ifeTHE INDIAN JOURN 1-1V.00RD GURRENT. 1951 OF AGRICULTURAL r)C..C.: 4 ECONOMICS

(Organ of the Indian Society of Agriculturaltlss4UP:co:r o:l ic:C culla

Vol. VI AUGUST 1951 No.2

CONTENTS

Page

NOTES AND COMMENTS •• • •• • •• •

4RT/CL ES :

AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY IN ITALY Prof. GIUSEPPE MEDICI and UGO GIUSTI ...

NET CAPITAL FORMATION AND AGRICULTURAL INDEB-

TEDNESS IN KODINAR •• • •• •

COST OF PRODUCING MILK IN ANAND AREA 1950-51

Dr. S. G. MADMAN and N. K. DESAI •• • 33

PROBLEMS OF FARM LABOUR IN Dr. M. B. DESAI and CH. SHAH ... •• • •• • 47

IMPORTANCE AND UTILITY OF FARM ACCOUNTANCY • •• • ... 65

AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT Dr. J. N. BARMEDA ••• ••• 78

IlOOK REVIEWS •• • •• • 104

R.LADINGS IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS • 122

A DDITIONS TO LIBRARY •• •• • •• • 125

Price Rs. 4/- THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS BOMBAY

AIMS AND OBJECTS and To promote the investigation, study and improvement of the Economic Social conditions of agriculture and rural life through :—

(a) periodical conferences for the discussion of problems;

-which (b) the publication of papers, separately or collectively; or in a periodical may .be issued under the auspices of the Society;

the co-operation with other institutions having similar objects, such as International Conference of Agricultural Economists and the Indian Economic Association, etc.

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

of

The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Prof. J. J. Anjaria (Chairman)

K. C. Ramakrishnan

Dr. G. D. Agrawal

Shri. K. G. Sivaswamy

Dr. M. B. Desai (Managing Editor)

Printed by N. J. Hamilton at the "Onlooker" Press, Sassoon Dock, Colaba, Bombay and Published by the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Bombay. 78 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Before we conclude, we may mention a few contributions to the subject made in . We have already made a mention of the pioneering work of Rao Bahadur P. C. Patil. Mention must also be made of two a more institutions viz. Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad, and the Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab (India) which have dealt with the subject more extensively. The latter has recently published a work on "Accounts of a Farm culivated by Bullocks and Tractors in Ambala district" by B. K.Goswamy. The office of the Economic Adviser, Govern- ment of the U.P. is also working on the cost of cultivation in few districts and the results when published, will be interesting as they will throw additional light on Indian conditions. It is therefore quite in the fitness of the things that the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics has fixed "Problems of calculating the cost of cultivation" as one of the subjects to be discussed at their next Conference to be held at Gwalior towards the end of this year.

AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT* 1 By J. N. BARMEDA, M.A., LL.B., PH.D.

Pre-British Land Relations: In India the land, did not belong to the King. It was the property of the cultivators who, as members of the village community, were subject to certain collective rights as well as obligations. The King or his lieutenants were entitled only to a share of the produce. The who cultivated the holdings surrounding the village formed the main bulk of the village population. The repres- entative committee of the villagers, as the de facto owner of the village lands distributed the lands among the families who cultivated their respective holdings from generation to generation subject of course to the community's right to supervise and settle disputes according to custom. Common pastures, wastes and woodlands were the integral parts in the economic organization of the village. Every peasant family had a right to graze their cattle in the common pastures and get their fuel from the wastes and woodlands. Abundance of waste lands afforded sufficient scope for absorption and adjustments of newcomers.

The nature of the self-sufficient village economy in which production was carried on mainly for consumption within the village, necessitated a kind of cooperative life. "The municipal services watch and ward etc., the enjoyment of rights in common grazing grounds and woodlands, the AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 79

) the necessary cooperation for arranging irrigation and water supply etc., the ering organization of defence against marauders as well as to protect the land two and crops from wild animals, pests and stray cattle—all these urgent and d the necessary conditions of village life imposed upon the peasantry a regime a the of cooperation that was a bar to the growth of sharply antagonistic or k oi irreconcilable private claims. Above all, there was the ever present abala necessity of meeting, collectively as a rule, the revenue demands of the vern- of the village, whether he was a ruler in his own right, or an inter- tricts mediary." EiroW tness Another important reason for the absence of conflicting interest is to fixed be found in the character of Indian as distinguished from the )jects feudalism in Europe. The main difference between the two systems arises s the out of different concepts of monarchical power. "In the feudal system of Rajasthan there exists this remarkable difference from that of Europe; in the former the Hindoo landholder, though subjugated by another Hindoo race of conquerors, has not been deprived of his ancient right to X the soil he has been subjected to a tax by the new government, in order to support the military establishment of the new State, but his land is respected. In Europe, the conquerors not only claimed the soil itself, but also the inhabitants upon it, as their serfs and slaves. When the King in India, as paramount or when one of the feudatory , wished to reward anyone for his services, he granted him an assignment on the revenue of a certain village or of a portion of land." 2 Thus the King in ) the India who had only the traditional right to a portion of the produce of the the land could delegate or distribute, by way of reward, only this right. 11 as In Europe, on the other hand, the barons and the holders, to whom :e of delegation of King's dominium was made, became masters of both land cling and persons on it. This gave rise, in Europe, to conflicts between the )res- King and his baronage, the baronage always attempting to circumscribe ands and delimit the claims which the King could make upon them in virtue of heir his exercise of the supreme dominium. In India the feudatories were not e to co-sharers of sovereignty. Their title to revenue collection or taxes was :on1. well-defined. And the only method of escaping from this condition was the armed rebellion. And such a conflict never disturbed the internal struct- ight ure of the land relations. "The conflict between the King and his feuda- the tories did not, therefore, lead to political and constitutional development dent Within the framework of the State, but merely to the creation of a new State in no way dissimilar to that from which its ruler had torn himself apart." 3 don ed a I. Shelvankar, K. S.—The Problem of India, p. 95. etc., 2. Briggs, John—Land Tax in India, p. 95. . the 3. Shelvankar, K. S.—The Problem of India, p. 99. 80 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Secondly, in India, the class of intermediaries were of such diverse types that it was impossible for them to come together on a common ground to resist the terms and conditions of the overlord, should such resistance become necessary. They belonged to different territories, spoke different languages, lived and grew up in different environments and were of different grades, possessing different powers.

Thirdly, there was little possibility of the intermediary in his dealings with the peasantry, converting his right of rent collection into that of dominium in the sense in which it was understood in Europe. In India, the manorial system of Europe with its intermingling of land and peasant land in the village and the interdependence of labour service was not there. In fact "Indian feudalism remained fiscal and military in character, it was never manorial."

