2.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR

Agriculture forms the backbone of Indian economy. The economic

development in India is largely dependent on the development of

agriculture as about 65 per cent of its population is engaged in

agriculture and about 87 per cent of the rural population of

India is directly dependent upon agriculture and about 40 per

cent of its national income is generated in agriculture sector^.

Agriculture is the largest and most important sector in Indian

economy and is the source of livelihood for two-third of the

population. A substantial section of agricultural community

which has either no land or very little land derives livelihood

from wage employment. The number of agricultural proletariat has

increased tremendously during this century. According to 1981

Census, the agiriculture population had bloated to 384 million

from 163 million in 1901. The area of cultivated land per

cultivator fell sharply from 0.43 hectare in 1901 to 0.23 hectare

in 1981^. Lacking land and other assets worth the name, they

remain without any assured means of employment or income. Being

unorganised, they are subject to exploitation. Hence, study of

rural transformation would not be completed without a reference

to the changes in the number, employment and income of

agricultural labourers.

2.1 Growth of Agricultural Labourers

India has been known as an agricultural country. A large

section of the population in our country lives in rural

area* Tsatole 2. l given below shows the percentage of rural

population to total population in India.

29
Table 2.1 : Total Population and Rural Population In India
(in Million)

Census Total Rural Percentage of

Year Population Population Rural population
to total population

1951 361.1 298.7 82.7

1961 439.2 360.3 82.0

1971 548.2 439.1 80.1

1981 685.2 525.5 76.7

Source Indian Agriculture in Brief. Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi,
1985, Page -1.

Theabove table shows that during the two decades i.e.

1951 to 1971, the rural population was more than 80 per

cent of the total population. In 1981, it was 76.7 per

cent of the total population. It is observed that

population residing in rural areas increased tremendously

during this period. The rural population increased from

298.7 million in 1951 to 525.5 in 1981.

Agricultural labourers constitute a large section of the

rural population in India. According to the Second

Agricultural Enquiry1956-57, the number of rural

households was 58.9 million, out of which 16.3 million

were agricultural labour households. The landless

agricultural labourers formed 57 per cent^. The Rural

Labour Enquiry 1974-75 gave the variation in the

proportion of agricultural labour households to total

30
rural households over the 10 year period 1964-65 to 1974-

75. The proportion which was 21.7 per cent in 1964-65

went up to 25.3 per cent in 1974-75. The proportion of

agricultural labour households with land and without land

was nearly equal (49.51) in 1974-75^. The percentage of

agricultural . households, among all rural households for

the country as a whole, increasedto 31 in 1983^. The

category of agricultural labour households not only the

landless but also those small-sized holdings depended

significantly on wage employment for their sustenance.

One of the most disquieting features of the rural economy

of our country has been growth in the number of

agricultural workers, cultivators and agricultural

labourers. A major portion of farm labour force comes

from the lower rung of the rural society and represents an

unorganised segment of rural population. The landless

labourers and small farmers constitute about 90 per cent

of the rural community®. They are unorganised and exist

in vast number and without any stable means of livelihood.

The table 2.2 shows the classification of the workers

during the period 1961 to 1981.

From the table, it is seen that the total number of

agricultural labourers had been growing steadily during

theyears 1961 to 1981. In 1961, the total number of

agricultural labourers was 31.5 million, whereas it

increased to 47.5 million in 1971 and 55.5 million in

1981. The proportion of agricultural labourers to total

31
Table 2 .2 C la s s i f ic a t i o n of Workers
(in Million)

Sr. Class of 1961 1971 1981

No. Workers
Total Percen­ Total Percen­ Total Percen­
work­ tage to work­ tage to work­ tage to
ers total ers total ers total
(Mill workers (Mill workers (Mill workers
-ion) -ion) -ion)

1. Cultivators 99.6 52.8 78.3 43.4 92.5 37.8

2. Agricul­ 31.5 16.7 47.5 26.3 55.5 22.7

tural
labourers

3. Other 57.6 30.5 54.7 30.3 96.6* 39.5

Workers

4. Total 188.7 100.0 180.5 100.0 244.6 100.0

Workers
* Excluding Assam

Source : Indian Agriculture in Brief.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development , 1985,
Page-2.

workers also had gone up from 16.7 per cent in 1961 to

26.3 per cent in 1971. In 1981, the proportion of

agricultural labourers to total workers was 22.7 per cent.

It shows that the variation between 1961 and 1981 came to

a positive six per cent. Of the 131.1 million

agricultural workers in 1961, 31.5 million i.e. 24.02 per

cent were agricultural labourers whereas in 1981, out of

148 million agricultural workers, 55.5 million i.e. 37.5

per cent were agricultural labourers. Thus, proportion of

agricultural labourers had significantly increased in 1981

compared to that of 1961.

32
There has been a large increase in the number and

proportion of agricultural labourers in the rural work

force and of agricultural labour households among rural

households. There is clear evidence pointing to an

increase in the proportion of agricultural labourers.

Most of this increase has been due to the demographic

factors and the substantial growth of labour force with

only a limited expansion of land area under cultivation^.

Agricultural labourers are drawn from socially and

economically backward classes and constitute the poorest

section of the rural hierarchy. The N.S.S. estimates of

the percentage of households below poverty line increased

in rural areas from 38.11 per cent in 1960-61 to 45.12 per

cent in 1973-74 and close to 48 per cent in 1977-78®.

The 65 per cent of rural families who together operate 9

per cent or less of total land in India and own even a

lower percentage of total assets are essentially a

proletarianised or proletarianising section which requires

some other form of income to survive throughout the year.

About 45 per cent of rural households being proletarian

households in the sense of getting the majority of their

income from wage labour while another 5 per cent are poor

artisans, and 15 per cent are poor peasants. It seems to

be a fairly accurate picture of Indian country side today.

It would be wrong to treat the phenomenon of growth of

agricultural labourers as indicating a process of -

proletarianisation of the rural poor. Various factors

33
 such as eviction of tenants, new farm technology, natural

increase in the population of agricultural households,

disintegration of village industries and lack of

employment opportunities to them are operating differently

in different regions of India leading to the swelling

number of agricultural labourers^.

2.2 Employment and Income of Agricultural Labourers

The basic problems of agricultural labour are low income,

low productivity and lack of continuous employment. The

rural unemployment problem has assumed in India in recent

years because of the pressure of land as a result of the

population explosion. There is a substantial section of

the agricultural community which has no land or very

little land. Agricultural labour remains the main source

of the rural poor. The period of employment in case of

agricultural labourers depends upon several factors such

as the nature of agriculture industry, number of workers

available and the chances of employment in other rural

industries. The period of employment also depends upon

the size of holdings, irrigation facilities and seasonal

nature of agricultural work.

According to Second Agricultural Labour Enquiry 1956-57,

the casual adult male workers were employed on an average

for wages for 197 days. They were self employed for 40

days. About 81 per cent of the average income of

agricultural households was derived from wage employment.

The average daily rate of an adult male worker was 96

34
paise. The average annual income of an agricultural

labour household was Rs. 617. Thus, the deficit was Rs.

180. This deficit would seem to have been met from past

savings, sale of stocks, remittances received and loan

incurred. Out of the total income, 73.04 per cent derived

from agricultural labour and 6.87 per cent from

cultivation of land. About 64 per cent of agricultural

labour households were indebted during the year 1956-57^*^.

