of drinking water. Such water supplied
from piped water scheme is not fit for drinking, as it was observed that water had physical
impurities (dust/sand particles, opaque color, greenish moss or “kai”/“kanji” type
appearance, etc.). Sometimes buffaloes’ dung gets mixed in water because there is one
“nallah” (spring) or ditch sort of structure near well, where buffaloes sit in rainy season;
this nallah/ditch water gets mixed in the well during rainy season, which contaminates
water tank by making it unclean. No villagers informed that they ever saw or being aware
that water tank was cleaned (though they did not rule out its cleaning done by panchayat
peon (responsible for cleaning duty). The duty of peon involves checking water
level/availability, releasing water and cleaning water with bleaching powder provided by
Public Health Department. Till few years ago or even 30 years ago, problem of shortage
of safe drinking water for human consumption did not exist in Devnala as rains were
“sufficient” 30 years ago vis-à-vis drought conditions faced by village, at least since 2010
(for the past 7-8 years). Even in January, one could see entire village busy with arranging
water from here and there from 9 AM to 2 PM. During the course of field study (20-23

240
January 2018) entire village including youths, women and elderly could be seen watching
the digging of bore well by contracted machines in village. Villagers erupted with joy on
seeing digging of bore-well, being “successful” yet not knowing it would not meet their
total requirement.

(ii) Household-Use Water for Human Consumption

Villagers in Devnala (350 households) also faced shortage of water for routine household
consumption or other than daily drinking water needs, i.e. kitchen (cooking, utensils
cleaning) purpose, washing clothes, bathing, other household cleaning purpose, house
construction work (though sporadic), etc. This shortage of water was also felt for the post-
Monsoon months of October to December. It is assumed, based on discussions with
villagers, that same quantity of shortage of water i.e. estimated for drinking purpose can
be considered valid for other household use water needs, which is: 3200 liters for one day
and 2,88,000 liters for one quarter post-Monsoon season.

(iii) Drinking Water for Domestic Animals

In Devnala village, acute shortage of drinking water for 1400 animals is another major
problem faced by villagers after monsoon season is over (1st three months), which persists
for the past 7-8 years every year (since 2010 at least). Water requirement for animals after
monsoon season is estimated as: 42,000 liters per day; 12,60,000 liters for 1 month;
25,20,000 liters for 2 months; and 37,80,000 liters for 1st quarter (3 months). To meet
demand, there are three sources of water supply available for Devnala village: (i) 2 open
wells in Devnala; (ii) borrowed small water/pond-use in neighboring Wandhona village
(4 km); and (iii) owned big pond of Devnala village (50 acres area). Water in two open
wells is fit for animal use only (not human consumption). The problem with these two
open wells near “nallah” and near panchayat office (20 feet and 18 feet deep,
respectively) is that these wells become dry for 3 months after monsoon, i.e. from October,
November and December. In 2017, these went dry even during monsoon period i.e.
August and September. So, these wells remained dry for total 5 months during 2017
(August to December). Even in January month (2018) there was no water in open wells.
During 7-9 months when these structures have some water (due to rains), it is insufficient
to meet the requirements of all villagers. Low rainfall since 2010 is the main reason.
Villagers tend to use this water even for drinking purpose (on ground that person from
Public Health Department cleans this water using bleaching powder). Water is extracted
by using ropes.

The basic problem with these open wells (as with any other wells in the area) is also that
beneath the level of “black stone” (“kala Pathar”) further digging gives no more water;
so, well becomes a deep dug well dependent on rain water; if rain is not good, open well
cannot be a reliable source of adequate water. About second source, i.e. borrowed small
pond (“dharan”) in Wandhona, it remained dry after 2 months. Villagers of Wandhona
allow Devnala villagers to use this water from small pond, because their Gram Panchayat
is same. Farmers of Devnala daily take their animals to the small pond of Wandhona (4
km). Third source, i.e. big pond of Devnala is unusable because it was entangled in court
case by land sellers for 15 years (after construction of bund, even gate/shelter/outlet

241
could not be constructed on the pond, which is situated on a big nallah, so that ultimately
entire rain water goes waste by flowing over stone check dam in rainy season). This big
pond (40 acres) in Devnala would have been sufficient for all three purposes, viz.,
drinking water for animals, farming purpose, and drinking water for human consumption
(after treatment). Total water supply for animals, from above three sources, is estimated
as 25,20,000 liters i.e. available for the maximum 2 months, and basically it comes from
one single source i.e. borrowed small pond water from Wandhona village. The problem
of water supply persists for 3rd month after monsoon season is over and pond becomes
dry, for which water shortage is estimated at 12,60,000 liters.

22. Incomplete Construction of Village Pond for Irrigation: Solution

became Problem (though avoidable) Since 25 Years

(i) Background and Location

The problem of water shortage has existed/started in Devnalavillage for the past 25 years.
It became acute during past 10 years (2010 onward) when rainfall became erratic or very
low. There was a persisting problem of: (i) shortage of drinking water for human
consumption throughout post-Monsoon 3 months; (ii) shortage of water for household
needs (other than drinking water) throughout 3 months; (iii) shortage of water for
animals during 3rd month of the quarter in post-Monsoon season; and (iv) shortage of
water for irrigation of 404 hectares of agricultural land (throughout the year with
erratic monsoon). In this view, Irrigation Department started the process of land
acquisition 25 years ago (1992) for construction of a big pond (50 acres area) around
gushing rainy “nallah” on outskirts of Devnala village near forest and agricultural lands.
By including the surrounding fallow area, actual size of pond would be60 acres. Pond
water is supposed to be sufficient to meet all the water requirements of the village
indicated above at (i)-(iv) that includes complete irrigation.

The area where pond is located was surveyed by the study team with the help of few
farmers, sarpanch and ‘CM Fellow’ posted in village. It covers a small valley-like
topography falling between two foothills and is covered with large number of tall standing
trees (teek/sangwan wood) which get submerged during rainy season due to the gushing
flow of ‘nallah’; on one side of this pond (near earthen bund) is located the plain land and
path way from where the pond and its surrounding area can be approached (as it is
currently completely dry, since rain water is not being checked and stored that goes
wasted each year through low lying deep ‘nallah’). Depth of ‘nallah’, at its lowest point
from surrounding plain land, is approximately 30-40 meters. One needs to descend on
slope amid hundreds of trees through pathways to reach at the lowest point of “pond”
whose base is “nallah”. Vegetation, bushes, grass, small plants and tall trees (8-10 meters
high) abound the entire sloppy area of 40 acres of “pond”. In rainy season some of it gets
submerged. Shape of pond is rectangular as two of its sides/edges go parallel to the
surrounding hills. From one side ‘nallah’ has inflow of rain water and from its front side,
there is outflow (restricted by small sized check dam).

242
(ii) Balance Work of Pond Construction

Pond work shall be deemed to be completed if an outlet/ gate/ shelter is constructed on

one side (left side earmarked for it) to control water flow to the farmers’ fields. Since the
ownership of village pond vested with the Irrigation Department, its construction was the
responsibility of this department.

(iii) Progress

During first 10 years (1992-2002), development work on pond was reported as acquisition
of land from 5 farmers of the village (near/around ‘nallah’) and construction of earthen
bund on one side of pond along with a small stoned check dam across the flow of ‘nallah’
for storing water. Construction work on a “gate” (shelter) on bund was yet to start when
court case was filed by the sellers of land in the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court in
2002, which continued up to August 2017. The final decision on appeal filed to challenge
the earlier decision, came in August 2017. The appellants (land sellers) wanted higher
compensation for land transferred to Irrigation Department which pleaded that already
substantially more than market value had been paid to the sellers (as per respondents 10
times higher). As per records, 5 sellers (farmers) whose land was acquired by the
government, together received Rs.1.37 crore for 48 acres land (@ average Rs.2.85 lakh
per acre). Farmers received rate between Rs.1.80 and 8.00 lakh per acre for the land sold.
One farmer received compensation at considerably higher rate (Rs.8 lakh per acre) while
another got the minimum of Rs.1.80 lakh. Other farmers also got compensation valued at
varying rate.The farmer who filed court case had another grievance (besides low price):
his plot of land that he sold had one ‘kutcha’ dug well (on which he had made investment
and used it for lifting water with the help of DG set) and a number of trees for which he
wanted compensation. The court decision on appeal advised that price paid by Irrigation
Department was as per reasonable market rate.