This explains why the two sets of conflicts (a) between the baronage and the King, and(b) between the baronage and the peasantry, the conflicts which shattered the pre-capitalist agrarian system of the West, did not take place in India. For" None of the major conflicts in Indian history had for its object the exercise of rights within the village.. . . The issue was always between the different claimants of the sword, the village and the peasantry remaining throughout, a passive subject of the conflict, the

booty over which the rival powers fought each other." 2 In the words of Karl Marx: "The structure of the economical elements of society, remains untouched by the storm clouds in the political sky." 3

The differences noted above in the relations among the three consti- tuents of the agrarian scheme, viz. the peasants, the intermediary and the sovereign in Europe and India, gave rise in the case of the former to the development of a definite system of private property while in the latter it did not. The Indian system gave rise to a multiplicity of coordinate and simultaneous claims on the land. These were, first, the customary claims of the peasant in the village, the delegated or derivated claims of the intermediary and the superior claims of the sovereign.

This system remained stable all through the centuries and survived the Mohammedan as well as the Maratha period. In Gujarat it remained very much intact right up to the British conquest due to semi-independent conditions that prevailed during the Mohammedan and later Maratha periods.

1. Ibid, p. 99. 2. Ibid, p.'oz. 3. Karl Marx—Capital, Vol. I, P. 394. AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT

As regards the economic and social relations among the members of erse supreme. Though the classes of non the village peasantry, custom reigned money-lenders, landlords, peasant proprietors, tenants and agricultural ;uch relations were different from what des, labourers did exist, their status and paid in cash or in kind, was decided ents they are today. The rent, whether by the village dhara or custom. It could not be enhanced at the sweet will of the 'owner of the land. And nobody thought of ejecting a tenant on lands being available for cultiva- ngs any ground because of plenty of waste property of the village community, of tion. Land itself being ultimately the could not be transferred without its consent. And the institution of joint dia, ancestral land in the family worked and family with its sentiments of preserving against sub-division. The relations of agricultural labourers with the Tice by custom. The mer- r test of the agrarian classes were also determined chants and money-lenders fitted into the peasant society less as exploiters ?r usurers and more as safety valves of the self-sufficient village economy. Though the classes of money-lenders and merchants existed in rural age position in the old economy, icts areas in pre-British India, their function and were substantially different from those in the new economy. The money- ake an insignificant role. He oc- lad lender in the old economy played almost casionally lent money to the village agriculturist or artisan, the interest vas Futher, the money-lender could the strictly fixed by the village panchayat. tot annex the land or livestock in case a farmer did not meet the interest the community. Similarly, the rds Claim, since land belonged to the village reinforced the village with a few :ty, village merchant in the old society, only articles which they could not produce." Transformation of the Land System: But the new land settlements carried ;ti- out by the British changed the entire basis of our land system which we :he have just described. These were based on a new concept of landowner- he ship, the concept of private property in land. In some provinces like 7 it Bengal, Bihar and the U.P. the British recognised the intermediary revenue nd farmers as absolute owners of landed estates and thus created a new class iry of landlords or Zamindars. For others, like Madras and Bombay they he conferred private property rights on the individual landholders, in their holdings by making direct settlements with them. And thus came into existence the Ryotwari system. With the new settlements came the new he revenue administration replacing the village committee which was thus hc)1 deprived of its administrative role and economic function. The State nt appropriated to itself the wastes, the woodlands and the common pastures, things which served as an ever present proof of the state of interdepend- ence of the peasant community in the village. The political policy of administrative centralization destroyed the village autonomy completely. Thus our land system underwent a complete metamorphosis.

1. Desai, A. R.—Social Background of Indian Nationalism, p. 160. 8z HE INDIAN JOURNA-1, OP AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS"

The introduction'of money was a potent force in giving impetus to the spread of individualist ideas and the change from a customary to a contractual basis, of land relat. ons. Land came to be equated with certain value in terms of money and with that the nature of all and trans- actions of mortgage, lease, sale, etc., underwent a change: thus land be- came a marketable commodity. All these transactions, which were hither- to generally subject to the collective judgment of the village community,- were now undertaken by the peasant in his own individual judgment and discretion, according to the English Laws of property, about which he was ignorant and which were interpreted to him in the new law courts by lawyers.

The peasant did not necessarily produce for his own needs or that of the village. In the new price-economy production was for the market which was a world market and the agricultural economy of the village was subjected to the ups and downs of the price level according to the conditions of supply and demand, condif ons which were not under- standable to the ignorant and illiterate pesantry. Consequently the peasant came to grief when the prices touched a low level. Further the competi- tion was unequal inasmuch as the industrially highly developed countries with low manufacturing costs were to be faced by a country with backward. and old methods of production apart from other disadvantages of an im- poverished peasantry. In the words of Pandit Nehru: "The old self- sufficient village economy had long since ceased to exist. Auxiliary cottage industries, ancillary to agriculture, which had relieved somewhat the burden on the land, had died off, partly because of State policy, but largely because they could not compete with the risrig machine industry. The burden on land grew and the growth of Indian industry was too slow to make much difference to this. Ill-equipped and a:most unawares, the over-burdened village was thrown into the world markets and was tossed hither and thither. It could not compete on equal terms. It was back- ward in its methods of production and its land system resulted in a progressive fragmentation of hold.ngs which made radical improvement impossible. So the agricultural classes, both landlords and tenants went down-hill, except during brief per.ods of boom. The landlords tried to pass on their burden to their tenantry."

Thanks to the State policy of retarding industrial development, mil- lions went back to land thus leading to an enormous increase in the pres- sure on land. This created excessive land hunger which with the growth of population resulted in subdivis.on of holdings to a ridiculously small size and the cultivation of wh.ch proved uneconomic. Individualisation

1. Nehru, J.—Autobiography (The Bodly Head, London), p. 193. AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 83

to of tenure gave rise to land values which showed a tendency to increase with growing land hunger. Farmers began to incur debts on the security a of their holdings, but as agriculture became unprofitable to a large number of landholders, the debts could not be paid back. Land increasingly came )e- to be transferred into the hands of functionless non-cultivating owners and er- rent-receivers. ty, nd One of the logical consequences of this process which was initiated by he the new economy led to the growth of agrarian classes with conflicting rts interests, and the stratification of the rural society on those lines went apace.

of The above are the main contours,in brief, of the process of change that et has occurred in the agrarian economy of India. The increasing differen- ge tiation in the agrarian classes to which it has led, may be noticed in any :he agricultural region of India. An attempt is made below to study this, er- agrarian classification in Gujarat. int ti- Agrarian Classes in Glgarat ies The rural society from ird the point of view of agriculture can be broadly classified into non-cultivating owners or landlords, cultivating owners or In- peasant proprietors, elf- tenant cultivators and agricultural labourers. Culti- vating owners can be further classified into those ary (a)who cultivate only their own land, (b) who cultivate part of their land and give the rest on lease, hat (c) cultivate put- who part of their land and give the rest on lease and take land on lease from others, and (d) who cultivate their land and take on lease ry. extra land from others. This sub-classification ow is based on the style or mode of cultivation. On the basis of the size the of holding, the class of culti- vating owners can be further classified into uneconomic holders, small Sed peasants, middle peasants and large peasants. ck- a A complete ent picture of the agrarian classes mentioned can only be had by looking at ent the occupational distribution of the population of the whole region. Such data are available ied in the census reports. But the census information becomes unhelpful in obtaining a comparative position of these classes from decade to decade because of difference in methods of enumeration and classification adopted at each census. Further, the 1941 census omitted this data. We are thus obliged to consider only 1931 census figures. vth iall ion MAIN AGRARIAN CLASSES-1931

Principal Workers

Non- Cultivating Tenant Agricultural Col. 2 as Col. 3 as Col. 4 as Col. 5 as District cultivating owners cultivators labourers Total petcentage of percentage of percentage of percentage of owners Col. 6 Col. 6 Col. 6 Col. 6 (I) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) ('0) 0

1,407 31,317 100,737 2 1.4 31.10 ••• 7,352 60,661 7-3 6o.