The Rural Labour Enquiry 1974-75 found that the total

number of days of employment in a year for agricultural

households (taking into account employment in

agricultural, non agricultural occupations as well as self

employment) declined from 272 in 1964-65 to 246 in

1974-75. The money income in 1964-65 was Rs. 660.19 which

if deflated by the price rise (with 1960-61 as base) was

only Rs. 461.16. In 1974-75, the income was worked out to

only Rs. 381.52 per household based on 1960-61 price

level. The per capita income for agricultural labour

households which was Rs. 103.16 in 1964-65 declined to

Rs.80.48 in 1974-75. The corresponding per capita income

figures (reduced in 1960-61 price level) for rural areas

were Rs.220.4 and Rs. 191.1 respectively. As regards

indebtedness, the Fourth Rural Labour Enquiry 1974-75

revealed that the percentage of agricultural labour

households in debt to total agricultural labour increased

from 61 per cent in 1964-65 to 66 per cent in 1974-75.

The average debt per indebted agricultural labour

35
household was Rs. 584 in 1974-75 as against Rs. 244 in

1964-65, an increase of 135 per cent^^. It is not

surprising that the agricultural labour households

including the landless and the near-landless have very

little economic viability in view of the rampant

unemployment and underemployment and low rates of wages.

They have very few assets and are also mostly indebted.

Some additional studies relating to employment and income

of agricultural labourers are briefly discussed as under.

Panikar^^ (1978) studied the level of employment, income

and food intake among selected 56 agricultural households

of Kainakary village in Kuttanand region in Kerala during

the year 1976-77. He observed that agricultural labourers

consisted of primarily low caste and vast majority of

these households were landless. The average size of the

family was 6.4. A male agricultural worker had work for

124 days and female agricultural worker got employed for

132 days. Non-farm occupation provided some marginal

addition, around 9 days and 6 days on an average for male

and female worker respectively. Thus, in all, male worker

got employment for 133 days and female worker 138 days.

Of the total labour force, a little over 33 per cent was

unemployed. He concluded that the farm labourers faced

acute unemployment and underemployment despite the

introduction of double cropping in this area. The reasons

for this were the resort to labour saving tactics by

cultivators in view of the rise in wage rates,

36
implementation of statutory minimum wages and influx of

migrant labour from neighbouring regions etc. A high

unemployment rate and dependency ratio among these

absolute poor, resourceless households mean starvation.

The total income from agricultural work worked out to a

little over Rs. 1107 per male and Rs. 939 per female

labour. Due to unemployment and underemployment, the

total income of agricultural labour households was very

low. The average per capita income came to Rs. 445. The

minimum calorie intake required showed deficit of more

than 33 per cent. The incidence of undernutrition and

malnutrition was a reflection of the very low level of

income which,in turn, was due to inadequate employment

opportunities. That such acute poverty and starvation

prevailed in a region, which had been in the forefront of

the new agricultural technology, was significant.

Kumbhare et.al.^^ (1983) analysed the data on income and

employment scenario of 155 landless labour households

which spread over eight selected villages of Gharaunda

Block of Haryana during December, 1979. They found that

average farm and non farm employment for male and female

labourers was 134 days and 143 days in a year

respectively.The figures indicated the magnitude of

unemployment amongst the farm labourers. Out of the gross

employment, the farm work available for landless

agricultural labourers on the others farm was only meagre

- 66 days for both male and female. The average per

37
 ita income of the agricultural labour households was

2
/
483 per annum

Haryana's average.
which was as low as

The average per capita borrowed

one-third

funds
of

was Rs. 97.64 and per capita debts was Rs. 46.26. They

pointed out that there was obvious need for creation of

additional employment opportunities and income abetting

programmes.

Misra^'^ (1952) studied the nature and extent of employment

of agricultural labourers in Uttar Pradesh. According to

his estimates, agricultural labourers got work for a

period extending from 85 to 155 days in a year. To this,

10 to 20 days may be added for employment in operations

like weeding and irrigation. So, the total period of

employment for labourers in agriculture varied from 95 to

175 days or about 3 to 6 months in a year. During this

period they worked either on their own farms, if any, or

on the farm of others as hired wage earners. It follows

that agricultural labourers remained underemployed for

about 6 to 9 months in a year. Therefore,

'Underemployment' and 'Unemployment' has been the problem

of agricultural workers. It is due to seasonal character

of agriculture and lack of adequate irrigation facilities.

Therefore, job opportunities have to be created in the

form of processing and other allied industries.

Singh & Gupta^^ (1971) studied the extent of employment

in a typical dry farming area of Haryana State. They

concluded that, on an average, a farm worker got hardly

38
100 days work on farms below 10 acres and 140 days on

farms above 10 acres in a year. This shows that most of

the labour was underemployed throughout the year. The

study suggests that urgent steps should be taken to

increase the irrigation facilities and establishment of

small scale industries or such other alternative avenues

of employment to utilise the labour potential which is

presently under-utilised.

Mencher^® (1980) examined the so called 'miracle' of

Kerala. He found that the average number of days of work

available to agricultural labourers varied from 71 to 73

in the two regions. It is clear that the amount of work

available to agricultural labourers had been steadily

decreasing due to various factors such as population

increase among landless, changes in technology which

decreased the demand for labour, general depression of

other industries such as the core industry etc. The land

reform which had come about had not benefited the majority

of agricultural labourers in Kerala. The average per

capita income in these two regions was Rs.496.17 and

Rs. 417.25. In terms of gross calorie intake per

consumption unit, the majority of these agricultural

labour households had an inadequate diet. Agricultural

labourers constituted a significant proportion in kerala

population. He concluded that kerala agriculture could

absorb its labour much more fully by improving irrigation

channels, growing more high-protein and better

utilisation of small pieces of garden land.

39
 TV)*7S§6
Thus, in prevailing situation of widespread unemployment

and underemployment, the total earnings of agricultural

labour households are bound to be low. Unemployment is at

the root of low real wages of agricultural labourers and

ultimately the chief cause of misery. If is responsible

for many social evils as well in the village community and

chiefly accounted for the poverty of labourers. There is

obvious need for creation of additional employment

opportunities in the form of processing industries and

other allied industries, income abetting programmes and

increase the irrigation facilities. Traditional

agriculture is not efficient enough to make full use of

resources. The deplorable living conditions of the

agricultural labourers and large segment of the

cultivators who are equally poor as labourers, are

attributed to the backwardness in agriculture. A

characteristic feature of the backwardness in agriculture

was reliance on narrow range of crop grown on traditional

cultivation methods. Intensive agriculture with high

yielding varieties allows a greater number of crops to be

grown in an area and requires large number of mandays of

labour per crop. The labour demand generated by

agricultural growth and employment effect of technological

changes have not only got to be large enough to absorb the

growing rural labour force, but also to be biased in its

composition in favour of wage labourers. A new era has

begun with the advent of green revolution which, not only

help to raise the level of crop production greatly but

'^■1886
40
 also in eradicating poverty and rural unemployment from

the rural sector of India.

2.3 Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers

It is the mass of unemployed and underemployed labour in

the rural areas which creates the basic problems of

agricultural labour. Industry can not absorb the growing

population to help in poverty eradication and unemployment

reduction; agriculture will have to employ the bulk of the

additional labour force. The improvement of technology in

agriculture will not increase the problem of unemployment.