Although court decision came in August 2017, work on pond was yet to be started (in
January 2018). No one in village knew about court decision (except 5 appellants/
farmers) for the past 6 months until study team inquired into the matter as part of the
survey, and discussed about it in a large informal meeting of the farmers that was
specially called on Sunday by Sarpanch (as inducement impact of field survey
discussions); the study team was specifically requested to come from Yavatmal and
participate and guide the proceedings (which involved sensitizing land sellers to stop
further litigation to which they agreed). It was during the course of special Sunday
meeting that the fact of closure of case came into light; otherwise every villager was in the
dark about the fate of court case of village pond. Currently, the path was clear for
Irrigation Department to restart the work on completion of village pond which was
possible in 2-3 months maximum.

(iv) Problems Faced by Farmers due to Incomplete Pond

Besides drinking water for human consumption and animal use, the major problem faced
by 350 farmer households owning 404 hectare land is, shortage of water for irrigation. In
order to get the village pond constructed, farmers formed a delegation for representation

243
to the District Collector. They also visited Block Development Officer with their problem.
They also met Mr. Kishor Tiwari, Farm Activist, “Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti” (VJAS).
However, no solution could be found to the problem. Except getting assurances of
solution each year, nothing could materialize as litigation went on for 15 years. Farmers
wanted “more” compensation, which is now understood as the problem of vast
differentiation and discrimination in rates at which their land was valued. Market rate,
as commonly understood earlier, was not the issue; the actual issue was differential
rates of valuation of land. Since all plots of land sold/acquired were of same type/
features/ fertility and located close, with no marked variation in other qualities/factors
(except different owners) the value of compensation could have been made at
similar/equal rates, to ensure attitude of parity towards individual farmers/sellers,
which was not done.

244
 Appendix 7.1

Excerpts (Observations) from “Peuchet on Suicide”143

(1) Suicide is a social problem [Agriculture comes later; agriculture itself is “social”
act]
(2) “Penury is the greatest source of suicide.”
(3) Suicide is found in all classes, among the idle rich, artists144, and politicians.
(4) There is variety of reasons “motivating suicide”: (i) Serious illnesses; (ii) absurd
friendship; (iii) betrayed love145; (iv) discouraged ambition; (v) family troubles; (vi)
repressed rivalry; (vii) utterly monotonous life; (viii) enthusiasm turned against itself;
(ix) the love of life itself146; (x) misfortune; (xi) dismissal from office; (xii) refusal of
work; and (xiii) sudden drop in income (family could no longer obtain necessities147).
(5) An act, witnessed daily and which occurs so often, i.e. suicide, cannot be unnatural
act.148
(6) It lies in the nature of our society to cause so many suicides (Tartars do not commit
suicide).

143
“These excerpts pertain to the observations by Jacques Peuchet (writer on social affairs, senior police
administrator/ investigator and chief archivist) on few disquieting case histories of suicides by women in
France (then common) after the new regime of private property owners came into power in 18 th century,
post-French Revolution (1789). Karl Marx translated it from French and inserted few important
intrapolations. See Karl Marx, “Peuchet on Suicide”, 1846 article, posted at website The Ethics of Suicide
Digital Archive, Archive Librarian, May 24, 2015. The study by Peuchet focused mainly on suicides by
women. (https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/selections/karl-marx/)
144 Vincent Van Gogh is most prominent and world famous artist (geniuspainter) who committed suicide

in 18th Century in Europe.

145 The central character Werther in JW von Goethe’s world-famous novel (1774) Sorrows of Young

Werther, committed suicide due to unrequited love in the feudal society. This was a strong comment on
feudalistic, patrioarchal landed property of feudalism. This novel triggered a spate of suicides in real
society in France, during the 1960s, as a number of educated university youths aimed to show sympathy
and solidarity with Young Werther of Goethe.
146 Biography Lust for Life written on the life of Vincent Van Gogh by Irving Stone, depicts the genius

painter’s extreme “love for life” amid penury, which itself motivated him to embrace fear psychosis and
commit suicide. (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/324744/lust-for-life-by-irving-
stone/9780452262492/)
147 For this reason only sample farmers persisted with family-subsistence farming.
148Jacques Peuchet, as chief archivist in France, had access to yearly toll of suicides, which he found “to

some extent normal and periodic”. In India, statistics of National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) depict
annual suicides by all classes/castes/gender/professional/social groups, which may be termed as
occurring “so often” and “normal” to some extent.

245
(7) Not all societies bring forth the same results; we must keep this in mind in working to
reform our society to allow it to reach to a higher level.149
(8) Those committing suicide are overwhelmed by misfortune. Reasoning of “fight
against despair” has little effect on them.
(9) If those committing suicide are “religious”, they may be thinking about a better world;
if they believe in nothing [not in state] they may be seeking the “peace of nothing”.
(10) Some writers try to demonstrate that suicide cannot be understood as “an act of
courage”.
(11) What characterizes courage, when one designated as courageous, confronts death
in the light of the day on the battlefield, under the sway of mass excitement, is not
necessarily lost, when one kills oneself in dark solitude.
(12) One condemns suicide with foregone conclusions. But the very existence of suicide
is an open protest against these unsophisticated conclusions.
(13) They (those who condemn suicide) speak of our duty to this society150, but not of
our right to expect explanations and actions by our society.
(14) They endlessly exalt, as the infinitely higher virtue, overcoming suffering, rather
than giving into it. Such a virtue is every bit as sad as the perspective it opens up.
(15) One has made suicide an act of cowardice, a crime against law, society, and honor.
How is it that people commit suicide, despite such great anathema against it?
(16) Man is a mystery to man; one knows only how to blame him, but does not know
him151.
(17) Has one noticed how mindless the institutions are under whose rule Europe
lives? How they dispose of the life and blood of the people? How in the name of what

149 Sample villages (as in Vidarbha region) witnessed Green Revolution technological reforms introduced
in 1992, aimed at commercial turnaround of village life through cash crops and commercial approach,
without necessarily “keeping in mind” how subsistence-based village societies shall react.
150 Duty of supplying food-grains to the country (like soldiers’ duty to protect the nation). The nationalist

populist slogan of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan (emanating from political circles) could be interpreted as
mandatory duties of Jawan (armyman) and Kisan (farmer) expected, by society-under-polity, from their
respective fields –battlefield and farm-field –though unwittingly both eventually become killing-fields.
151 In Devnala sample village, respondents pointed out some “propaganda” in larger society about farmers’

suicides that grew after “loan waiver” schemes. General people in society are inclined to mistake farmers’
suicides as ploy to get financial benefits of compensation. The phenomenon in villages (as elsewhere in
India) is more misunderstood than propagandized.

246
 authority, an individual can be ordered to care an existence that our customs, our
prejudices, our laws, and our [social] mores trample under foot.152
(18) The unfortunate rarely bother themselves with indignity, infamy and hurling of
branding. If the act of suicide accuses someone, it is usually those remaining behind,
because in this crowd there was not one person for whom it was worth staying alive.
(19) What kind of society is it wherein one finds the most profound
loneliness in the midst of many millions of people, a society where one can
be overwhelmed by an uncontrollable urge to kill oneself without anyone
of us suspecting it? This society is no society, but, as Rousseau said, a
desert populated by wild animals.
(20) Short of a total reform of the organization of our current society, all
other attempts would be in vain.
(21) Among the sources for the despair that leads easily excitable people, passionate
beings with deep feelings, to seek death, the primary cause was the bad treatment153,
the injustices, the secret punishments that these people received at the hands of harsh
parents and superiors, upon whom they were dependent.
(22) The revolution [French Revolution] did not topple all tyrannies. The evil which
one blames on arbitrary forces exists in families, where it causes crises, analogous to
those of revolutions [tyrannies]154.
(23) We must first create, from the ground up, the connections between the interests
and dispositions, the true relations among individuals. Suicide is only one of the
thousand and one “symptoms” of the “general social struggle” ever fought
out on new ground.
(24) Modesty and privacy were outrageously assaulted by the crowd [including
authoritative parents] who were cursing, scolding and pouring scandalous names and
curse-words before this “awful” scene aroused such feelings of “shame” [which

152 In 2014/2015, District Magistrate (in a Maharashtra district) ordered that bank (institutional banker)
to explain why and how loans were denied to the deserving farmers and suicides occurred.
153 This cause i.e. “bad treatment” (from institutions in general) applies to sample farmers/villages as well.
154 Author indicates that feudal and patriarchal features of unjust society and tyrannicalattitudes in

family (based on private property) are among the primary causes of suicides: Modesty and privacy were
outrageously assaulted in his case histories (e.g. family-subsistence farming is under stress in this study);
farmers feel dismayed (with feeling of shame due to dependence on pittance).