13,722 143,298 65.7 19.5 9.6 Kaira ••• ••• 7,383 94,183 28,010 5-2

Broach and •••

151,513 66.4 26.7 Panch Mahals ••• 5,244 100,668 5,093 40,508 3-5 3.4

2,960 121,835 2.4 • 42.9 52.3 Surat ••• ••• 2,879 52,249 63,747 2.4 rIVIIILITII1DIUDY

307,761 517,383 7.2 28.9 Br. Gujarat ••• 22,858 37,470 149,294 4.4 59.5 SDINoNoDa

22,822,088 18,873,968 60,947,187 3.6 30.9 Br. India ... ••• 2,206,794 17,044,337 27-9 37.4 AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT

The picture that the above figures place before us seems pleasant to look at. Gujarat appears to be a land of peasant proprietors who consti- tute nearly 6o per cent. of the total number of principal earners employed in agriculture. The next important class, numerically, seems to be that of agricultural labourers who constitute 28.9 per cent. of the total. Tenant cultivators with 7. z per cent seem to be the least important. As for non- cultivating owners they constitute 4.4% of this total. Similar figures for former British India are 27.9 per cent. owner cultivators, 30.9 per cent. agricultural labourers, 37.4% tenant cultivators and 3.6 per cent. non- cultivating owners. Tenancy appears to be a very important problem in the country as a whole. Taken district-wise Surat has the largest percentage of agricultural labourers while Kaira has the least. Kaira, although a predominantly owner-cultivators' district seems to have a good number of tenant cultivators. In fact they constitute the largest percentage of the total number of tenants in a district. The three remain- ing districts of Ahmedabad, Broach and the Panch Mahals do not show any appreciable variation in the composition ofthe different classes among them.

The utility, however, of the above figures is greatly diminished in- asmuch as they do not give any idea of the area of land held or cultivated by each class. Consequently, we cannot obtain a picture of the composi- tion of the owner-cultivators into uneconomic holders, small peasants, middle peasants and big peasants. Further, we are inclined to doubt the correctness of these figures, for it is quite probable that many of the culti- vators shown as owner-cultivators may not belong to that class. Because of the association of status, respect and a certain amount of pride with ownership of land, a good number of those who did not possess land or had a tiny patch of land are likely to have given their class as owner- cultivators. Commenting on his estimate of the percentage of tenant population to total following cultivation, based on census figures, Mr. K. G. Sivaswamy remarked: "It should however be noted that this estimate is far less than the actual number of tenants, as varam tenants may have been classified as labourers, and as tenants having small pieces of land as owners may figure under cultivating owners instead of under tenant group."' Again, about the owner-cultivators it has been stated" Many of the peasant proprietors are counted more than once in the agricultural returns."2 "In fact a correct classification of agricultural population is a difficult task particularly for census enumeration. But it is obviously impossible for a census to decide questions of classification that involve a considerable study ofland tenures."3 It is clear, therefore, that a correct picture of the classific- ation of agricultural population cannot be obtained from the census figures.

1. Sivaswamv, K.G.—Madras Ryotwari Tenant-1948, p. 25. 2. Statistical -Atlas of Madras Presidency, p. 18. 3. Census of India, (1931), Bombay Presidency, General Report, p. 233. Cultivating Owners In order to appreciate the position of the different groups of the peasantry it is necessary to have information regarding size of holdings in each group. Such information is provided every five years in the Bombay Land Revenue Administration Reports. The holders are divided into six groups according to the size of their holdings, as shown below. The Table below gives comparative figures regarding agricul- turists' holdings classified according to their sizes.

Agriculturists Holdings in Gujarat

0 1916-7 1947-8 Size of holdings 'C)> Number Percentage Area held Percentage Number Percentage Area held Percentage of of total in of total of of total in - of total persons holders acres area persons holders acres area t-4

•••

Upto 5 acres ... ••• 20 63.6 464,556 25.2 9,543 19.4 277,374 69.8 56o,551 t-4 Over 5 and upto 15 acres ••• 83,613 25.4 752,218 31.5 86,554 21.8 680,166 30.6 Over 15 and upto 25 acres ••• 2.0,914 6.3 392,049 16.4 21,129 5.3 397,388 17.8

Over 25 ••• & upto ioo acres 14,560 4.4 580,282 24.3 11,637 2. 9 454,868 20.4 Over Ioo & upto 5oo acres ••• 9651 153,2581 8161 123,551 0 • 3 8.4 .2 6.o Over soo acres ••• ••• ••• 57 48,633 181 9,379J (4(I Total . 329,652 100 2,390,996 100 397,528 100 2,225,903 I00

cf- 00 • .P.? AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TEI5ANCY, IN GUJARAT 87

The position regarding the composition of the different groups of agriculturist holders in 1947-8 is significant. Holders of land below 5 acres constitute the majority group with 69.8 per cent. of the total. But they hold only 25 .2 per cent. of the total land. Their average size of holding is about 2 acres. It is clear that all these are uneconomic holders. The next group of 'over 5 and up to 15 acres' constituting 21.2% of holders possess 30.6 per cent. of the land. The average size of holding in this group comes to 7.8 acres. These peasants can be characterised as small peasants. It is interesting to note that the combined strength of the two groups constitute 91.6 per cent. of the total agriculturist holders with 55.8 per cent. of the total land held by them. The average size of holding of the two groups together comes to only 3.4 acres. The middle peasant group holding 'over 15 and up to 25 acres' of land constitutes only 5 3 per cent. of the total holders, with 17.8 per cent. of the total land distributed among them. The middle and big peasants constitute the remaining groups, with 2.9 per cent. of the total holders and 20.4 per cent. of the total land in one, and 2 per cent. of the total holders and 6 per cent. of the total land in the other.