In Punjab, a belt of green revolution, employment has

increased with the rise in wages in the agricultural

sector. The problem of cropping pattern, employment and

income has assumed great significance in view of the

likely deterioration of the rural unemployment situation

and greater emphasis on multiple cropping for increase

income level and employment opportunities of rural

masses^^. Cropping pattern, employment and income are

inter related to each other. If the cropping pattern is

changed in such a way that it becomes possible to adopt

intensive farming, then not only net income is expected to

go up but requirement of labour is also expected to rise

due to cultivation of more crops. On increase of the

level of income, the farmers are able to invest more in

farming for intensification of agriculture. This would

naturally lead to opening of more opportunities for

reducing unemployment and underemployment.

41
Most of the important economic changes in agriculture can

be said to date from 1960. The green revolution is based

on the use of irrigation, improved seeds, manures and

fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides and improved

implements. Further, the green revolution has taken place

mainly in five crops, viz., paddy, bajara, jowar, maize

and wheat. There have been conflicting views on the

effects of green revolution on employment and wages of

labour. Some viewed that the green revolution will

substantially increase the total agricultural employment

and will raise agricultural wages. While others argued

that the green revolution may not have helped in raising

employment and agricultural wages. In India, the studies

conducted in the field of trend in agriculture wages give

different results as the most studies do not consider the

extent of unreliability of the data used^®. There exist

fragmentary bits of information from different sources

which have varying reliability. They are certainly not

sufficient to clinch any definite conclusion, but they are

suggestive^^. The green revolution has been only 30

years old and has taken place in few crops. The following

few studies on the effects of green revolution on

employment and wages of agricultural labourers are

reviewed in brief :

Bardhan^® (1970) studied wages and employment of

agricultural labourers for the period of 1960-61 to 1967-

68 in Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh and lADP

42
districts in various States. He used data from

Agricultural Wages in India for 1960-61 to 1967-68, from

National Sample Survey for 1956-57 and 1964-65 and from

various studies of the Intensive Agricultural Development

Areas for the period 1962-63 to 1967-68. He estimated

that the weighted average daily wage rates for casual male

agricultural labour had gone up by about 89 per cent

between 1960-61 and 1967-68 in Punjab and Haryana, the

heart-centre of green revolution. But during the same

period prices for agricultural labourers went up by 93 per

cent in Punjab and Haryana. So the average real wage rate

for agricultural labour in this region did not seem to

have gone up. In Western-Uttar Pradesh, the daily money

wage rate for male agricultural labourers grew at an

annual rate of 4.8 per cent during 1960-61 and 1968-69

while the consumers' price index for agricultural

labourers rose at an annual rate of 4.7 per cent. It

means that the real wage rate remained nearly constant

over this period. In Kerala, the weighted average daily

wage rate for agricultural labour had gone up by about

139 per cent between 1960-61 and 1967-68. In this period

the Labour Bureau consumers price index numbers for

agricultural labourers in Kerala went up by 76 per cent

indicating a considerable rise in the real wage rate.

This rise in wage rate may be connected with the fact that

peasant organisations in Kerala were fairly strong. The

number of full days per year in wage paid employment for

male agricultural worker during 1956-65 went up from 194

43
to 208 and for female workers from 127 to 138 respectively

in the country as a whole. Green revolution had not

helped in raising wage paid employment particularly, since

agricultural production went up by more than 27 per cent

in this period. The percentage of rural people below

minimum level of living in 1960-61 and 1967-68 was 38.03

and 73.24 respectively for the country as a whole. This

percentage had apparently doubled over the sixties in

rural India. In Punjab and Haryana - the throbbing heart

land of the green revolution - the percentage of rural

people below the minimum level of living guadrupled

between 1960-61 and 1967-68.

Bhalla and Chadha^^ (1982) evaluated the impact of the

green revolution on income distribution among small and

marginal farmers in Punjab. They concluded that the

advent of green revolution in Punjab had brought overall

prosperity to its peasantry. However, the gain of the new

technology had been distributed more or less in proportion

to the initial land holding position. The marginal and

small farmers of Punjab did not reveal a situation of

destitution or misery. They were in a position to arrange

a square meal. But even in the heart of green revolution,

the marginal and small farmers found it quite difficult to

make both ends meet because of their limited land base.

About 1/3 of the marginal farmers (tilling less than 2.5

acres of land) were living below the poverty line. About

24.0 per cent of small farmers (tilling between 2.5 and

44
5.0 acres of land) were also living below the poverty

line. The small and marginal farmers were unable to earn

adequate per capita income from crop production because of

their small land base. One of the main reasons for rural

poverty was over population in agriculture combined with

inequality in land distribution. It is true that green

revolution had reduced the poverty of small and marginal

farmers. The green revolution in Punjab had provided a

breathing space by productively absorbing increasing

labour force into agriculture. They suggested that all

efforts should be made to provide improved inputs through

co-operatives. It is essential to withdraw labour force

from agriculture into non-agricultural occupations and

industry.

Srivastava and Sing^^ (1975) examined the effects of the

new technology on the employment and earnings of the rural

labour in 1970-71 over 1966-67 when new technology was

first introduced in the country. The study relates to 50

samples of different sizes from five villages in Kalyanpur

Block of Kanpur district. They found that the area under

irrigation increased from 41.55 per cent in 1966-67 to

92.27 per cent in 1970-71. Intensity of cropping also

increased from 130.10 per cent in 1966-67 to 165.56 per

cent in 1970-71, showing a net increase of 35.46 per cent.

The introduction of seeds of high-yielding varieties also

helped in adopting multiple cropping programme which

ultimately raised the employment of rural labour. The

45
area under high yielding varieties increased from 10.84

per cent in 1966-67 to 46.18 per cent in 1970-71, an

almost four fold increase; the employment of humanlabour

also increased from 94.50 days to 148.24 days. It shows

that the employment of human labour increased by 56.87 per

cent in 1970-71. The employment of family labour and

hired labour per hectare had increased from 68.94 and

25.26 days, respectively in 1966-67 to 82.44 and 65.80

days in 1970-71. Thus, the new technology had enhanced

the human labour employment in general and hired labour in

particular. The value of hired labour per hectare, on an

average, increased from Rs. 50.52 in 1966-67 to Rs. 210.56

in 1970-71. It shows that the value of hired labour in

1970-71 was more than four times than that in 1966-67.

The wage rate of family and hired labour had been

increased from Rs. 1.60 and Rs. 2.00 in 1966-67 to Rs.

2.40 and Rs. 3.20 in 1970-71 respectively. Thus, the new

technology had not merely enhanced the employment of

labour but also increased their earnings.

Singh and Singh^^ (1975) studied the farm structure and

cropping pattern, extent of employment and level of income

of 50 cultivators selected from five villages of Mawana

Block of Meerut district during the year 1972-73. They

found that the values of output and net income per hectare

showed an increasing trend because of higher cropping

intensity, higher percentage area under irrigation and

high-yielding varieties and higher investment on inputs

46
like seeds, fertilizers etc. The average family labour

income and farm business income per hectare came to Rs.

1699.75 and Rs. 1823.61 respectively. The employment of

human labour was also increased. The employment of human

labour per farm, on an average, came to 3793.38 hours.