247
 governs women even in darkest despair] that she decided to take her own life by
jumping into the river and drowning herself.155
(25) Those who are most cowardly [authoritative society], who are least capable of
resistance themselves, become unyielding as soon as they can exert absolute parental
authority. The abuse of that authority also serves as a cruel substitute for
all the submissiveness and dependency people in bourgeois156 society
acquiesce-in, willingly or unwillingly.
(26) The unfortunate woman [who committed suicide] was condemned to
unbearable slavery and her husband exercised his slaveholding rights,
supported by the civil code and the rights of property. These were based
on social conditions which deem love to be unrelated to the spontaneous
feelings of the lovers, but which permit the jealous husband to fetter his
life in chains, like a miser with his hoard of gold, for she is but a part of
his inventory.157
(27) The spirit of exclusion knows no limits to its excesses, it extends to absurdity.
(28) Even in “circumscribed” freedom, one has to live.158
(29) “Persistence” in one causes “suspicion” in the other.159
(30) “You wish to be freed from me; never again to be burdened with the sight of me.
You long for the moment that will make you free of me. My infirmities and my
presence causes fear and repugnance in you. I am filled with horrible desires, a rage
to disfigure you. You shall not leave this house until you have killed me. Kill me; do
itthat which I have been daily tempted to do.160

155 Farmers in sample village (as elsewhere in the country) too experienced some such similar hurling.
156 “Bourgeois” means upper/middle class property owner.
157 One needs to refer The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State (In the Light of Researches of

Lewis H. Morgan), by Frederic Engels, Progress Publishers, Moscow. The role of private property is
crucial in governing the social affairs of society, both within society and between state and
society.
158 This validly applies to individual farmers.
159 Persistence of subsistence farming causes suspicion in state/ institutions/ markets of antithetical

behavior, which goes against the objectives/policies of the latter.

160 The dialogue (monologue) is metaphor that depicts highly stressful existence of both “individual

farmer” and “state/ institutional apparatus/society”. The speaker here is metaphorical state/society,
talking to individual farmer. State/society/institutions themselves appear to be enraged with, what Georg
Luckacs (op cit) in his essay, History and Class Consciousness, termed “estranged mind”.

248
(31) The “unfortunate woman” needed freedom from “deadly torment.” Apparently this
scene was being repeated daily.”161
(32) Surely for anyone who does not reduce to its literal meaning the whole spirit of a
word, this suicide was an assassination perpetrated by the husband [= authority],
but it was also the result of an intoxication of jealousy. The jealous man requires a
slave he can love, but that love is only a handmaiden for his jealousy. Above all, the
jealous man is a private property owner.162
(33) One blushes at “public opinion” (“crowd”) when one observes it close at hand, with
its cowardly malice and its salacious inferences. Opinion is too divided through the
isolation of the people, too ignorant, too corrupt, for all are strangers to themselves
and to one another.163
(34) One could compile a strange collection of quotations from famous authors and
poets which the despairing have written, preparing for their death with a certain
splendor. During the moment of “wonderful cold-bloodedness that comes with the
decision to die”, breaths a kind of “contagious inspiration” that flows from these souls
on to these pages, even among those classes who were deprived of education. As they
gather themselves together before the sacrifice, whose deaths they have plumbed, they
summon up all their powers and, with characteristic, warm expression, bleed to death.
Some of these poems, now buried in archives, are masterpieces.
(35) A “dull bourgeois”164 who places “his soul in his business” and “his God in
commerce”, can find all this to be very romantic and refute the pain that he cannot
understand, with derisive laughter. We are not surprised with this derision. What else
to expect from “three-percenters” who have no inkling that daily, hourly, bit by bit,
they kill themselves, their human nature. But what is one to say of those “good people”
who play the devout, the educated, and still repeat this nastiness.165

161 Substitute “individual farmer” for “unfortunate woman” (who commits suicide) as a metaphor or see
the exact correspondence between two cases.
162 Can one say state owns farmers (as private property to be protected) but farmers feels “disowned”

(unprotected)? Political state becomes responsible “stakeholder” in the project of farmers’ suicides.
163 This observation best portrays, asmetaphor, the social alienation of isolated “individual farmer”.
164Ignorant/uneducated/impractical middle class private property owner (unwillingly) attracted by glow,

glitz and glitter of business and commerce. Sample farmer in this study best fits into this depiction.
165 An ignorant rustic/ farmer/ villager committing suicide is normal because otherwise also he was dying

a little bit daily out of ignorance; but educated practical person committing suicide is surprising.

249
(36) Undoubtedly, it is of great importance that the poor devils endure life, if only in
the interest of the privileged classes of this world who would be ruined by the large
scale suicide of this rabble. But, is there no way to make the existence of this class
bearable besides insult, derisive laughter and beautiful words. Above all, there must
exist a kind of greatness of soul in these beggars who, fixed on death as they are,
destroy themselves rather than choosing the detour of the scaffold on the way to
suicide.
(37) It is true that the more progress our economy166 makes, the more rarely do these
noble suicides occur, and conscious hostility takes its place and the unfortunate
recklessly chance robbery and murder. It is easier to get the death penalty than to get
the work.
(38) The classification of the different causes of suicide would be the
classification of the failures our society itself. One has killed oneself because
some schemer [thug] stole one’s invention, on which occasion the investigator plunged
into the most awful misery due to the long, learned investigation to which he had to
submit, without even being able to buy a legal brief.
(39) One has killed oneself to avoid the enormous cost and the demeaning
“persecution in financial difficulties”, which have become so common by
the way that those men mandated to administer the public weal
[pain/distress] pay no attention whatsoever.167
(40) One has killed oneself because one cannot find work, after having groaned for a
long time under the insults and the stinginess of those among us who are the arbitrary
distributors of work.
(41) For want of anything better, suicide becomes the most extreme refuge
from the evils of private life.
(42) A man fired from service committed suicide since he could no longer be useful to
his family and was forced to live as a burden to his wife and children, he saw it as his
duty to take his life and free them from this added burden. This man expected help

166 “Economy” here has to be interpreted in its original traditional sense as “household economy”, not
macro economy of nation. See, Rajni Bakshi, Bazaars Conversations & Freedom: For a Market Culture
Beyond Greed and Fear, 2009, Penguin Books.
167 Farmers’ difficulties in villages facing apathy to their financial condition, may resemble this

description.

250
 from the goodness of princess. The Duchess provided 600 francs for the unfortunate
family. Sad help, without doubt, after such a loss. But how should one
[royal] family aid all the unfortunate since all France as it currently is,
could not nourish them. The charity of the rich would not suffice even if
our whole nation [France] were religious, which it is far from being.168
(43) “Suicide” reduces the most violent share of the difficulty, the “scaffold” [support]
the rest.169 Only by “completely recasting our entire system of agriculture
and industry” can “sources of income and true wealth” be anticipated.
(44) It is easy to proclaim constitutions on parchment, guaranteeing every citizen’s
right to education, to work, and above all, to a minimum subsistence-level existence.170
But it is not enough to put these magnanimous wishes on paper; there
remains the essential task of bringing these liberal ideas to fruition
through material and “intelligent” “social171” “institutions172.”
(45) The ancient world of “paganism” [creation of institutions] brought
splendid creations to this earth; will modern freedom be left behind by
her rivals?173 Who will join together these grandiose elements of power?174

168 “Loan waiver” scheme in Maharashtra and several other States (Punjab, U.P., etc.) has similarly been
criticized for such reason (inadequacy of waived amount). In sample villages, farmers still awaited actual
“waiver” after announcement and submission of online application (January 2018).State’s financial
constraint resembles royal family’s fund constraint.
169 Marx’s insertion
170 In current period, MNREGA, RTI, Universal Basic Income (UBI), Right to Education (RTE), etc.

resemble programmes conceived by liberal economy in those years (18th C) in France. But implementation
in letter and spirit is the key.
171 Marx’s insertion. The emphasis is on SOCIAL institutions i.e. people’s institutions and communities of

“real individuals” (not “political individuals”), etc. which create individuals with “social power”.
172
Institutional framework of action, to reduce suicides, was conceived and suggested in 18th C.
173 It is satire on political state and modern government institutions (since 18th C) and applicable to 21st C.
174 Both paganism (ancient institutions) and modern institutions (18th C) as it applies to 21st C, were

conceived as structure of power. Political state became powerful by these “institutions” and became
“grandiose” though people as “real individuals” could not be empowered.

251
 Chapter-8
Suggestions and Recommendations

This chapter presents important suggestions and recommendations, based on findings

and analysis presented in the previous chapters.

I. Suggestions & Recommendations for NABARD’s Initiatives

The following suggestions may be offered on the basis of critical findings and utility of the
report, for immediate period and in future.

1. Thorough reading of report to get “take-aways”

As the report is based on intensive study of sample villages, it is suggested that intensive
reading and free review, may enable the reader to cull out important “take-aways” for free,
fair and reasonable action points from report.