During the period of about thirty years covered by the statistics, the different groups have undergone a change which reveal an undesirable trend about the agriculture of Gujarat. Holdings below 5 acres and the area covered by them increased from 2.09,543 and 464,556 acres to 277,374 and 560,551 acres between 1916-17 and .1947-48. The percentage rise in the holdings was from 63. 6% to 69. 8%. In the group of holdings of over 5 and up to 15 acres,' the number of holdings has increased from 83,613 to 86,554 but the percentage has decreased from 25.4 in 1916-17 to 21.8 in 1947-48. Taking two groups together however, the number of holders of land up to 15 acres increased from 293,156 to 363,928 an in- crease of about 24. i per cent., while the land held by them increased from 1,216,774 acres to 1,240,713 acres, an increase of about I.9 per cent. only. The average size of holding in the combined groups, therefore, decreased from 4.1 acres to 3.4 acres. The group holding between 15 and 25 acres appears to have been least affected, having maintained an average size of 18 to 19 acres. The rest of the groups display a common tendency of decline both in the number of holders and in the area of land held by them. Taking all the groups holding above 15 acres together it is found that the average size of holding, in the groups above i5 acres, fell from 3 acres to 29.3 acres during the period under consideration. The percent- age decline in the holdings in these groups is from to 8. 4. The tenden- cies observed in the different groups above indicate the working of the process of subdivision which starting from top is accentuated as you go down till at the bottom it results in progressive splintering of the holdings. Taking all the size groups together, it may be noted that while the total S8 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS number of agriculturist holders increased from 32.9,652. in 1916-17 to 397,528 in 1947-48 (an increase of 20.5 per cent.) the total area of land ac held by them decreased from 2,390,996 to 2,225,903 acres(a decrease ofabout -ve 7 per cent. during the same period. The overall average size of holding St decreased from 8.1 acres in 1916-17 to 5 .6 acres in 1947-48. The decline at in the average size of agriculturist's holding during a period of over -w half a century is shown below. fa of

Average size Average size at Year of holding Year of holding re in acres in acres la 11( 1931-2 6.2 ••• 1886-7 ••• ••• ••• ••• 9-5 1936-7 6.i 1900-I ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 9.2 1942-3 6.o ••• 1916-7 ••• ••• ••• ••• 8.i 5.6 ••• 192.1-2 •• ••• ••• ••• 7.7 1947-8

••• 1926-7 ••• ••• ••• ••• 7.6

The average size is reduced during the period from 9.5 acres to 5 .6 acres, i.e. by about 41 per cent. The position in the different districts regarding the average size of holdings from 1916-17 to 1947-48 is as follows:

Average size of Holdings in acres

District 1916-7 1921-2 1926-7 1931-2 1936-7 1942-3 1947-8

Ahmedabad ... 9.8 8.9 9.0 7.6 7.6 7.3 8.7 Kaira 4.6 4.2 4.2 3.8 3 • 9 4.1 3.6 Panch Mahals 8.3 7.5 7.3 8.o 8.6* 7.1 4.4 Broach ... •• • 11.2 10.9 11.7 9.9 10.3 11.2 Surat ..• •• 7.0 6.z 6.2 6.z 5 • 5 • 5 • 5 5.0

While Kaira with 3.6 acres has the smallest average size of holding Broach with 11.3 acres possess the largest average size of holding among all the districts. Although the Kaira district appears to be at the bottom. in this respect, it may not be in a correspondingly more unfavourable position since the smallness of the size of holding is made good by greater fertility of the soil. Similarly in the case of the Surat district as against an average size of 5 acres, there is a greater proportion of irrigated and wet lands.

Economic Holding: The lot of this class of owner-cultivators cannot by any reasonable standard of economic well being be said to be happy, particularly if they have to rely solely on agriculture for maintenance. As

* The average is for both Broach and Panch Mahal districts. 89. AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT

7 to we have seen 91.6 per cent. of holders have land of i5 acres and below, the land average size of the holding in the group being 3.4 acres. This is certainly )out very much below the size of an economic holding as suggested in various ling studies relating to Gujarat. The size of an economic holding cannot be :line arbitrarily fixed for the whole of Gujarat. It is likely to vary in accordance pver with differences in demographic conditions, soil fertility, technological factors and standard of living considered satisfactory. To Ex the size of an.economic holding, therefore, it is necessary to obtain information about these factors by means of comprehensive surveys and inquiries in the regions concerned. The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee I recently laid down the following principles for determining the size of an economic holding in a region by an appropriate authority. 1. It must afford a reasonable standard of living. size 2. It must provide full employment to a family of normal and at least a pair of good bullocks. factors peculiar to 3. It must have a bearing on other relevant 5.6 economy of the region. ricts the agrarian S as Although no such surveys have been made for fixing the size of an economic holding in Gujarat, estimates however have been attempted. Which may be noted here. It was found that in a village in the Bulsar taluka of the Surat r-8 district, where well and tank irrigation is important, a holding of 15 acres consisting of 3 acres of kyari or rice land and i 2. acres of dry crop 7 an economic holding. 2 In a dry crop region of 6 land, would constitute irrigation, 20 4 the same district with extensive cultivation and little of 2 were considered to form an economic holding which could 0 acres of land maintain an average family of 5 persons at the minimum standard of life considered necessary. 3 According to Dr. Desai's findings farmers who ing cultivated zo to 25 acres dry crop lands or about 3 bighas of garden lands, )ng were able to maintain themselves without much difficulty.4 Captain orn Mohite, in his report on cooperative farming in Bombay Province, has Lble calculated- on the basis of cropping and soil quality the area for each district tter required to form an economic holding. The following Table gives the Lnst size of economic holdings in the Gujarat districts. 5 ind 1. Report of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee-1949, p. zI. z. Mukhtyar, G. C.—Life and Labour in a South Gujarat Village, p. 113. Shukla, J. B.—Life and Labour in a Gtjarat Taluka, p. 85. 3. iio. 4. Desai, M. B.—Rural Economy of Gujarat, p. by The size of economic holding according to other writers is- acres—Mehta, J. M.—Rural Economy of Gujarat,(193o), p. 48. 1 5 to zo in PY, zo acres—Mehta,B. H.: A Summary Survey of the Economic Life ofan AboriginalTribe Gujarat. pp. 16 As Acres io Kyari, 15 mixed, zy dry—Kumarappa, J. C.: A Survey of Matar Taluka, 17 & 19. 5. Cooperative Farming in Bombay Province, p. 74. THE INDIAN, JOURNAL' OF AGRICULTURAL' ECONOMICS

District Cropping and soil Area for economic holding

Ahmedabad • • Dry crops 30 acres Irrigated crops zo acres

Kaira •. .. Good garden land 10-12 acres Mixed black soil 12-16 ,,•

Inferior black and sandy 16-20 3,

Broach & Panch Mahals Black cotton soil 25-30 ,1 Buara tract (mostly) 40

Gorat(Mostly garden land) 15-18 ,3 Surat • • • Dry zo acres

Dry and irrigated i5 5,

Irrigated and Kyari DO-I 2, 55 Considering the fact that Gujarat is chiefly a dry crop region with only 3.4 per cent, of the net cropped area under irrigation, 25 acres may be considered sufficient to form an economic holding. But even at the most conservative estimate of 15 acres for holding, it is found that about 91 per cent. of the agriculturist holders with holdings below 15 acres do not possess land anywhere near that size. But it is quite conceivable that a good number of the holders in this class may be trying to make both ends meet through other means. Many of them would be working as agri- cultural labourers on others' farms. Still others might belong to artisan class who cultivate land in order to supplement their meagre income from their profession.

The cultivators of these small holdings are further handicapped in that their holdings are scattered over a wide area into small fragments. The evils of fragmentation are too well known to need any emphasis.