The average per hectare employment of human labour came to

1284.20 hours, which, showed an increasing trend. Thus,

they concluded that the level of income, employment and

cropping pattern were positively correlated. Increased

cropping intensity and more area under high-yielding

varieties resulted in higher employment and higher level

of income per unit of area. It would lead to opening up

of more opportunities for reducing unemployment and

underemployment.

Chadha^^ (1984) examined changes in the economic

condition of the landless agricultural labour households

and the impact of advances in agriculture on the incidence

of poverty in Punjab and Haryana for the period 1960-61 to

1980-81. He found that the real wage rates for all

agricultural activities increased significantly during the

two decades 1960-81. The growing agriculture threw up

lots of additional demand for wage labour. The share of

rising farm output percolated in the farm of increased

wage rate to the landless agricultural labour. It is

clear that the green revolution in Punjab increased wage

rate. The total yearly employment available to an average

rural labour household had significantly expanded since

47
the advent of green revolution in mid-sixties. There was

40 per cent improvement in real per capita income between

1964-65 and 1977-78. Average annual income of

agricultural labour household increased from Rs. 1186 in

1964-65 to Rs. 4650 in 1977-78 at current prices. There

had been steady improvement in the real earnings of

agricultural labour households. So economic condition of

agricultural labour clearly improved during this period.

The incidence of poverty remained more or less unchanged

till the late sixties, and conformed to a declining time

trend thereafter. Thus, the green revolution gave rise to

a tremendous expansion of labour demand and generated

additional employment and income opportunities for the

poor households. The benefits of such development accrued

to landless agricultural labour through additional wage

employment, to marginal farmers through higher and rising

productivity and to other weaker sections of the rural

society through augmentation of allied farm and non-farm

activities.

Raju^^ (1975) on the basis of his study of the lADP

district West Godavari for the years 1967-68 and 1970-71,

observed that money wages and real wages for hired labour

increased substantially in the district. The money wages

in 1967-68 amounted to Rs. 2737 and Rs. 4676 in 1970-71.

The real wages amounted to Rs. 175 in 1967-68 and Rs. 267

in 1970-71. The mean wages of hired labour in money terms

increased by 7 0 per cent and real wages by 52 per cent in

48
 the period 1967-68 to 1970-71. The share of hired labour

in terms of wage income had been significantly increased

from 1967-68 to 1970-71 due to green revolution which had

increased the output in the district. The rise in wages

was substantially high. This clearly indicates that green

revolution had significantly contributed towards increase

in demand for labour, wages and wage income of hired

labour.

The above studies evaluated the impact of green revolution

on employment, wages and income of agricultural labourers.

On the introduction of new technology since mid-sixties,

cropping intensity has increased which resulted into the

rise of demand for labour creating additional employment

opportunities; increase in wage rate and wage income of

the agricultural labourers. But, apart from this, a large

part of rural population in agriculture has been

unemployed or underemployed because of seasonal nature of

agricultural operations. Employment in agriculture varies

according to the seasons.

2.4 Seasonal Employment

Indian agriculture is seasonal in character. The

intensity of employment varies according to season.

Seasonal unemployment, which is associated mainly with

agricultural operations, is a widespread phenomenon in the

Indian rural economy. Agricultural operations, being

heavily dependent on natural factors, do not provide

employment throughout the year. In certain period of the

49
year, particularly during sowing and harvesting, there is

heavy work while in other period, the work is lean.

Shortage of labour is actually felt during peak

agricultural seasons and large proportion of labour

remains unemployed and underemployed. Hence, it is

essential to study the seasonal aspect of employment in

agriculture to understand the nature and extent of

unemployment in detail.

The Expert Committee of the Planning Commission points out

that there is little open or outright unemployment

throughout the year but there is considerable seasonal

unemployment or underemployment. The seasonality of

agricultural employment does not affect all classes of

rural population alike. The marginal and small farmers

with uneconomic holdings and landless agricultural

labourers are the two classes which are badly affected by

the seasonality of agricultural employment. The

cultivators with inadequate holdings do not get even the

minimum desirable income. Their holdings are adequate

probably to keep busy only during the peak periods.

During the rest of the year, they are more or less

underemployed. The under-employment would be more acute

during the slack season when they may be even completely

unemployed for a short period. Such unemployment of

underemployment is rather dispersed and appears

intermittently in brief spells as there is no one slack

season. In case of landless agricultural labourers, they

50
are employed only during the peak agricultural season and

are underemployed during the slack season. The chief

characteristic of these two classes of rural population is

not that it is acutely unemployed or underemployed during

the slack agricultural season but that it is employed

irregularly and inadequately and unemployed intermittently

throughout the year^^. Two specific studies on seasonal

employment are discussed in brief as under :

Rudra and Biswas^^ (1973) studied the seasonal variations

in the demand for labour and its employment in Hooghly

district of West Bengal. The results were based on the

random sample of 149 farming households presented

separately for four size classes, defined in terms of the

acreage of cultivable area in each farm : 0 to 1.25 acres,

1.25 to 3.75 acres, 3.75 to 10.00 acres, and 10 acres and

above. They had assumed eight hours of work as a day-full

employment work. They found that all these classes were

affected very largely by unemployment. Even during the

peak seasons, the farm provided work that could absorb

only a fraction of the labour supply. In the smallest

size group, the demand for labour had never gone beyond 5

hours a day. During most of the year, it was at or below

4 hours as against the supply of 9.20 hours of labour per

day. In the next size group of 1.25 to 3.75 acres, the

peak period demand and the non-peak period demand did not

reach 9 hours and 5 hours respectively; whereas the supply

was above 10 hours a day. In the next higher group of

51
3.75 acres to 10.00 acres, the peak period demand did not

exceed 20 hours a day, the level during non-peak periods

being around 14 hours a day during suininer and 10 hours

during winter; whereas the supply shot up to more than 26

hours a day. In the biggest group of farms, however, peak

period demandfor labour shot up to 70 hours a day during

the harvest season and above 50 hours a day during the

sowing transplantation season; whereas the supply was 30

hours a day. For this biggest size group, there was the

necessity of hiring in of labour. The seasonal pattern of

human labour employment was very largely determined by

seasonality of the main crop in the region. In case of

smallest size group, the proportion of hired out was

almost always higher than the proportion of hired in and

for the next groups the two proportions were roughly at

the same level. For the biggest size group, there was of

course, no hiring out of family labour. The seasonal

fluctuation of demand for labour was accommodated by

fluctuating volumes of hired employment. In busy seasons,

both the family labour on family farm and hired labour on

family farm took high values, whereas both took low values

during the slack seasons. A similar association was also

seen between family labour on family farm and family

labour hired out for smaller size group.

Chattopadhyay^® (1977) studied the seasonal pattern of

employment in agriculture with the help of data based on

the random sample of 150 farms belonging to the Nowgong

52
district of Assam. He had presented the farms separately

for five classes : 0.1 to 1.25 hectares, 1.26 to 2.50

hectares, -2.51 to 5.00 hectares, 5.01 to 7.50 hectares,

and 7.51 and above hectares. He concluded that as farm

size went up, the number of actual and potential

agricultural workers in the family went up too. The

seasonal fluctuations of human labour employment were

generally associated with the nature of the crop in the

region. He found that all these five classes were

affected very largely by unemployment. All these 'size

groups' could absorb only a fraction of the labour supply

in |the families even during the peak periods, except the

farm size, 7.51 and above hectares. In the smallest size

group (0.01 to 1.25 hectares), the demand for labour had

never gone beyond 4.50 hours a day. During most of the

year, it ranged from 0.16 to 4.38 hours. As compared to

the full employment line i.e. 9.36 hours per day, the

family workers spent idle time of maximum 9.2 0 hours in

the lean season, and above 4.80 hours in the peak season.