2. Learning points on farmer’s farm, mentality, activity

As the report made attempt to delve into the mind of farmer, recording his psychological
perspectives on diverse issues, his concrete actions/activities and his farm’s features, it
seems logically valid to propose that a new way of looking at the social reality of villages,
is desirable. “Take-aways” shall depend on compiling new “learning points” from report.

3. Criticality of integrity and rationality

It is quite possible that reader’s viewpoint and subjective value-judgement may not match
with the viewpoint of author of the report. In such a situation, in the end, it is suggestible
that integrity of study acquires criticality. Ultimately, it is farmer’s perspective, which is
most critical. Although importance of current way of looking at social reality and status-
quo approach may not be denied, reader/user of the report may consider critical and
questioning approach of farmer having highest integrity, since it’s his human
perspective that becomes decisive. This report made all-out effort, to put forth the
perspective of human rationality, to potray social reality of farmer in village.

4. Action Points for immediate/short-term action

A few critical “action points” for immediate/short-term action, wherein NABARD’s

initiative/support/hand-holding seems important, may be suggested as under:

(i) Completion of Village Pond in Devnala

Construction of this village pond (50 acres) had been uncompleted for the past 25 years.
Currently there is no constraint; litigation and politics is over. In the backdrop of facts
and dynamics of development notably that the villagers and Sarpanch have been

252
sensitized by the study team and District Collector (Yavatmal) and relevant Departments
have been provided feedback by the study team (during the course of field survey), it
appears worthwhile for NABARD to follow-up with district agencies, District Collector
office and Gram Panchayat, through District Development Manager (DDM), Yavatmal,
NABARD, to pursue the matter and help the farmers in having this village pond of 50
acres completed that is the lifeline of village in terms of irrigation, drinking water for
human consumption and water for animals even as the village faces drought-like
condition each year, particularly from recent past, after monsoon season is over and
villagers along with 1600 animals, have to depend on water/ponds of neighboring
villages as feature of annual ruthless over-dependence that puts physical survival of the
village at stake. Over 80% dysfunctional handpumps are not a solution for alleviating the
villagers’ torments due to water. Besides real interventional support, financial assistance
by way of RIDF funding (irrigation/drinking water) could be considered by advising
Gram Panchayat to submit proposal for village pond through State Government.
Alternatively, NABARD/DDM may help/guide Gram Panchayat and DRDC/Rural
Development Department to arrange funds for completion of this rainfed village pond
through MNREGA project. Without this pond completed (with gate/check dam) and no
other farm/village pond existing in the village, entire rainwater goes wasted each year. As
this pond lies around a “nallah” and forms its natural catachment area, completion of this
village pond has the potential to bring prosperity in village and change the living
conditions of farmers and all villagers.

(ii) Watershed/ Water Harvesting Structures/ Water bodies/ Small

Farm Ponds

The entire rain water and run off of surrounding hills/slopes goes waste during monsoon
season (except precipitation directly irrigating the land for few days in a month). After
monsoon, the village recurs to its drought-like condition, both with respect to irrigation
as well as drinking water. Little deviation from normal rainfall by few millimeters may
not be construed as a big issue when whatever water is received through monsoon rains,
flows down a big “nallah” and goes wasted during rainy season. NABARD along with
district agencies may take the initiative and sensitize the district
administration/irrigation department, in conceiving a project on watershed development
(with all supplementary activities of horticulture, plantation, land development/soil-
water conservation, and commercial/business-based/livelihood-based animal
husbandry) in Devnala village through Watershed Development Fund or central
government watershed schemes. And the same infrastructure could be considered for
other sample village Harankhuri as well in Wardha district. Since average size of holding
is medium/big and farmers keep a portion of the land vacant, farm ponds may also be
promoted, in both sample villages. Devnala doesn’t have any and Harankhuri has culture
of 25-30 ponds, which may be expanded further even as water for irrigation is a big
problem in both the villages.

(iii) Farmers’ Clubs (FCs) and Producers’ Organizations (FPOs)

Hitherto both the sample villages do not have any Farmers’ Club (FC). Formation of
Farmers’ Clubs is expected to benefit the individual farmers in many ways. Last year, a

253
couple of SHGs of men-farmers were formed (under NRLM) in Harankhuri village, but
these are dysfunctional and cluless about their future activities regarding meetings,
savings and micro-enterprises/group farming. Many of them have problem of agri-
extension services and adoption of new technologies (seeds, chofuli/patta sowing
methods). For these basic requirements, farmers need to be organized at basic level before
they are ready to join on economic grounds. For this purpose, formation of FCs appears
to be the best mechanism which may infuse a spirit of association/ togetherness/
collectivity/ sitting and discussing together, among farmers before they are ready to take
up higher responsibilities of SHGs/ JLGs/ FPOs/ Producers’ Companies/ Cooperatives/
PACS/ joint farming (in future). In the mean time or immediate period, farmers need a
mechanism of club/association that could facilitate a sense / spirit of
cooperation/thinking together in them. FC is one such potent mechanism under which
farmers of both sample villages can develop such urgently required
cooperative/associative spirit even as this trait visible transcends extant mandate of FC.
Even if farmers go beyond this mandate of FC (by frequent meetings, being together,
discussing, debating, learning mutually in systematic manner, etc. this shall pave the way
for future organizational endeavors like FPO/SHG/JLG.

In a way, Farmers’ Club may be de-facto cooperative-associative-spirit-learning

school, a bonus, for the farmers while usual functions of FC may be carried out in
routine way. FC shall build organizational/community foundation goal for these
farmers, which has never been thought about in the past. FC may be the place/forum
where farmers shall be knowing each other formally/ informally/ systematically in
fuller/comprehensive way. Literature quoted in this study has revealed that individuals
often commit suicide because their fellows rarely “know” them. FC may be the place for
enhancing mutual knowledge among farmers, and raise their freedom and
consciousness at higher level sheer by virtue of togetherness. Incidentally, a close
attention and perusal of the phenomenon of Village Level Committees
(VLCs), formed and functioning under “Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan” (Farmers’
Sensitization Campaign) to check farmers’ suicide in Yavatmal and
Usmanabad districts by State Government (2015), shall reveal that
NABARD’s FCs would serve exactly the same function since decades, if these
FCs of farmers were embued with this core mandate of farmers’ mutual
guidance/ confidence-building/ discussing/ debating/ cooperating/ sharing,
and if such FCs were universally formed in all the villages. Had there been
FCs, there would be no need for VLCs today and farmers’ suicides may not
have occured. It’s better late than never. FCs are the need of the hour in
villages.

(iv) Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) in Devnala Village

Out of 350 households, 45% households in Devnala village (Yavatmal district) are
landless cultivators who depend on land “allotted” by Ruikar Trust at nominal “fee”
(called “hazi”) of Rs.50-60 per acre; average 3-5 acres is allotted to each of the tenants
(allottees). Some of these tenant/allottee farmers keep their land vacant as they do not
have sufficient funds to meet operational costs of cotton/pulses/soyabean cultivation.
Almost all the farmers (including landless and land owning) are ineligible for bank loan

254
(old fefaulters since 7-10 years) even as Kisan Credit Cards (KCCs) have also not been
issued to them. In this adverse kind of situation, NABARD’s potential role in formation
of Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) in Devnala village, appears to be significant. Formation
of JLGs of over 140 farmers (out of 350) holds promise for their potential change. It will
also create a sense of mutual responsibility among individual resource-poor
tenant/allottee farmers of the village. Incidentally, JLGs are not a felt/perceived need in
Harankhuri village as it has only 2-3 households which are landless cultivators.

(v) Challenge of Credit Intervention in a Complex Ecosystem

NABARD’s mandate is agricultural and rural development through institutional credit.

The question before NABARD is to fulfill this mandate successfully and smoothly.
NABARD may not extract itself out of this complicated system in sample area; its presence
seems inevitable and inescapable. The practical difficulty is that the two selected districts
as well as two sample villages, both uniformly reflect a very complex ecosystem of the
institutions, organizations, entities, groups, networks, chains, individuals, practices,
relations, etc. which appear to “chain” one another rather than form genuine bonding
or “relation”. It implies, each entity is perceived as constraint for the other. Bank is
constraint for individual farmer and vice versa. Stressed individual is constraint for the
agencies and vice versa. Moneylender/informal lending source is constraint for banks,
institutions and agencies yet he (former) is lender of last resort for semi-subsistence
farmer. Wholesaler/Trader/ commission agent/ trader-cum-commission agent, is
constraint for the indebted farmer producing poor quality produce and vice versa. It is
incumbent upon NABARD to resolve these social-institutional “relations” (appearing as
“chain”) in this obstructive/complicated network/ecosystem.