Non-Cultivating Holders: With the introduction of money and individualisation of , land became a marketable com- modity. With the increase in the value of land due to increase in the prices of agricultural produce, men with surplus savings in the absence of alternative avenues of investment found it profitable to invest their money in land. But owing to several factors including uneconomic unit of cultivation, bad seasons and lack of education many cultivators found it difficult to repay their debts. Rural indebted- ness became a melancholy feature of Gujarat agriculture. Land, therefore, began to pass ino the hands of non-agriculturists who were quite often :I' money-lenders. This class of non-cultivating holders began to flourish as time passed. The following Table furnishes comparative figures of non-agriculturist holders according to the size of their holdings. AGRARIAN

Non-Agriculturists Holdings.

1916-17 1947-48 CLASSES Size of Holdings Number of Area held % of total % of total Number of Area held % of total % of total persons in acres holders area persons in acres holders area AND

103,771 63.4 21.7 Upto 5 acres ••• ••• ••• 41,106 63 13.4 70,494 235,347 THE 138,325 27,362 267,336 24.6 24.6 Over 5 and upto 15 acres ••• 15,58o 23.7 17.9

81,135 7,658 165,222 6.9 15.3 GROWTH Over 15 and upto 25 acres ••• 4,072 6.2 10.5

Over 25 and upto Ioo ••• 20.4 acres ••• ••• 3,678 168,126 5.6 21.7 4,969 221,289 4.5

Over ioo and upto 500 OF 6051 acres ••• ••• ••• 1 44 ,22 2 142,717

TENANCY 1.3 1 36.5 1 .6 18.0 138,810j Over 5oo —• ••• 759841 58 51,999

100 I00 111,146 1,084,310 100 100 Total ••• 65,279 774,389 IN

397,528 2,225,903 ••• 329,652 2,390,996

Total Agriculturists GUJARAT •••

It indicates that non-agriculturist landholders have increased from 65,279 in 1916-7 to 111,146 in 1947-8, i.e., by nearly 70.3 per cent. The increase in the number of agriculturist landholders during the same period was from 329,652 to 397,528, or by 20.6 per cent. Land held by the non-agriculturists increased from 774,389 acres in 1916-7 to 1,084,310 acres in 1947-8, an increase of 3 lakhs acres or about 40 per cent. Land held by agriculturist landholders, on the other hand, decreased from 2,390,996 92 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS in 1916-7 to 2,225, 903 in 1947-8 a decrease of 165,093 acres or about 7 per cent. The area held by non-agriculturists in 1916-7 constituted 24.4 per cent. of the total cultivated land. This percentage rose to 32.8 or approximately by one-third of the total cultivated land, in 1947-8. The average size of holding of the agriculturist was 5 .6 acres and that of the non-agriculturist was 59.7 acres in 1947-8. If we look at the holders if different size groups, it will be found that the non-agriculturist holders have increased in number in all groups and the land held by theml has increased. Another fact to be noted is that there is greater concentra- tion of land in the hands of large holders in the case of non-agriculturists. as compared with the agriculturists.

The comparative position of the two groups of holders in the different districts of Gujarat may be seen below:

Agriculturist and non-agriculturist landholders in the Districts of Gujarat 1947-8

Agriculturists Non-agriculturists Percentage of District total land held by No. of Area held No. of Area held each class persons in acres persons in acres Agri. Agri. 'Non-Agri.

Ahmedaba.d •• • •• • 60,285 526,248 28,265 284,683 64.9 35.1 Kaira .•• •• ••• 148,166 539,618 41,193 259,157 67.5 32.5 Broach •• • •• • 38,405 432,510 16,642 232,437 65.o 35.0 Panch Mahals •• • •• • 47,483 208,566 4,708 80,791 72.0 28.0 Surat ... ••• •• • •• • 103,189 518,961 18,338 224,232 69.8 30.2

Total ... 397,5 28 225,903 111,146 1084,310 67.2 32.8

It appears from the figures that the districts of Ahmedabad Broach and Kaira have the largest percentage of land held by non-agriculturists. And the district of the Panch Mahals appears to have the least percentage of land in the hands of the non-cultivating class. In the Panch Mahals it may be noted that approximately z/3rds of the ryotwari land is held on restricted tenure under which, legally, the land cannot be alienated. This fact has kept the percentage at a considerably low level than it other-wise would have been.

This non-agriculturist class of landholders mainly belong to the advanced castes like the Brahmins, the IFanias, the Desais, etc. On account of the growth of towns, many persons from rural areas thronged the urban areas with a view to finding better living. Many of these were landholders who have now become absentee landlords. Such people are lawyers, doctors, Government and railway servants, bank managers and AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 95

ut businessmen. There were some, like the Patidars of Kaira or the Bohras of Surat who went to the South or East Africa to seek fortune in foreign 2.4.4 as this was considered 8 or lands. They invested their foreign earnings in land The •to give status to a man. These new landholders have never shown any .7 the enthusiasm about land. They have been interested only in getting rent in the rs in- or profit out of their land. The cultivation in all such cases is left rights or ders hands Of tenant cultivators who were hitherto without any hem security. He had no incentive to look after the business of cultivation atra- With devotion and care as a large share of what he would produce would rists go to the landlord. Agriculture due to tenancy, therefore, became in- efficient and wasteful.

:rent Tenant Cultivators: The growth of absentee landlordism and the growth of tenancy go hand in hand. We have seen how the peasant Proprietor has been losing ground and the land passing into the hands of the non-cultivating class. The tenant cultivator, therefore, is often the ex-peasant proprietor of the land cultivated by him. The number of tenant cultivators and the question of growth and extent of tenancy is agricultural labourers by discussed a little later. The question of the class of may now be considered.

Agri. Agricultural Labourers: The agricultural ladder in Gujarat has been .I downwards. It has been observed how the owner- • 5 found to be working .0 Cultivator has been losing his land to the money-lender and his .0 more uneconomic in size. The money- .2 holding becoming more and lend ers who came in possession of agriculturists' lands allowed them .8 first to cultivate the lands on tenancy basis. Later on as the rent- receiving landlord tried to exact more and more out of his tenant, rent )aCh beg an to remain in arrears and the tenant was obliged to leave the land. He had therefore inevitably to join the ranks of the landless tag labourers. ,halS

011 approximate idea as to the number of s. It is difficult to have even an Thi however certain that they form a very cViSe landless labourers in Gujarat. It is, big section of the agricultural population as is evident from 1931 census figures. If we refer back to the census table of agricultural population it are the Will be found that 149,294 of the total of 517,383 principal earners )unt Classed as labourers, 'thus constituting about 29 per cent. But taken the along with their working dependents and others they constituted 52.1 vere per cent, of the total agricultural population. The following Table 1931 Dple gives districtwise figures of landless labourers according to the and census. 94 • THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Agricultural Labourers-1931 Ti te. a Persons Total Percentage of District following the following the total er. occupation as occupation occupied in ni subsidiary agriculture