In the next size group (1.26 to 2.50 hectares), the supply

was above 13.50 hours a day, whereas the peak and lean

period demand did not exceed 7.71 and 0.40 hours a day,

respectively. In the next size group (2.51 to 5.00

hectares), the supply of labour was above 17 hours a day;

whereas the peak period demand did not exceed 11.63 hours

a day. In this size group also, the family workers spent

idle time ranging from 16.71 hours to above 8.75 hours a

day. In the next higher group (5.01 to 7.50 hectares),

53
 the supply was above 26 hours a day; whereas the peak

period demand did not exceed 16.54 hours a day; and during

the non-peak period the demand ranged from 0.53 to 13.26

hours a day. In the biggest size group of 7.51 and above

hectares of farms, peak period demand for labour shot up

very high, reaching 36.44 hours a day during harvesting

season and 29.47 hours a day during ploughing season. The

maximum supply of labour in such families was 28.80 hours

a day. There was definitely necessity of hiring-in labour

for this size group. He observed that casual labour

played an important role in agricultural operations in all

the farm size groups. The pattern of labour utilisation

was clearly demarcated according to the agricultural

operations but labour utilisation pattern did not vary

with the farm size. The differences of labour utilisation

between the agricultural operations were highly

significant. As the farm size increased, labour hiring

also increased and it also varied with seasonality.

Thus, employment in agriculture is determined by

seasonality factor. In peak period, demand for labour is

more than the availability whereas in lean period, the

demand is less than the availability of agricultural

labourers and they are surplus.

2.5 Surplus Agricultural Labour

In India, the growth of agricultural labourers has been on

the increase with only a limited expansion of land under

cultivation. Indian agriculture is characterised by high

54
density of population and low land - man ratio. Such

unfavourable land-man ratio has increasingly been becoming

more adverse because of rapidly growing population which

has also repercussions on agricultural productivity, rural

employment and rural poverty. As a result, small and

marginal farmers and agricultural labourers are

predominant in the agrarian economy of the country.

The rural unemployment problem has assumed alarming

proportion in India in recent years because of the

pressure on land as a result of the population explosion.

A rough estimate indicates that about 50 per cent of the

rural labour force comes under the category of disguised

unemployment^^. Traditional agriculture is not efficient

enough to make full use of resources. Employment on farm

is distributed unevenly over months. The seasonality of

employment and characteristics of underemployment, have an

immediate influence on the intensity of cultivation and

cropping pattern.

Chattopadhyay^® observed that in Punjab, on an average, a

farm family labour got employment about five hours a day.

That is, a farm family labour spent idle time or surplus

time of three hours per day. It means that 38 per cent of

the total hours was disguised for a family worker of

Punjab. In Kerala, the average employment of farm family

labour was 4.62 hours per day. The region was much more

progressive in terms of the cropping pattern and intensity

of cropping. 38 per cent of the total labour hours was

55
identified as ^disguised' or 'underemployed'. In Assam,

on an average, a farm family labour got employment of

nearly 2.69 hours per day and spent 5.31 hours as idle

time or surplus time per day. That is, 66 per cent of the

total hours was disguised. In Madhya Pradesh, Uttar

Pradesh and Orrisa, the percentages of thetotal hours

disguised were 63, 50 and 63 respectively.

It proves that it is not possible for Indianagriculture

to make full use of its agricultural labour force even by

improving the method of cultivation. There still remains

a large surplus farm labour force in the country. The

degree of unemployment is also associated with the

proportion of agricultural labourers to total agricultural

workers. For the country as a whole, the proportion of

farm labourers to total farm workers is 38 per cent and

the rate of unemployment is 7.7 per cent^^.

It is an accepted fact that Indian agriculture suffers

from large scale of disguised employment or

underemployment. A large part of unemployment or

underemployment of farm labour in agriculture arises out

of the seasonality factor. Because of the nature of crops

grown and the seasonality of operations involved, there

are busy and lean periods in agriculture. In peak

periods, demand for farm labour is more than its

availability whereas in lean period, the actual

availability of farm labour is far more than its demand.

56
Agriculture in under-developed countries is said to be

labour surplus. This notion is still relevant

particularly, to India where about 70 per cent of the

people are dependent for their living on agriculture. A

number of studies were conducted to measure the surplus

farm labour arising out of the underemployment in Indian

agriculture. Estimates of it have ranged from 20 to 50

per cent of the total agricultural population^^. This

surplus population could be removed without any

significant reorganisation of agriculture and without

reducing agricultural production. The recent trend of

thinking among large number of economists is that the

surplus farm labour is illusory. The new farm technology

being labour intensive is sufficient enough to make full

use of the total supply of farm labour. It appears that

this controversy has centred around the definition and

method of estimation of unemployment and the

generalisation of the phenomena for the underdeveloped

countries as a whole. Few studies which measure the

surplus farm labour arising out of the underemployment in

agriculture are reviewed as under -

Mehra^^ (1966) analysed the data drawn from the household

economic tables of the Census of India, 1961 and the Farm

Management Survey reports of 1956-57 for the states of

Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and

West Bengal. She calculated surplus labour in agriculture

by taking the difference between the total work force

57
employed and the total work force required. She assumed

that the composition of the actual number of workers in

each holding size group was approximately the same as in

the largest size group and the labour requirement per area

was equal to the actual labour used by the biggest sized

farms. This norm consisted of the family workers plus all

the hired workers. She concluded that in most of the

states studied, the actual number of workers exceeded the

required number, thus denoting the existence of surplus

labour on farms. For the country as a whole, surplus

labour seemed to lie somewhere between 6.4 to 29.1 per

cent of the total agricultural workforce. Had the mean of

this range been taken, the surplus would have worked out

to be about 17.1 per cent of the agricultural workforce.

Rudra^^ (1973) carried out an exercise with data

pertaining to 148 farms drawn at random from the district

of Hooghly in West Bengal during the year 1970-71. He

estimated surplus labour by taking the difference between

the number of male workers engaged in agriculture and the

minimum number of male workers required to meet the peak

period demand. He found that 27 per cent of labourers in

that sample could be treated as surplus labourers and

could be spared from any farm work without affecting

family workload even during the peak period. The average

underemployment throughout the year was so high that even

after removal of this 27 per cent from the workforce the

average employment per day for the remaining workers did

58
not go beyond 4.5 hours. The improvement was from 60 per

cent of time unemployed to 45 per cent of time employed.

This degree of underemployment even after removal of

surplus labourers, was so high that if the remaining

family workers were to work more intensely on their farms

they could completely wipe out the employment of non­

family labour on farms. He also found that the proportion

of surplus labour did not vary with size.