Credit growth is declining and/or fluctuating, with very poor repayment performance
(30-35%). DCCB Wardha is closed (due to losses). C-D ratio is moderate; increasing C-D
ratio will be meaningless if farmers continuously keep waiting for next “loan waiver” and
repayment of loans is dismal. Moneylender/informal lending source is the farmers’
natural/ perennial/ eternal first priority and compulsion (if not free choice). Private
capital investment is needed, especially in irrigation (micro irrigation, pump sets) with 5-
13% net irrigated area, but capital is not available/accessible. There is uncertainty
whether farmers really save some money or not; so owned capital investment is in the
dark zone. Performance of most of the development schemes is dismal except under
“Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan” where core activities are distribution of cash money/fund,
sermons and pravachans (preaching with bhajans) as also street plays, natak-notanki
and jingle bells besides advertisements on hoardings on public transport buses. Real
programmes on agri-extension, technology dissemination, innovation (at all levels, viz.,
state, district, farmers), organic farming promotion, etc. depict poor performance.
Farmers are ineligible for bank loan (almost entire villages) and no farmer is issued a
KCC. It’s challenging situation for NABARD to promote institutional credit in these two
districts. Living and dieing farmer, both have deemed themselves as liability for
themselves, a natural result of social “alienation” in villages.

The question is whether NABARD can ameliorate “ecosystemic” complication? This

study report suggests solution in the affirmative with these proposals: (i) The roots of

255
the existing complexity in ecosystem are located in village (village society) marred by
“alienation”; (ii) focus may be given on village society; (iii) Farmers’ Clubs (FCs) need to
be promoted en masse (in all 1856 villages of Yavatmal district and over 1000 villages in
Wardha district); (iv) core function of FCs may be fundamentally altered as providing
an enabling institutional framework for this FC social organization which visibly
spreads “cooperative spirit” in farmers –the same “cooperative spirit” which Frederic
Mclagan (pioneer of cooperatives in British India, in 1900) was scouting for and exploring
in contemporary PACS that he nevertheless found absent during his field studies, from
villages of Peshawar to Bengal in 1910s, and for which reason he tried focusing on
cooperative societies of small (same kind of) farmers without mixing them with big
farmers (class distinction was deemed antithetical relation, rather “separation”). Still the
problem is unresolved –because “credit” was at the core of activities; (v) FC is one such
“social institution” of the farmers which can keep “credit” aside for some time and let
other (rather more priority based) issues take over, viz., socialization/ simple coming
together and discussion of social-agrarian issues intertwined, not just pure
farming/production/technology issues; and (vi) such informal/ personal/ social/
community-type interaction/ talking/ discussion/ proximity between the farmers (never
seen before in Indian agrarian history) may create a foundation for “real community” of
farmers. When that happens, social issue of “alienation” and other several “ills” gets
resolved in the FCs. And, if that appens at base level, entire ecosystem can be changed on
the basis of strong/empowered/social farmers, who are now associated, not divided or
individuated on several lines, including private landed-property lines, which now
becomes a peripheral issue for them. Then very promptly, associated farmers (without
hangover/obsession of landed property) shall be ready to form FPOs/ PCs/ SHGs/ JLGs
of cultivators; with that the issue of institutional credit gets automatically resolved –
strong/ powerful/ social/ socialized farmers, is the backbone of institutional credit or
any institutional service. Social/socialized/associated farmers (in the FCs) ease out
built-up stress of all institutions including banks. But the triggering factor of farmers’
socialization/ association in rejuvenated FCs, may have to be NABARD. A strong FC
promoted by NABARD would tantamount to strong farmers and strong village society.
When village society (“base’) is strong, “superstructure” of institutions would also
become strong.

(vi) Strengthening Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies, Not

Just by “Capital” and “Capitalization”, but by “Cooperation”:
“Formation” of Cooperatives and Cooperative Spirit

There is another feasible way in which the issue of institutional credit may be resolved by
NABARD in sample villages/selected districts.

Hitherto though PACS of Harankhri sample village is now closed (since 2017)
nevertheless it had only 4-5 members from this village; and though PACS of Devnala
sample village is operating, it has only 5-6 members from this village. The PACS in each
case covered an area of 3 villages. Apathy to PACS/Cooperatives is an issue (due to
inadequacy of crop loan). NABARD could solve this problem of cooperative interest
though this problem is over 110 years old.

256
The essence of any Cooperative (including Credit Cooperative) is cooperation, not
capital or loan-capital. A cooperative is human endeavor, social endeavor; “capital” is
a notion, alien and exotic to it. With “capital”, cooperative becomes crass business,
exchange, commodity and “economic value”, not human value. Though business is
important for short-term practical survival, it is the human/cooperation aspect of it which
ultimately is decisive in its longevity and sustainability. If capital/ business/ exchange/
trade (whose basis is “self-intrerest” and “self-fulfillment”) were the essence of
cooperatives, then these cooperatives would have survived successfully without
difficulties and problems even as state/NABARD assistance for capitalization and re-
calitalization of cooperative institutions keeps coming from time to time.

Without “cooperation” and “cooperative spirit”, “capital” and “capitalization” has little
value, or only immediate/short-term value.

Hitherto NABARD’s role and function is focused on “capital” side of

cooperatives/cooperative institutions –their supervision/regulation/inspection., and of
recent their “direct re-financing” and refinancing through state/apex level cooperative
bank. Multi-purpose cooperatives (nonetheless trade/exchange) is also a new mandate
of NABARD. The concern of this study report goes beyond this. In view of the fact that
since there is no organization/agency which looks after the issue of “individual-
individual cooperation” (not individual-individual competition
degenerating into “fierce struggle” between them) in the cooperatives (Registrar
of Cooperative Societies, i.e. RCS, from State Government, looks after only
administrative control), there is great need for having an organization that looks after
the fundamental issue of, what force ultimately keeps the cooperative alive and
sustained in the long run, without ruthless over-dependence on external support of
capital infusion/ credit/ capital assistance. Is this forced “capital” as such, or is it
cooperation of members? What is primary: Is it credit or cooperation?175 If it is
cooperation and cooperative spirit, then Farmers’ Clubs (FCs) in sample villages (and
other villages), proposed to be promoted by NABARD could be replied upon for
promotion/formation of cooperatives since “cooperative spirit” need for it shall be
brought from these schools of Farmers’ Clubs (FCs).

FCs may not be taken slightly for cooperativism/ cooperative development/

cooperative credit growth. There may be now a new movement of
cooperatives based on Farmers’ Clubs (FC) Movement, just like there is 25
years old strong SHG Movement, and recent JLG Movement. Farmers’ Clubs
(FC) Movement may sustain the new Cooperative Movement in sample
villages/selected districts. NABARD may take up the task of promoting
“formation of cooperatives” like SHG-formation. This may release some
pressure on commercial banks in dispensation of credit for agriculture.
Newly formed Cooperatives may draw their strength, values, cooperative spirit and
culture of cooperation/association/organization, from new Farmers’ Clubs Movement.

This issue is dealt in a paper; see Mohinder Kumar (2007), “Rural Credit: Issues, Contradictions and
175

Perspectives”, Journal of Rural Development, National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD),

Hyderabad, Vol.26, No.4, pp 461-482

257
 II. Suggestions & Recommendations for State Government

The following suggestions are recommended on the basis of analysis of study findings, for
the State Government and other agencies including banks.

1. School-level Technical Education in Agriculture/Agri-business

The issue of “exit” and “move-out” from agriculture is currently faced by the village youths
in increasingly big way, especially when they have completed their education or have quit
education in search of jobs for employment. While elders in the family and older
generation expect them to continue with hereditary agriculture, their own mind is
elsewhere or nowhere as they are confused between “exit” and “persistence”. Parents want
them to “persist” with family farming, their “free will” guides them to exercise their own
“choice”. Ultimately youths continue with family farming half-heartedly just as they had
learned skill of farming from parents half-heartedly. The existing social set up in village
society or even family does not offer them best guidance on choice of occupation even as
family farming in its traditional form inadvertently becomes their “career” while size of
family gets continuously fragmented after their marriage and apportionment from
father/brothers or partitioning of family. Many of the problems later faced in their life as
seasoned farmers or middle-aged agriculturists, have roots in the age of childhood (at age
of 10-11 years) when their father/parents first impelled/induced them into learning farm
skills as they were made to accompany them to the family-fields, or be a helpful hand and
be educated at farm household in other multifarious agriculture and allied activities –
both on-farm and off-farm. Although free choice or free way of working on field ought to
have been exercised, the common message that family parenting and family-education
inculcates in child’s mind at age of 10-11 years and up to 18-20 years (for one full decade)
is that generally family farming is the best (i.e. only) option available to them for survival:
youths grounding in compulsion takes place in home education. While learning farm
skills at home is desirable, acquiring coercive and compulsive attitude is not.