Ahmedabad ••• 31,317 58,472 1,085 90,894 50.7 Kaira 13,722 65,428 1,966 81,116 Broach & Panch 34-8 Mahals ••• P1 40,508 137,164 1,693 179,365 54.9 re Surat ... 63,747 82,989 1,249 147,985 67.3 Br. Gujarat 149,294 344,053 5,993 499,340 52.1 oi Br. India ... ••• 18,873,968 3,226,988 1,550,210 23,651,166 30.2 di la Surat district has the largest percentage of agricultural.lab9urers. It is the district famous for the well known Hali system of bonded labour. Cc Most of the agricultural labourers belong to the tribal population consist- ing of Dub/as, Naikas and Dhodias." On a fair estimate it may be put down re that about one-fifth of the aboriginal population of Surat district are d( agricultural labourers under the system."' Next to the aboriginals are "W the Chodhras in Mandvi taluka and Kolis in other parts of the district. tt The land-holding castes of Anavils, Rajputs and Kunbis, whose women "W cannot take part in cultivation due to social taboo, employ hired labour of t17 this kind. In Broach the labouring population consists of the Bhils, 0( Vagris and Talavias. In this district also the social taboo prevents the Patidar and Bohra cultivators from having the services of their women- folk in the fields. In the Panch Mahals, except for Godhra and Kalol te talukas where Desais and other higher class farmers employ entirely hired ti labour,the Bhiland Nais and also Paklia cultivators occasionally hire labour for seasonal purposes. Most of them supply their own labour from the family. Many of the Dub/as, Kolis and Bhils are agricultural labourers. Si The prominent cultivators in Kaira district are Patidars; Dbarlaas and Naik also cultivate their own lands. But many belonging to the latter class are labourers. In Ahmedabad also Koli labourers are prominent and S Vagris, Bhils and Chodhras also swell the ranks of the agricultural prole- tariat. In all the districts, however, cultivation by entirely hired labour is, not carried on to any appreciable extent. The majority of agricultural labourers have therefore to rely on seasonal demands on their labour. Ii Some of them therefore, migrate from their places of habitat during the season to places where they can find work. The condition of this class is a perhaps most wretched. While there is tenancy legislation to look after the interests of the tenant cultivator, there is no law which provides relief to this class in any shape and to any extent. Their poverty is appalling- _ I. Desai, M. B.—Rural Economy of Grilarat, p. 157. AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 95

They know no amenities of civilised existence. Their huts are improvised temporary structures liable to be washed away by flood or blown away by a great difficulty to earn of strong wind. They are scantily clothed and have 1 enough for two square meals a day. The problem of agricultural labour in needs as much, if not greater, attention as the one of tenancy.

The Growth and Extent of Tenancy The tenancy question began to appear in its modern form with the process of transfer of land from cultivators to non-cultivators mainly as a result of inability of the cultivators to repay their debts. The tendency of land to slip away from the hands of farmers was noticed in the Dhan- dhuka taluka of the Ahmedabad district in 1889. "The tendency for land to fall into the hands of the Wanias has been most conspicuous in It Dhandhuka Kasba the lands of which are most strictly assessed."' The ,ur. manner in which this was brought about is well described in the report. ist- "During the American Civil War, when the prices of cotton and wheat wn reached a famine level, and the Bohras might have easily paid off their are debts, they did not do so; hut intoxicated by increasing prosperity to are Which they could see no end, they launched into extravagance, increased ict. their load of debt, and when the turn of the tide came and prices fell and aen With them the profits of cultivation, they found themselves unable to pay of the interest of their debts, and after the usual struggle were deprived of the i's' occupancy of their lands."z Again in the Borsad taluka of the Kaira the district similar process was at work. In this connection two statements en- extracted from a report of the Mamlatdar written in 1891, will be of in- Jol terest as showing the extent to which land was passing out of the hands of red the cultivating class into those of money-lenders.3 The first shows the )Ur number of holdings entered in the village accounts as being in the hands of the money-lenders in the years "875 and 1890. The second gives the actual ;rs• state of affairs in 1890. Aid ter About the Ankleshwar taluka and the Hansot Mahal, the Assistant Lild Settlement Officer in his Revision Survey Settlement report said: "About 35 per cent, of the Governmentland is in possession of the Savkars. There JS is no doubt that between 1890 and 1905 a considerable quantity of land ird passed into the hands of non-agriculturists."4 As for the Hansot Mahal ur. it is reported that in spite of Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act ".. . .in the the southern half of the Hansot Mahal they are still in possession of as much 3 is as 5 o per cent. of the land." Thus the process of land transfers was evident ter in the latter part of the i9th century. With a series of booms and depres- jef - I. Papers re. to Revision Survey Settlement of Dhandhuka Taluka, p. 65. lg. a. Ibid. 3. Papers re. to Revision Survey Settlement of Borasad Taluka • pp. 5, 6. 4. Papers re. to Revision Survey Settlement of Ankleshwar Taluka and Hansot Mahal 1912, p. 4. 96 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Statement I Statement II

1875 1890 1890

No. of holdings No. of holdings No. of cases in which cu tivators' Village land has Area in passed by acres Culti- Money- Culti- Money- sale or vators lenders vators lenders mortgage in- to the hands of money- lenders

Dedarda ••• 218 3 217 5 86 136-38 Devalpura ••• "4 3 115 4 81 177-25 21 114-12 Napa ... ••• 332 16 331 61 Anklav ••• 425 14 447 16 90 337-28 Ambate ••• 199 7 192 75 2.79-23

Total ••• 12.88 43 1302 57 395 1146-6 sions, wars and famines coming in succession, prices began to rise and fall. And the ignorant cultivator could not fully understand the implications of the price mechanism and its trends. In adversity he borrowed to make his ends meet and in prosperity he borrowed thinking that it was going to last for a longer time. Thus with the increase in the load of debt the conse- quence ofland transfer became inevitable. This land came to be cultivated mostly on lease and thus the growth of tenant class of cultivators started.

We may note here the growth of this class from available figures. Some taluka settlement reports have given some data about the composition of agricultural population while others have not. The figures are not only incomplete but also less reliable due to different methods followed in gathering such information. Further, comparison of these figures with later figures is rendered difficult as the second revision has been carried out only in the Kaira and Ahmedabad districts and the three talukas of the Surat district. We have to consider the figures with great deal of reserva- tion. They can afford us only a very rough idea as to the position in each district.

In the district of Ahmedabad, no comparable figures are available ,except for the Gogha mahal. It may be seen that in the Gogha mahal the percentage of total population in respect of tenants was 23.7, other landholders 35 .6 and labourers 40.7 in 1911. In 1921 the respective percentages were 43.9, 29.4 and 26. 7. During the decade, however, the agricultural population decreased from 16,817 to 12,618, most of the fall being among agricultural labourers. The decline in agricultural AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 97

population is attributed to the tendency of the waste land in Taluqdari Villages to increase. i In all the other talukas for which'figures are available (in the year 1911 for Dholka and Daskroi and in 1941 for Viramgarn and Dhandhuka) the landholding cultivators seem to be the least significant. Tenants and sub-sharers predominate in the Dholka and Daskroi talukas in with 49.7 per cent. and 63.2 per cent. respectively agricultural labourers constitute a greater proportion of agricultural population in and Dhandhuka with 46.3 and 59.1 per cent. respectively.