Ahuja^^ (1973) studied the extent of rural surplus by

using co-efficients of labour requirements per hectare for

each of the major crops calculated as averages on the

basis of Farm Management data relating to number of

States. Applying these to the actual cropping pattern in

Rajasthan, she worked out the labour requirements for each

of the two major crop seasons - Kharif and Rabi. She

concluded that there was only a marginal labour surplus in

Rajasthan which was a little more than 3 per cent of the

primary working force. However, had the negative balances

been ignored, the surpluses would have added up to 11.38

per cent of the working force. But this surplus varied

largely from district to district and from season to

season. She observed that the determinants of the

employment situation in the rural areas were the

availability of the labour which was determined by the

density of population and the requirement of labour, which

was determined by factors such as the cropping pattern,

the cropping intensity and livestock population. The

59
cropping pattern and the intensity of cropping depended

basically upon the availability of water. Therefore,

population, livestock and water, were three variables that

determined the employment situation. She suggested that

the rural employment problem could be tackled by

undertaking employment generating programmes for every

district.

Mitra^® (1976) estimated the total surplus labour in

agriculture on the basis of the data for Firozpur district

from the studies in the economics of Farm Management for

1967-68 to 1969-70. He noted that any attempt to estimate

surplus without considering the seasonality of employment

would give an incorrect picture of the real situation. He

distinguished clearly between the removable surplus labour

i.e. the surplus labour which could be withdrawn from any

farm activity without affecting the peak period labour

requirement and the total output; and the seasonal

surplus, the surplus arising out of no work or very little

work during the lean season but not removable because of

the peak period requirements. In case of removable

surplus, a continuous and dependable nature work programme

was to be provided and in case of seasonal surplus,

additional employment was to be provided. He concluded

that the extent of no work days was around 40 per cent of

the available labour days of agricultural workers. In

other words, if only crop production was considered,

agriculture provided employment for only 60 per cent of

60
the available days to the persons fully engaged in it. If

labour days spent in the maintenance of cattle were

considered, the surplus labour days got reduced to

somewhere around 20 per cent. The removable surplus

labourers were 20 per cent of the workers. He observed

that surplus labourers, decreased with the increase in

farm size, confirmed that family farm workers on smaller

farm suffered more from unemployment or underemployment.

The above discussion shows that the view that surplus

labour in agriculture is illusory and that improved

practices can be efficient enough to make full use of the

total supply of labour does not hold good.

Chattopadhyay^^ (1977) studied 150 farms drawn at random

from the district Nowgong of Assam during the agricultural

year 1969-70. His analysis was based on Farm Management

data. He estimated surplus labourers and volume of

unemployment in agriculture. He found that 32 per cent of

the total working force in the family could be treated as

surplus labourers. If these 32 per cent labourers could

be withdrawn from agriculture, the production in fact

would not fall. He also found that the volume of

unemployment in the farming families was 47 per cent of

the total working and nonworking adult male members of the

family. The average number of hours of employment of male

family workers on their own farm was 3.31 per day - i.e.,

they were idle for 4.69 hours. Even after removal of

employment given to non-farm labour, the average work load

61
per male family worker was 4.5 hours per day. In this

case, they were spending about 3.5 hours idle time per

day. The improvement was from 58 per cent of time

unemployed to 44 per cent of time unemployed. But the

degree of underemployment after removal of surplus

labourers, would not be so high if the remaining family

workers were supposed to do work more intensely on their

farms by removing all hired casual labourers. In this

situation, the family workers would remain underemployed

for 1.4 hours in a day, i.e., 18 per cent of total working

hours. He observed that the percentage of surplus labour

varied very little between the various sized holdings.

Bal et.al.^® (1979) estimated the net surplus farm labour

and seasonal surplus labour in Punjab during the year

1974-75. The data for estimating the employment of farm

labour in crop production and maintenance of cattle were

taken from the study "Comprehensive Scheme to Study the

Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in Punjab, 1974-

75". Demand for farm labour comprised of two main

activities, viz., crop production and maintenance of

cattle. The total and seasonal surplus in different

regions depended upon the cropping pattern. This surplus

farm labour was subject to seasonal fluctuations in

different regions because of variations in the cropping

pattern. If only employment of farm labour on crop

production was considered, agriculture provided employment

to about 58 per cent of the available labour force. The

62
tending of cattle consumed about 25.17 per cent of the

total farm labour days available in the state. They found

that, the net surplus farm labour was about 17 per cent of

the total available farm labour. But this estimated

surplus farm labour was not real surplus labour in terms

of its removability. Because it included a large part of

farm labour which was unemployed or underemployed during

the lean months but was fully employed in the peak period.

Hence, the seasonality of employment should be considered

while estimating the real surplus farm labour in

agriculture. In peak period, demand for farm labour was

more than its availability whereas in lean months, demand

was less than its availability. They found that the

surplus farm labour varied from 7.65 per cent to 39.45 per

cent during lean months only. The problem was not of

shortage of farm labour but that of surplus farm labour

in lean months. The labour being surplus in the lean

months was an indication of the underemployment of some

proportion of the labour force. This required policies

and programmes to provide employment to 30.94 to 39.45 per

cent surplus labour force. They suggested that additional

employment opportunities should be generated through the

expansion of irrigation projects and allied sectors, such

as, dairying, poultry, fisheries and forestry. Also,

expansion of infrastructure and social services, such as,

roads, water supply, rural electrification, schools and

health services and establishment of agro-based industries

too would help open up new avenues of employment in rural

areas.

63
Thus, the above studies reveal that even with the

introduction of new technology in agriculture, the

agriculture sector has not improved the employment

situation of the farm workers fully engaged in it. On the

contrary, there still remains a large surplus farm labour.

The labour being surplus in the lean period is an

indication of underemployment of some proportion of the

labour force. Estimations of removable surplus and

seasonal surplus are prerequisites for planning and

launching of rural work programmes. It is suggested that

additional employment opportunities should be generated

through irrigation projects, establishment of agro-based

industries and expansion of allied sectors, building rural

roads and implementing employment guarantee schemes etc.

In respect of seasonally unemployed labourers, the

additional work should be of supplementary nature provided

during the lean period.

Surpluses emerge in certain seasons and disappear in

others. This is in the very nature of agricultural

activity, but the surpluses of one season are not

available to meet the deficits of another as agricultural

operations are specific to time. The deficit in one area

can be made up by temporary movements of labour from

surplus areas. The emergence of a section of the

population in rural society, which is entirely dependent

on wage income as a means of livelihood, is the direct

result of the pressure of population on land. This

64
 pressure of surplus manpower has induced a continual

migration of rural population either to other developed

rural areas or urban areas in search of employment with

better wages during the slack season. Such migration may

be permanent or temporary for the short period. It should

be noted that rural - rural seasonal migration contributes

to effective utilisation of surplus manpower.

2.6 Seasonal Migration of Agricultural Labour

Migration can be related to the prevalent economic

conditions in India, characterised by zones of intense and

weak economic activity. The causes of activity

differential may be traceable to the natural resources

endowment, availability of infrastructure and development

of human resources. In the country, there are regions of

intensive agricultural developments like the Punjab,

Haryana, U.P., and intensive industrial development

pockets in West Bengal, Bihar and Maharashtra.

Contrarily, there are vast tracts in the country with low

productivity in agriculture and hardly any industry. The

differential in economic and employment potential between

the two sets of zones creates a gradient regulating flow

of human beings^^.

It is accepted now that the green revolution has not been

an unmixed blessing. Amongst other things, it has

accentuated the regional imbalances leading to increasing

poverty in the agricultural backward areas and seasonal

labour shortage in the green revolution belts. This has

65
led to seasonal mass migration of farm labourers^®.