In this background, it is suggestible that all children in villages may be imparted school-
level technical education in the subject of agriculture as also business/commerce
education in agri-business approach, starting ftrom Class-5th up to Class-10th. In these six
years, children (both girl and boy) may learn the art, aesthetics, science, technical and
business aspects of farming. The curriculum may be devised for each Class of theoretical
and practical education in classroom by an expert committee, which may involve
participation of specialists for pluralist perspective, viz., basics of agriculture (crop
husbandry including horticulture), animal husbandry, farm mechanization/ technology,
ethics (above everything), business, marketing, commerce and finance. A common
principle of education in all sections of agriculture subject, may be that “unconscious”
adoption of attitude of “ruthless over-dependence” on any factor/ resource/ entity/
institution/ individual (including Monsoon rain, Moneylender and Bank), may be
dissuaded and discouraged. Free adoption of something suggested should not appear as
if it is forced adaptation in controlled environment. Otherwise at their tender age of
childhood, youths may start picking up and absorbing the vices of over-dependencies in
unavoidable way.

258
When systematic education in agriculture and agri-business is introduced (both in rural
and urban schools), this subject could be made mandatory for all the students enrolled
between 5th and 10th class, just as many other subjects, e.g. Hindi or regional languages
are mandatory. The mandatory nature of agriculture is justified from the aspect of life-
enhancing trait of agriculture, which is probably the oldest “culture” of humanity in the
organized form since Neolithic Age (10,000 to 12,000 years old), which has nonetheless
exerted itself in human interest by the societies all over the world. From this angle, even
“history of agriculture” and its evolution from primitive hunting & gathering may also be
taught to the young students, with necessity of imparting knowledge (toward the mature
age of student in 10th Class) on how political “state” evolved with/due to promotion of
agriculture for food-grain economy since Neolithic era, so that state control on food
economy could be centralized, which ultimately made “society” and “community”
dependent on “state” for its subsistence, survival and existence. And, how this historical
movement has ensured a continuum and state’s predominant presence in almost all the
aspects of agriculture, including exchange, is felt till this date.

When young students are educated systematically in the art, science, history and
philosophy/culture of “agriculture”, the educated and learned students shall be able and
feel competent to tackle and address the issue of induced/impelled “exit” and “move-out”
of agriculture or the issue of forced “persistence” in rational way. In fact, neither forced
“exit” nor compelled “persistence” is desirable for the youths’ future conceived on free
lines. Ultimately, the idea behind school-level education is to inculcate an informed and
rational perspective in the young minds rather than later day youths facing the ignominy
of compulsion, arbitrariness, force and subtle coercion of family/ parents/elders to stay
in agriculture or move-out. Development of genuinely free thinking and free attitude is
the objective behind proposed agricultural education at school-level.

During 1980s, it was witnessed that “animal husbandry” subject was offered as “option”
along with three other options, viz., drawing, sanskrit and military science, in 9th and 10th
class of school education in a particular state. Students exercising their choice would
mostly choose “animal husbandry” for reason that it was a “practical life” science. While
conflict or trade-offs may not be desirable, it is fact and appears reasonable to think and
opine that enhances human life directly, i.e. “agriculture” may have to be mandatory
subject even as its mandatory nature does not make it compulsive.

2. Establishment of “Krishi” Polytechnics in Large Number

State Government may consider setting up of three or four Agriculture Polytechnics in

each district. There is great demand for the services of Diploma holders (now Graduates)
educated in Agriculture Polytechnics in technical jobs as also directly in local agricultural
economy of villages i.e. with farmers who need instant advice and solution on numerous
issues/ problems/ difficulties daily faced by them. The study team interacted with two
Diploma holders of Mandgaon (Sant Brahmanpure) Krishi Polytechnic, situated 15 km
from Samudrapur on Wardha road, presently working with Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj
Foundation (KJBF), an NGO at Samudrapur, in agriculture projects implemented by the
NGO, e.g. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), preparing “jiwamrut”, imparting
knowledge/information on drip irrigation, pesticides spray, minimum use of water,

259
minimizing operational costs in farming, vegetable cultivation (Wadi),
pashusamvardhini, chofuli and patta cotton sowing method, high density sowing of
cotton plants, etc., not only based on their technical education gained from Polytechnic,
but also instantly accessing internet and finding out alternate solutions for the farmers’
problems from websites. It was approach that mattered.

It was learnt that from 2015 onwards, medium of instruction in Mandgaon Krushi
Polytechnic (and other Polytechnics) has been changed to English language by replacing
Marathi (in vogue from 2009-2011). This change has affected the education of students
who hail from rural areas or tribal belts, having poor grounding in English language. Their
learning has been adversely affected even as only 4 students passed out of total 60 during
2015-16.

Therefore, it is suggested that Marathi language may be reintroduced as the medium of

instruction in Krushi Polytechnics by expanding their network on a large scale throughout
the State, as their utility and contribution to the society/agriculture is immense. However,
without appropriate receipt of instruction in English language, they are sometimes unable
to comprehend simple basic aspects of agriculture as exotic language becomes an
obstruction. Though new introduced change, from 2-year diploma to 3-year graduation,
is not a big issue, introducing English language as medium of instruction by replacing
Marathi (mother tongue of village youths) is felt as a serious issue for gainful education
in agriculture science and practical knowledge.

3. Needed Community Pond in Devnala Village and Irrigation in General

Farmers of Devnala village have made several rounds of Irrigation Department by taking
delegation of village representatives and Panchayat office bearers over the past 25 years,
for completing the construction of village pond (50 acres) in devnala. They are yet to
witness their demand for village pond fulfilled. However, they are hopeful and optimistic
that after removal of last hurdle (litigation) from the way of completion of construction of
pond, they will be destined to see their fields irrigated by pond water. Hitherto their
irrigated land (by dug well irrigation from stored rain water) is only 25-30%. This village
pond has the capacity to ameliorate their entire constraints of shortage of water for
drinking/human consumption, animal use as well as irrigation of entire village farm
lands.

At the same time, entire Wardha and Yavatmal district has net irrigation intensity of 5 to
13%, which is dismally low for meaningful agricultural development. Whatever potential
of irrigation has been created, is not fully utilized as farmers require capital support for
investment in pump sets and lift irrigation by electric motors/ solar motors. Even
draft/use of naturally recharged ground water is very low. In these conditions, State
Government may take up increasing net irrigation intensity throughout the State, and
Vidarbha in particular, by big push to investment in micro irrigation, solar pump sets,
etc.

260
4. Acute Shortage of Safe Drinking Water

Villages like Devnala face acute shortage of safe drinking water for human consumption
and other household use. Soon after monsoon season is over, Devnala descends into utter
shortage of drinking water even as its sole piped water supply scheme experiences lack of
water storage even as capacity of tank remains highly under-utilized. Its only source is
rain water. Three to four months after monsoon are a period of real torment for villagers.
There are 6 handpumps but only one is functional and rest 5 handpumps are
defective/dysfunctional and of no-use since dry. During the course of field survey, it was
witnessed that Panchayat got 7th borewell dug at 250-300 feet and luckily they got water
but it promised little hope to quench thirst of villagers, since whole day they spent in
fetching water from dug wells and hand pumps of neighboring villages. While drinking
water for human consumption was a critical problem, drinking water for over 1600 cattle
was also a problem felt by whole village. Villagers’ water problem could be solved in
sustainable way if village pond was completed within timeframe and stored rain water
could be treated suitably for human consumption.

5. Solution for Routine Problems by State Agencies

Villages faced the following major routine problems on regular basis, which needs
ameliorative/corrective action on the part of state agencies:

 Remunerative price for toor and cotton (in parity with MSP) by all farmers.
 General indebtedness due to bank finance and moneylender is increasing.
 Farmers faced problem of cash-deficit almost daily, which their necessitated
education in farm management and cash management.
 Social problems of indebtedness, wine addiction and farmers’ suicide needed to be
kept outside of the purview of state/state agencies, as purely social matters even as
money distributed under Baliraja Chetna Abhiyan programmes could make
villagers/village committees attracted to funds like ‘loan waiver’ scheme.
 Wild animals (pig, neel gai, monkey/langoor) in adjoining forest destroy cotton,
toor, soyabean crops.
 Once in a while leopard is also noticed in farmers’ fields/village area, which is a
threat to human life as afforestation of depleted forests is not optimal.
 ‘Pink ball worm’ pest on Bt-2 cotton has acquired general problem; higher versions
of Bt-7 may be introduced to avoid complete/major yield/crop loss.
 Agri-extension service is not reaching the farmers; scheme on agri-extension
reforms has also not delivered desired results.
 Soil testing facility needed expansion and greater coverage.
 Crop insurance schemes (WBCIS, PMFBY) needed to be popularized for 100%
coverage.
 Animal husbandry (dairy, goatery, bullock rearing) activities needed commercial
orientation by greater financial assistance.
 Weaker section specific SC Sub-Plan and ST Sub-plan programmes performed
better than general schemes (which could not register satisfactory achievement of
targets).