Kaira is the only district which offers comparable figures regarding the composition of agricultural population. Up to the end of the last 3 century the Charotar region, in the Kaira district (comprising the Anand, 5 Borsad and Nadiad talukas) was the home of the typical peasant proprietor, 3 industrious, skilful and devoted to his work. The talukas of Anand, 3 Nadiad, Borsad and Kapadvanj had 50.1per cent., 61.7 per cent., 53.4 per 5 cent. and 58.4 per cent. respectively of agricultural population belonging to owner-cultivator class. In the Thasra taluka, however, the peasant -j.r per cent. of the agricultural population. fall. proprietor formed But the tenant 49. 7% population at that time was also considerable. s of formed 39 per cent. of the agricultural population, this In Anand, tenants in Borsad 39. 7, in Kapadvanj 33 and in Thasra 49. 7. last in Nadiad 27. 1, In about forty years' time, the situation changed considerably. At the rise- Revision which was carried out in 1939-41 tenants and ited time of the Second cultivators almost changed places in the composition of the agri- ted. owner cultural population. In Anand, Nadiad, Borsad, Kapadvanj and Thasra, the of tenant to total agricultural population, at the time of the [res. percentage Second Revision, were 51 .5, 5 2.7, 45 .5, 40.5 and 47.9 respectively. don figures of other landholders of the same talukas in the not The percentage same order were 34. 6, 33. 8, 42.9, 46.9 and 34.3. It is of interest to note d in labourers have also increased during the same period, vith that agricultural 9, 11. 22, 6 . 9,8 .6 and 13 per cent. ofthe total agricultural popula- ried from 10. *the above talukas in that order, to 13. 9, 13.5, .6,12 . 6 and 17. 8. the tion in - It appears that many uneconomic holders have become agricultural labour- rya- ers after having lost their lands to'theircreditors. ;ach As there has not been any,second revision settlement for the Broach district, no comparative idea can be had regarding the growth of the able in the beginning of the present ahal tenant class. It may only be noted that carried out a conside•rable proportion of the ther century when first revision was belonged to the tenant class. In the'Broach taluka tive agricultural population the total agricultural population; in Jambusar ver, it constituted 46.3per cent of per cent., in Amod 32. percent. and in Anklesh- the 37. 4 per cent., in Vagra 30 ... . ural 1. Second Revision Settlement of the Gogha Mahal, pp. 3, 4. 98 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS war 24.9 per cent. Agricultural labourers occupied an equally important place, the corresponding figures being 27 per cent., 36.5 per cent., 38.2. per cent., 34.6 per cent. and 41.7 per cent. for the talukas of Broach, Jambu- sar, Vagra, Amod and Ankleshwar respectively. Landowning cultivators constituted the rest of the agricultural population. But in view of the fact that the percentage of land held by non-agriculturists increased from 21.4 in 1916-7 to 30.1in 1942-3, the number of tenants is likely to have considerably increased. In the case of the Panch Mahals, it is difficult to obtain a clear idea without knowing the tenurial position. We have seen earlier that about two-thirds of the ryohvari lands were held on restricted tenure. The land under this tenure cannot therefore be alienated. The number of tenant cultivators at the First Revision was found to be nil in Dohad and a very small percentage in other mahals except Jhalod. In Jhalod, on the other hand, the tenants constituted 73 per cent. of the agricultural population. As has been observed earlier, these figures can- not be relied upon much. The Second Revision in the Surat district was undertaken in three talukas of Bardoli, Valod and Chorasi. Comparable figures for these talukas are available. Looking at the composition of agricultural popula- tion at the time of the First Revision, it appears Surat was on the whole a good owner-cultivator district, particularly in the talukas like Olpad, Pardi, Chikhli and Jalalpur. In about 23 years' time percentage of tenant population in Bardoli and Chorasi increased from 26.2 and 27 to 47 and 48.6 respectively. Agricultural labourers, at the same time, increased in Bardoli from 41.5 per cent. to 5i per cent. and in Chorasi from 36.i per cent. to 48 per cent. Increase in tenant cultivators when accompanied by an increase in agricultural labourers, indicate a tendency among the un- economic holders losing their lands and taking to tenant cultivation to be ultimately reduced to agricultural labourers. The latest position regarding the number of tenant cultivators can be seen from the following Table which has been prepared from information collected by the Revenue Department in connection with the administra- tion of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1946. Year 1949

No. of Number of tenants District owner cultivators Protected Ordinary Total

Ahmedabad ... ••• ••• 152,802 86,184 20,533 106,717

Kaira ••• ••• ••• 118,536 244,043 109,590 Broach ••• ••• 21,881 29,531 18,752 345832,628333 Panch Mahals ••• ••• 5 8,o65 50,354 18,932 69,286 Surat ••• ••• ••• 91,483 77,434 9,594 87,o2.8 442,767 487,546 177,401 664,947 AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 99 rtant The present position as shown by the Table regarding the proportion 3 8 •z of owner and tenant-cultivators clearly indicates the preponderance of nbu- the latter over the former. Out of a total of 1,107,714 persons having ttors. interest in land as many as 664,947 persons or 6o per cent. are tenants. the The district of Kaira, it is significant to note, has the largest number of tenant cultivators, and they are nearly three times the number of owner- lave cultiators in that district. They also constitute over 53 per cent. of the it to' entire tenant population of Gujarat. While the number of tenant culti- seen vators exceeds that of owner-cultivators by about io per cent. in the Pro- cted vince, in Gujarat it exceeds by 53 per cent. which is by far the largest ex- The cess. The Konkan stands second with 33.3 per cent. excess. In the .; nil remaining divisions, the Deccan and Karnatak on the other hand, the Llod. number of owner-cultivators is greater than that of tenant-cultivators by 3 the and 22. 5 per cent. respectively. It is clear, therefore, that the problem of can- tenancy is most acute in Gujarat. hree- Land under Tenant Cultivation [lese From the point of view of agricultural production it is necessary to ,u1a- know the extent of land under tenant cultivation. Figures regarding the )1e a number of tenant-cultivators and owner-cultivators have just been examin- pad, ed. It would have been more useful, if at the same time figures of area aant of land cultivated by each class were available. In the absence of such and figures, therefore, we are obliged to resort to the settlement reports and 1 in other official and non-official surveys and reports for the information. Per I by The First Revision settlement reports contain figures not of area, but un- of survey numbers, only under owner and tenant cultivation along with the. a to numbers lying waste. Detailed talukawise figures found in settlement reports are summarised below in terms of percentages. can don Percentage Percentage Percentage of numbers of numbers of numbers District cultivated cultivated lying by owners by tenants waste

Ahmedabad ••• •R• ••• 78.3 10.7 11.0 1‹, ra ••• ••• ••• 74.9 17.1 8.o .1 Broach .— ••• 70.8 21.8 7.4 Panch Aloha's@ ... ••• ••• 75.0 10.0 15.0

•Surat ••• •••• •• 87.5 6.8 17 5.7 P33 83 86 The Table shows that the percentage of survey numbers under tenant ,z8 cultivation varied from 6.8 per cent. in Surat to 21.8 per cent. in Broach. '47 @ Figures are for Kalol and Godhra only. .100 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

And on the whole, only 12.5 per cent. of total survey numbers in Gujarat were cultivated by tenants. There have been, of course, wide variations within each district. The widest variations have been in the Kaira district, ranging from 6 per cent. in the Matar taluka to 41 per cent. in Nadiad. In Ahmedabad the range was between 4.3 per cent. and 29.09 per cent. 111 • Broach between 5 per cent. and 33 per cent. in Panch Mahals between 6 per ccnt and 14 per cent and in Surat between 9. 6 per cent. and 13 per cent. • The problem of tenancy it seems had begun to raise its head much earlier.