Seasonal mobility equalises the temporary glut of labour

in the area of out-migration, with temporary shortage in

the place of destination.

Jodha and Purohit'^^ (1971) observed that the production

risk involved in arid areas which are often described as

drought prone areas have the influence on seasonal

migration of farm labourers. Low and unstable production

have been two chronic problems of agriculture in dry

region. The large subsistence and primitive character of

crop farming act as sources of instability and uncertainty

in arid agriculture. On the other hand, unstable rainfall

creates wide fluctuations in crop yields. Occurrence of

poor yields, in sequence of two or more years, creates

scarcity and famine conditions in the arid region and

tends to restrict the farmers capacityto withstand the

scarcity situation. Under these circumstances of

instability and uncertainty in agriculture, farmers resort

to migration and custom work in the neighbouring areas or

districts which have better gain during the year as one

of the devices of their adjustment system to local

scarcity in the drought prone areas.

In the context of green revolution, there has been a new

phenomenon of surplus labour from the backward rural areas

of neighbouring states reaching various places which have

witnessed tremendous rural prosperity. Out-migration need

not have taken place if the 'surplus' labour was absorbed

66
within the regional agriculture or industry. There are

three possible ways for out-migration. The first is that

the labour is not surplus to the region but the 'pull' of

higher wages outside the region draws out-migrants. The

other explanation is the seasonality argument. The out­

migration may take place during certain periods when the

regional labour demand falls. The migrant may plan his

movement so that the duration of gainful employment over

the year-regional or extra-regional - is maximised. The

time character and volume of migration will then depend

upon the seasonal pattern of labour demand in both the

regions of outflow and inflow. The pattern of labour

demand will depend, in its turn, on factors such as the

seasonality of employment in construction and industry,

the nature of crops grown, the intensity of cropping, and

the degree of dependence, on nature in agricultural

decision-making. The third explanation, quite simply, is

that the labour is surplus to the region as we;ll as to the

landholding and so an out-migration is observed^^.

The present tempo of seasonal migration is bound to

increase in future as a result of the growing

diversification of economic activity, increasing degree of

industrialization, commercialization etc. There is

persistent regional disparity in economic levels and

employment opportunities which tend to become larger.

Continuous increase in population has resulted in heavy

accumulation of surplus population in rural areas. The

67
population pressure on land is tremendous. This provides

a condition to push surplus people out of rural

communities to the areas of greater economic

opportunities.

The concept of seasonal migration is most usually

associated with labour. It often involves change in

residence for short or reasonably long period. Though the

migrant labourers are found everywhere in the world, India

has probably more migrant workers than any other Asian

country; these are involved mainly in the harvesting of

tea, cotton, rice and other commercial crops^^. The

seasonal migration of rural labour is thus an important

ingredient of rural to rural migration in India. Factors

responsible for migration are grouped as 'push' and 'pull'

forces or centrifugal or centripetal factors. Though both

the factors are responsible for causing migration, in

India, push factors seem to be more important. Push

factors are indicated by lack of opportunities in the

rural areas. With the growth in population, pressure on

land increases and small holding gradually becomes

uneconomic. As a result, large group of unemployed people

competing for few job opportunities available in the rural

areas, drives the relatively young and able-bodied people

away from the rural areas for short period. Seasonal

migration of agricultural labour seems to be promoted more

by the push factor rather than the pull f a c t o r I t is

a well known fact that agricultural labourers move out in

68
the off-season in search of livelihood because of lack of

opportunities in the place of their origin. In the place

of origin, the land being dry does not support the

existing agricultural labour throughout the year. It

seems, therefore, unavoidable that the surplus labour has

to move out in search of livelihood in the lean season.

Seasonal migration is not a new phenomenon and is observed

throughout India. Seasonal migration has acquired a

singular importance in the context of commercial crops,

such as sugarcane, cotton, tobacco, potato, ground nut,

mulbery leaves and also wheat, rice etc. There are other

operations which need seasonal labour such as bamboo

cutting, felling of trees for timber and cutting wood for

fuel, construction of roads, desilting of tanks and canals

and building tanks, bridges and dams'^^. The seasonal

migration of labourers from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Orissa, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh to

Punjab to labour on the wheat and rice harvest is well-

known. In Assam, migrants found seasonal employment on

tea estates. In Tamil Nadu, a large number of labouring

families from the dry, single cropped area migrate for two

to three months to the irrigated region where two rice

crops are grown.

In Shimoga district of Karnataka, large number of seasonal

migrants are attracted from neighbouring districts for

harvesting of paddy during September and March

69
In the south Gujarat plain, labourers from southern part

of Surat district, Panchmahals, Bharuch, North Gujarat,

Maharashtra and Saurashtra migrate for harvesting of rice,

wheat and sugarcane'^ ^ .

Agricultural labourers from depressed hilly districts of

the Panchmahals migrate seasonally to the irrigated area

of neighbouring Kaira district falling under the command

area of an irrigated project in Gujarat for transplanting

and weeding of paddy^®.

In Andhra Pradesh, labourers migrate seasonally from

Guntur and Krishna districts to West Godavari district for

• 4 .Q
harvesting of tobacco during January and March .

Similarly, the labour households from dry eastern belt of

Andhra Pradesh migrate seasonally for paddy harvesting

work in East-Godavari district^®.

The labourers from Khandesh region of Maharashtra migrate

seasonally to sugar factories around Bardoli in south

Gujarat. Similarly, in Maharashtra, there are some 1.5

lakh migrants from poor peasant and land labour families

in dry districts who work from six to eight months a year

cutting and hauling sugarcane in the irrigated belts^^.

Shah^^ (1979) observed that Matar taluka in Kaira

district of Gujarat attracts labour of Bhils on a large

scale from the Panchmahals district. The seasonal

migration of the Bhils spread over areas from North

Gujarat to Narmada and even beyond in Gujarat.

70
Breman^^ (1978) revealed that the reasons, for the

exclusive option for seasonal migrants from the outside,

were the lack of experience of the local labourers, their

laziness, the inadequate hold of the employer on them.

It is thus clear that seasonal migration of farm labour

forms a major constituent of intra-rural migration in

India.

71
NOTES :

1. Banarjee, B.N. Industry, Agriculture and

Rural Development. B.R.
Publishing Corporation, Delhi.
1987. p. 155

2. Ahlawat, S.R. Green Revolution and

Agricultural Labour. Deep and
Deep Publications, New Delhi.
1988. p.17.

3. Rao, V.K.R.V. Summary : Second Agricultural

Labour Enquiry, 1956-57,
Chapter II in Agricultural
Labour in India. Edited by
Rao V.K.R.V., Asia Publishing
House, Bombay. 1962. p.20.

4. Singh Chavan, J.B. Agricultural Labour in India.

Social Change. Vol.13 (3),
1983. p.21.

5. Unni, Jeemol. Agricultural Labourers in

Rural households, 1956-57 to
1977-78 : Changes in
Employment, Wages and Income.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol. XXIII (26), June 25,
1988. p. A-59.

6. Srivastava, H.L. and Note on Impact of New

Singh, G.N. Technology on Employment and
Earning of Rural Labour.
Agricultural Situation in
India. Vol.XXIX (II),
February, 1975, p.829.