261
6. Rainwater Harvesting Policy

State Government may need a rainwater-harvesting policy that considers the disquieting
fact of poor irrigation facilities in more serious way. This policy may be based on the fact
that even 70 years after Independence, one district (Wardha) has 13% of its net sown area
irrigated and another district (Yavatmal) has 5% net irrigation intensity. The point of
departure of this policy is to question the existing state. It is unworthy of any social
system/society and its collective ethics and moral value system to overlook the fact that
most of the rain water (973 mm rainfall in each of the two districts, viz., Wardha and
Yavatmal districts during 2016-17), goes wasted in flowing down the nallahs and seasona-
rainy rivers without tapped for irrigation in rainfed districts. Normal rainfall in Wardha
and Yavatmal districts is 1057 mm and 911 mm, respectively. However, slight deviation
on negative side e.g. 973 mm in Wardha district, is over-emphasized and highlighted as
an area of major concern whereas social system is unable to control, store and tap even
reduced rainfall, into tanks, ponds and bigger water harvesting structures, for irrigation
purpose which may not be a herculean task –knowing that concerns are valid. Yavatmal
district getting 973 mm precipitation against normal 911 mm, makes no difference in
benefit if most of the rain water is wasted without storage. Even net annual draft of
naturally recharged ground water is very low in these districts (e.g. 30% in Yavatmal
district even as 70% balance is not drafted despite need). The existing state signifies a
state of wastage, not misuse of rain water. Such wastage of rain water necessitates an
outlook of zero tolerance against sheer water-wastage in conscious way, and deserves
immediate policy and commensurate action.

Just one example evinces the wrong priorities. In place of devising a stringent water-
harvesting policy, the State is witnessing in Vidarbha exactly the opposite –threatened
existence of 350-year old historic and “notified” water body (Navegaon Bandh in nearby
Gondia district), which is spread in 1305 hectatres, by way of construction of beach
(reportedly like Marine Drive/Choupati beach of Mumbai) for tourism and ‘machans’ in
the bed, which is also one of the paths for wild animals to reach the lake to quench thirst.
The construction activity (unauthorized) is going to change the ecological character of the
biodiversity-rich lake. The waterbody provides a wide range of ecosystem
services such as water storage, water purification, flood mitigation, erosion
control and aesthetic enhancement of landscape. Construction activity is done
right at the spot where lake water accumulates in case of better rainfall.176

Therefore, instead of water-deharvesting, State may go in for stringent policy on rain

water-harvesting for adequate irrigation and other purposes like drinking water.

7. Farmer-Centric Agricultural Policy

Farmer avowedly at “center” of policy, is in actuality, not replaced by “production”.

“Technology” or technocratic discourse does not cause farmer ruthlessly displaced by it.
Farmer-centric policy places emphasis on strengthening farmer-farmer relationship by

176See full report, “Beach coming up at Navegaon Bandh in violation of all rules”, on this “mega project”
being implemented in Vidarbha in The Times of India (Nagpur Times), January 22, 2018

262
universal organization of all farmers into unity instead of unidirectional profit-centered
approach imposed on them.

Findings of the study report suggest that State’s farmer-centric agriculture policy may
take into account the following facts/ concerns/ reality, for improvisation and change:

(i) There is tug of war between family-subsistence farming and commercial

farming that still continues.
(ii) There is conflict between family-subsistence farming approach/mindset and
commercial farming approach that still continues.
(iii) Farmer still does commercial farming of cash crops by family-subsistence
farming approach. His mindset remains still old, conventional, self-centric.
Even while producing for “market”, every concern each time is cash, food-grain
and gain for the narrow “my self”. In villages, the reality is semi-subsistence
farming.
(iv) In essence neither family-subsistence (“self-sufficient”) approach nor invisible
market-based commercial farming approach is desirable for the “sustainable”
future of agriculture. There is need to transcend both the approaches.
(v) The direct social approach (without mediation of market/ competition/fierce
struggle, among the farmers) would require all farmers to get associated into
organized groups at universal level, in place of current state of universal
“independent” farmers content within their own, narrow, compass-sized,
autonomous realms.
(vi) Crisis of subsistence or predominant semi-subsistence family farming emerges
and grows when narrow independent “self-sufficient” objective suppresses
genuine freedom of farmer by forcing him towards “ruthless overdependence”
on over 61 entities, as outlined in the report
(vii) Crisis of pure commercial farming approach emerges and grows when farmer
finds that appearance of invisible market, as “free” mechanism, is in essence
“dehumanizing” (e.g. extreme fluctuation in prices; extreme fluctuation in
demand causing spillage/throwing produce on roads; and even “MSP” not
availed practically as protective measure against “open/free” market).
(viii) Discourse of “diversification” and rhetoric of “diversified farming” or
“diversified activities” often suggested, implicitly/explicitly for market and with
commercial approach, should not ignore that intensity/scale of capital
investment increases immensely with such discourse. For example, farmers feel
more comfortable with family-subsistence-oriented agricultural
diversification (cow, goat, poultry, etc. for family) than with pure commercial
diversification (commercial dairy or commercial poultry are seen as risky).
(ix) Farmer –whether subsistence or commercial, is “unmindful” of, or even
“unconscious” about, the concern for: (i) bank loan repayment; (ii) rational
farming practices/use of inputs; (iii) other fallow farmers in village, etc. even
as the concern for “family” or “self” is overwhelming in either case. Private
property principle popular in agricultural land (since past 100 years) makes
farmer pro-family and away from community (if not anti-community). This is
the primary cause of “social alienation”, which is overlooked by existing
agricultural policy yet needs corrective action.

263
 (x) Corrective action would require organizing all the farmers by educating
them, with change in mental approach/outlook towards private property in
land, which is principally unethical as it divides nature for private possession/
appropriation.
(xi) Ecosystem of universal “private” landed interests is causing ecological crisis/
disturbance in farmer-nature relation. Farmers have obsession with private
landed property and private interest i.e. over and above the community
interest.

III. Recommendation on Policy Issues

Findings and analysis in study report suggests the following recommendations on issues
where State Government may consider forming a new state policy and Act:

1. Introducing “Land Value Taxation” (LVT) by New Enactment to Raise

Revenue for Financing Rural Development Activities

Background: The State is facing fiscal constraints, in view of fiscal prudential measures
in vogue (FRBM Act177), to incur optimum expenditure on agriculture and rural
development in all villages of selected districts (1014 villages in Wardha district and 1856
in Yavatmal district) in particular, and entire State, in general. For example, Annual Plan
(2016-17) of Wardha district, involved very small amount of less than Rs.200 crore,
which is insignificant and insufficient for the purpose of implementing agricultural and
rural development schemes for all the needy, including weaker sections (SCs and STs)
and economically weak general castes and classes in the villages.

Purpose: A solution for the problem of deficit financing of government expenditure for
agriculture and rural development may be explored in levying Land Value Tax (LVT).
However, there is no provision of legal Act or policy for this purpose, in the State
(including other states in the country). Therefore, enactment of new Act, following
comprehensive policy debate on Land Value Tax (LVT), within academia, intellectuals,
policy practitioners, industry/corporate representatives, agriculture sector
representatives, revenue and agriculture departments, all other stakeholders,
implementers and participants in the process of economic development and planning,
including central government, may open up a new avenue of resource and revenue for
financing development activities in all the villages of Maharashtra.

Economic Rationale: Literature reveals that LVT is the least complicated, most visible,
maximum transparent/open and most efficient taxation system that involves least cost of
tax collection. Principally and practically, LVT can replace all other taxes levied on citizens
and entrepreneurs and salaried people (including rural people), viz., Income Tax, Goods
& Services Tax (GST), Corporate Tax, Excise Tax, Value-added Tax (VAT) (e.g. VAT is still
in vogue on petroleum products and wine), etc. The proposed LVT gives complete relief
to the salaried people in not taxing their “labor” effort. Productive activity of
entrepreneurs, industry and corporate sector, is not taxed by abolishing excise duty and

177 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act

264
corporate tax in favor of LVT. Similarly, the population gets relief from taxation of goods
and services by abolishing GST in favor of newly introduced/proposed LVT. Similarly,
there will be benefits of abolishing VAT in favor of LVT.