7. Visaria, Pravin Trends in Rural Unemployment

in India : Two Comments.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol. 12(5), 1977. p.143.

8. Gail, Omvedt Capitalist Agriculture and

Rural Classes in India.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.16 (52), 1981. p. A-146.

9. Chattopadhyay, Manabendu Condition of Labour in Indian

Agriculture : Apparent and
Real. K.P. Bagchi and Co.,
Calcutta. 1985. p.9.

10. Rao, V.K.R .V. o p . c i t . p p . 22-29.

72
11. Singh Chavan, J.B. o p . c i t . p p . 24-25.

12. Panikar, P.G.K. Employment, Income and Food

Intake among Selected
Agricultural Households.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.13 (31,32 and 33), Special
Number, 1978.pp.1361 to 1371.

13. Kuiiibhare, S.L.,Patel, : Dimensions of Rural Employment

R.K. and Mathur, V.C.
Planning : An Enquiry of
Landless Farm Labourers of
Gharaunda (Haryana).
Agricultural Situation in
India. Vol.37(10), 1983.
pp.635-638.

14. Misra, Shridhar Under-Employment and Migration

of Agricultural Labourers in
U.P. Rural India. Vol.15(3),
1952. pp. 89-93.

15. Singh, Parmatma and Economics of Dry arming in

Gupta, D .D . Haryana State. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics.
Vol.26 (4), 1971. pp.300-306.

16. Mencher, Joan P. The Lessons and Non-Lessons of

Kerala : Agricultural
Labourers and Poverty.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.15(41,42 and 43) Special
Number, 1980 pp.1781-1802.

17. Singh,G.N. and Income, Employment and

Singh, T.R. Cropping Pattern in District
Meerut : A case Study.
Agricultural Situation In
India. Vol.30(1), 1975. p.11.

18. Raju, V.T. Green Revolution and Labour in

West Godavari District.
Agricultural Situation in
India. Vol. 29(12),
1975.p.875.

19. Bardhan, Pranab 'Green Revolution' and

Agricultural Labourers.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.5(29,30,31), July, 1970
p.1239.

20. Bardhan,Pranab Ib i d . p p . 1239-1246.

73
21. Bhalla, G.S. and Green Revolution and Small
Chadha, G .K . Peasant : A Study of Income
Distribution in Punjab
Agriculture-II. Economic and
Political Weekly. Vol.17(21),
1982. pp. 870-877.

22. Srivastava, H.L. and : op.cit. pp 829-830.

Singh, T.R.

23. Singh,G.N. and Singh T.R.: op.cit. pp.11-13.

24. Chadha, G.K. : The Landless and the Poor in

Green Revolution Regions of
India. Agricultural Situation
in India. Vol.39 (5), 1984.
pp.295-302.

25. Raju, V.T. op.cit. pp.875-879.

26. Dandekar, V.M. and Poverty in India. Gokhale

Rath, Nilkantha Institute of Politics and
Economics, Pune. 1971. pp.140-
142.

27. Rudra, Ashok. and Seasonality of Employment in

Biswas, Raindeo. Agriculture. Economic and
Political Weekly. Vol.8 (39),
1973. pp.A-91 - A-100.

28. Chattopadhyay, Manabendu.: Some Aspects of Employment and

Unemployment in Agraiculture.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol. 12(39), 1977. p p A . 6 6 -
A.73.

29. Singh Chavan, J.B. op. cit. p.23.

30. Chattopadhyay, Manabendu. op. cit. 1977 pp.73-74.

31. Mandal, G.C. Share of Agricultural Labour

in National Agricultural
Product : An Exercise.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.XVIII (52 and 53), 1983.
p.151.

32. Chattopadhyay, Manabendu.; op.cit. 1977. p.66.

33. Mehra, Shakuntla. : Surplus Labour in Indian

Agriculture. Indian Economic
Review. Vol. 1(1), 1966.
pp.111-128.

74
34. Rudra, Ashok. and Direct Estimation of Surplus
Biswas, Ramdeo. Labour in Agriculture.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Vol.8 (4,5,6), Annual Number,
1973. pp. 277-280.

35. Ahuja, Kanta. Agricultural Unemployment in

Rajasthan. Economic and
Political Weekly. Vol. 8(39),
1973. pp. A-101 - A-106.

36. Mitra, Ashok. K. Surplus Labour in Agriculture.

Economic and Political Weekly
Vol. 11 (28), 1976. pp.1041 to
1045.

37. Chattopadhyay, Manabendu.: op.cit. 1977. pp A-68 A-69.

38. Bal, H.S.Singh, Bant and : Surplus Farm Labour in Punjab.

Bal,H.K. Agraicultural Situation in
India. Vol.33(12), 1979.
pp.795-801.

39. Singh, Bhupinder. Problems of Migrant Labour in

India. National Labour
Institute Bulletin. Vol.7(2),
1981. p.135.

40. Gupta,A.K. & Bhakoo,A.K. : Rural to rural migration and

characteristics of migrants in
Punjab. Social Change.
Vol.10(3-4), Sept.Dec.,1980.
p. 18.

41. Jodha, N.S. and Wheather and Crop Instability

Purohit, S.D. in the Dry Region of
Rajasthan. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics.
Vol.26(4), Oct.-Dec. 1971.
pp.286-295.

42. Gail, Omvedt. op.cit. pp.963-964.

43. Lahiri, Atindra. Conflicts of Cultures. The

Economic Times. Vol 24(68),
13th May, 1984. p.5.

44. Balakrishna. S., Seasonal Migration of

Rangacharyulu, S.V.
and Rao, J.P.
Agricultural Labour : A Study
in East Godavari District of
Andhra Pradesh. Journal of
Behavioural Sciences and Rural
Development. Vo l .4(2),
July,1981. p.243.

75
45 • ^3.0 • M • S • ^ • Some Aspects of Sociology of
Migration. Sociological
Bulletin Vol.30(1), March,
1987. p.29.

46. Katti, A.p. Characteristics of Seasonal

Migrants. Journal of Institute
of Economic Research. Vol.l,
Jan. 1966. p.8.

47. Breinan, Jan. Of Peasants, Migrants and

Paupers ; Rural Labour
Circulation and Capitalist
Production in West India.
Oxford University Press,
Delhi. 1985. pp.192-199.

48. Jayaraman, T.K. Seasonal Migration of Tribal

Labour : An Irrigation
Project in Gujarat. Economic
and Political Weekly. Vol.
14(41), Oct. 1979. p. 1727.

49. Rao, M.S.A. Tobacco Development and Labour

Migration : Planning for
Labour Welfare and
Development. Economic and
Political Weekly. Vol. 13(29),
July, 1978. p. 1184.

50. Balakrishna. S. op.cit. p.231.

Rangacharyulu, S.V. and
Rao f iT.P .

51. Gail, Omvedt. op.cit. p.155.

52. Shah, C.H. Growth and Inequality in

Agriculture. Chapter 6 in
Agraicultural Development of
India : Policy and Problems.
Orient Longman Ltd., Bombay.
1979. p.138.

53. Breman, Jan. Seasonal Migration and Co­

operative Capitalism :
Crushing of Cane and of Labour
by Sugar Factories of Bardoli.
Economic and Political
Weekly.Vol. 13 (31-33), Aug.
1978. p. 1345.

* * * * * * * *

76