Therefore, LVT serves the greatest distributive function of equalizing wealth among
sectors/ sub-sectors/ individuals/ entrepreneurs/ industry/ agriculture, as accumulation
by way of concentration and centralization of economic resources may not take place since
possession of natural resource (land) by way of private property is taxed. LVT is also
called “Geo Tax” as it is a tax levied on land surface (geographic area), not “development”
by way of building construction (house, factory, office premises, land-development/
improvement). Any economic activity taking place in space (e.g. telecommunication
service, laying broadband, spectrum, installation of mobile phone tower, etc.) or under-
ground economic activity (drilling oil rigs/wells, off-shore under-sea activities and
ground-water extraction on land surface), shall be subject to the levying of LVT (not GST)
in the proposed taxation system.

Therefore, LVT may not be confused with Real Estate Tax (the latter is a kind of GST that
is proposed to be abolished). The criterion/rate of LVT can be rental value or market value
of land; usually it is market value of land that is taxed.

Human Rationale: Philosophers have contended for centuries that diving earth and
taking private property in land is unethical and an act that goes against the spirit of
nature. No person has natural right to make land or any other natural resource to make
it private ownership by possession of it for private interest/benefit, even if
supported/protected by law/ legality or lrgal sanction. It is “naturally” wrong/ immoral
to own nature or its part (land, water, soil, oil, etc.) as private property, whether as
individual, or group or institution –even if it is government institution. Only “community”
of people has the natural right to act as custodian of nature (land) for common or
community interest. In that concrete sense, “right” of village community in whatever form
precedes the right of any government with regard to property right in land.

LVT contends that since land cannot be in the ownership as private property the owner
nonetheless has to pay to the community or society of individuals (not state) a “fee”, i.e.
tax on land which shall be evaluated on the basis of market value (social value) of such
land. Hence, the unethical act of ownership right as private property forms the basis of
human/ social rationale for levying LVT by community and also to be collected by the
local community.

Since the existing social and economic system is functioning under the regime of
capitalism, and it may not be feasible for political state to abolish private property, it has
been suggested as a substitute of it, to tax and burden the land “owner”, as minimum that
could be done to induce the “owner” of private property to compensate the
community/nature with payment of tax.

It is argued that LVT mechanism is ecologically betterment over all other tax systems, and
economically better also, since the tax payer shall experience an incentive/
inducement/force, to raise the level of his productivity in order to be able to pay land

265
value tax on ownership (not productive activity). It is not his productive activity that is
taxed, but sheer “ownership” of land as private property that is being taxed, for which
entrepreneur/ producer/ industrious person/ agriculturist shall make best possible use
of land for economic enterprise and make it more productive (without
polluting/degrading land/nature for which he shall be taxed extra. For instance, a farmer
owning land 2 acres as private property and growing cotton on it shall each year pay LVT
on land (on market value of 2 acres), and not on his cotton produce or income from selling
cotton produce. Similarly, for a farmer owning 20 acres; and so also for a state
collective/research farm (commercial) of 200 acres. Every owner shall be paying LVT to
the local community, say Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha (or it could be a Farmers
Club/FC of the village), that may have to be educated and trained for the new human
responsibility of managing (assessing, collecting and spending) LVT revenue in full
decentralized manner, without intervention of district or state government, which may
depend on financial flow emanating from the communities at the grassroots, and moving
upward towards upper tiers of power, i.e. district and state administration. This would be
the true essence of farmer-centric policy.

Levy of LVT makes all the “owners” of private property (land) as “tenants” of society or
community.

History of LVT: LVT has 300 years old history.178 Idea of LVT was developed by Henry
George (American economist, politician, journalist), who is considered to be the pioneer
of LVT. He derived this idea from “Physiocrats” of France who had in 1700 suggested that
agriculture is the sole real productive activity; hence it alone should be subjected to tax.
Henry George modified it and suggested taxing the land instead of taxing its produce. A
campaign was started for LVT that is called “Georgism” in literature. American President
Thomas Jefforson and renowned economists (on right wing) such as Paul Samuelson
and Milton Friedman also campaigned in favor of LVT. However, politicization and
negative politics, by vested interests everywhere, has not allowed this LVT system to be
broad-based in all the countries.

Practical Implementation of LVT: LVT is levied on the land-ownership portion of all

properties/ buildings/ premises/ all lands, in entire countries of Singapore, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, in Sydney city in Australia and Johanesberg city in South Africa (by Municipal
Corporation), etc. Japan’s speedy industrialization (despite absence of minerals) after
Meiji Reforms, was made possible by LVT on its land (though after the Second World
War, growing American influence in Japanese economy led to retracting LVT in favor of
GST). In the USA and Great Britain, there is strong case and demand for levying LVT
because entire income from “land rent” goes unreported in national income accounting,
and hence untaxed. In United Kingdom, land rent (not reported) is 22% of GDP, which
exceeds the amount collected by income tax. Annual land rent in USA (not reported) in
1986 was estimated at $680 billion (20% of GDP), sufficient to provide 60% of federal,
state and local government revenue. The compliance cost of lost time in compliance of

178Fred E. Foldvary, The Ultimate Tax Reform: Public Revenue from Land Rent, CSI Policy Study, Santa
Clara University, California, January 2006

266
income tax in USA is 5 billion hours ($200 billion) per year. If land value is tapped
by levying LVT, productivity, income, consumption, and investment in all sectors will
increase (as arbitrary costs on enterprise/trade and disincentives are removed by
removing all other taxes). A shift from taxing production to taxing land values, would
eliminate the lost output due to excise tax about $1000 billion per year. Economy would
grow faster as efficiency gains are substantial. In 2042, net gain from shifting to tax on
land values, is estimated at $4799 billion (26.6% of GDP), in USA. India and
different states, including Maharashtra, may follow this model.179

LVT in Maharashtra (Case of Wardha District): Total land value tax collection for
Wardha district, hitherto, is estimated at Rs.9300 crore (assuming that 50% of land
value will be taxed) and Rs.16700 crore (assuming that 90% of land value is taxed).
This is much higher than existing allocation of Rs.199 crore in Annual Plan of the
district for 2016-17. Many other expenses on infrastructure and social sector may also be
met out of revenue collection under LVT system. (Table 8.1)

Table 8.1: Land Value Tax (LVT) Collection Estimated for Wardha District

Particulars Parameters Annual LVT (@30% on land value)

Assumption-1: Assumption-2:
50% land value 90% land value
Total Area Reported 6.28 lakh ha
(15.51 lakh acre)
Land Price Rs.5 lakh/acre
(average in Harankhuri)
Land Value (total) Rs. 6204000 lakh
(Rs.62,040 crore)
50% Land Value Rs.31020 crore
90% Vand Value Rs.55836 crore
Annual LVT Estimated Rs.9306 crore Rs.16750 crore
(@30% on land value)

LVT Levied on Farmer Owning 2 Acres of Land: A farmer owning 2 acres land as
private property may be asked to pay Rs.1.50 lakh LVT in scenario-1 and Rs.2.70 lakh in
scenario-2. This high LVT at once appears shocking and abnormal. Literature on LVT
suggests that land value tax increases “productive value” of land, but reduces its “market
value” (“market importance”), because no individual farmer would like to own landed
property in village whereby yearly per acre land value tax is Rs.0.75 lakh (scenario-1) or
Rs.1.35 lakh (in scenario-2). Demand for land decreases in market even as “high” looking
LVT always keeps demand for land low and never allows market value (importance) of
land to go up and high; thus land market buying and selling activities are curbed. Only
those farmers, in the end, would like to own and keep land who are willing to have respect
and recognition of importance of community levying land tax. If farmer have affection
and concern for community, they shall pay a land tax that appears “high”, by working
hard, working scientifically, seriously and sincerely, to enhance productivity from land.
Otherwise, they shall quit and “exit” voluntarily. Only those farmers shall “persist” who
take up farming as agri-business, make some money and pay LVT as decided by the local

179 Fred E. Foldvary (2006) op cit.

267
community in village (LVT rate can be flexible). Nonetheless idea of LVT is to: (i)
encourage production/ productivity of land; (ii) discourage land market selling and
buying (as land transactions discourage real production and productive activities); (iii)
render the “owner” of land, as “tenant” of society; and (iv) generate a transparent/open
source of revenue for local community, to enable it to make fiscal expenses on public
goods and services in/around the village, without depending on state, but rather making
state depend on community for funds. (Table 8.2)

Table 8.2: Land Value Tax (LVT) Collection on 2 Acres Land of a Farmer in Wardha District

Particulars Parameters Annual LVT (@30% on land value)

Assumption-1: Assumption-2:
50% land value 90% land value
Total Area Owned 2 acres
Land Price (Harankhuri) Rs.5 lakh/acre
Land Value (total) Rs.10 lakh
50% Land Value Rs.5 lakh
90% Vand Value Rs9 lakh
Annual LVT Estimated Rs.1.50 lakh Rs.2.70 lakh
(@30% on land value)

268