As time passed more and more land came to be cultivated by tenants, showing thereby the working of a gradual process of conversion of a large number of owner-cultivators into tenant-cultivators. In 1929 figures collect- ed for 30 sample villages from five districts of Gujarat showed that out of 38,005 acres of total occupied area, 19,176 were cultivated by owners -while 18,289 acres were cultivated by tenants. Anderson, commenting on the subject, observed, that "when the figures for the whole Presi- dency are available the area cultivated by its owners will be found to be -considerably less than half."2 According to Dr. Mehta in 1926-27 over 1,000,000 acres or 30 per cent. of cultivated land in gotivari land was sub- .let.3 A survey of the Borsad taluka carried out in 1933-4 showed that out of 3,671 acres of cultivated land covered by the survey 1077 acres or . about 30 per cent were cultivated on lease.4 Another study of the Broach district covering '92 farms within an area of 2,842. acres shows that 36 per cent. of the land under review was cultivated by the owners and 64 per cent. by tenants.5 Recent Revision Survey and Settlement carried out

No. of Area of Percentage No. of Area of Percentage owner- land cul- of the tenant land cul- of the Taluka cultivators tivated by total cul- cultivators tivated by total cul- them tivated them tivated (acres) area (acres) area

Nadiad ••• ••• ••• 19,900 66,767 54.0 18,829 56,267 46.0

Anand ••• ••• ••• 13,078 52,873 42.4 23,755 72,391 57.6

Borsad ••• ••• 21,644 44,683 47.36 2.3,324 49,714 52.7

Kapadvanj ••• ••• ••• 16,129 79,464 56.6 12,575 60,753 43.4

Thasra ••• ••• 13,823 68,057 56.2 12,097 52,260 43-8 - • - 407 25,845- 49.0 1,243 27,748 51.0 Viramgam ••• ••• 3,106 89,849 55.5 5,481 71,373 44.5

-* Third Revision. In some cases the figures do not fully depict the situation. Commenting on the figures of Ankleshwa_ taluka it was stated: ". .the figures given in Appendix I are entirely untrustworthy and that the greater proportion of Government land is in the hands of Sawkars." Revision Settlement --Report. 1. Anderson, F. G. H.-Facts and Fallacies about Bombay Land Revenue System, 1921, pp. 50-5I. 2. Ibid. 3. Mehta, J.M.-Rural Economy of Gujarat, 1930, p. 40. 4. Patel, A. D.-Indian Agricultur.al Economics, 1937, p. 185. 5. Moomaw, I. W.-Peasant Farming. in India, an article in Journal of Farm Economics" 1942. Notes p. 685. AGRARIAN CLASSES AND THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 101.- arat in 1939-40 and 1940-41 in some of the talukas of Kaira and Ahmedabad The Table ons showed a considerable proportion of land under tenancy. rict, below indicates the position in each taluka. iad. It is interesting to note that in Anand and Borsad talukas which consti- :. in tute the main bulk of the Charotar region, once stronghold of peasant per proprietors, tenant cultivation has increased by leaps and bounds during ent. the course of about 40 years. As we have seen earlier, Anand had only tier. 12 percent. of survey number under tenancy at the First Revision. The land under tenancy in 1940 was found to be 57.6 per cent of the total nts, cultivated land. Similarly Borsad, which had only 8 per cent. survey .rge numbers under tenancy previously, was found to have 52.7 per cent. of ect- the total cultivated land under tenancy. The Dhandhuka taluka • of t of Ahmedabad had 29 per cent. of survey numbers under tenancy at the lers First Revision. Land under tenancy at the Third Revision was 5 I per cent. In the Viramgam taluka of the same district which had only 7.36 esi- per cent. ofthe survey numbers sublet at the First Revision, revealed on the be Third Revision was 44. 5 per cent. of the total cultivated land under tenancy. ,ver Commenting on the situation regarding tenancy, the Settlement officers ub- stated that these figures show the gradual conversion of a large body of :hat peasant proprietors into mere tenants-at-will."' In the Dhandhuka ; or Kasbo proper the situation was far worse. Out of 9,572 acres it was found ach that nearly 7,3 22 acres or 76. 5 per cent. were held by non-cultivators. The 36 relevant taluka report stated: "The result has been a large landless 64 tenantry which in the absence of an alternative occupation is forced to out cultivate lands on rack-rent."2 the point of view of tage The problem of tenancy therefore both from ie number of tenants and the area cultivated by them appears to be serious :u1- as shown by the latest :d in the whole of Gujarat. Land under tenancy figures of the Kaira and Ahmedabad districts seems to range from 5o to 60 per cent. of the total ryotwari lands. Conditions in other districts do not appear to be materially different. The strength of the tenant-cultiva- tors who constitute 6o per cent. of the total number of cultivators having no interest in land also indicates the magnitude of the problem of tenancy. It is necessary therefore to go into the causes that have brought about this situation. The proper comprehension of the factors responsible for the ,growth of tenancy will help considerably in evolving methods to combat its of evils. and aent Guises of Growth of Tenancy In the non-ryotwari areas, as we have seen, the most usual mode of cultivation, was tenant cultivation because in the majority of cases the

I. Third Revision Survey Settlement, Viramgam (1941), P. 43. 942. 2. Third Revision Survey Settlement of i2 villages of Dhandhuka (1941), p. 6. 102 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

landowners were foreign to the occupation of agriculture. The essential feature of these tenures was the existence of middlemen. But in ryotwari areas the position is different. The tenure does not normally presuppose the existence of middlemen between the Government and the cultivator, as the settlement is made directly with the individual landholder occupying the farm. Even here, there may be a few cases of land being cultivated by tenants when a farmer possesses more land than he can cultivate with the capital and labour resources at his disposal. This is, however, a static condition of tenancy. We are concerned with a situation which has arisen out of a process of gradual transformation of a large body of peasant proprietors into landless tenants.

The factors responsible for this situation, to put briefly, are the same which have created the problem of rural indebtedness. With the dis- integration of the village community and decline of village crafts and industries, the balance between agriculture and industry was upset, throw- ing large number of people on land for subsistence. Along with this was a process of sub-division and fragmentation of holdings, set into motion, by the Laws of Inheritance and Succession and the interpretation of the same in the courts of law by English judges. As a consequence, the unit of cultivation became progressively smaller. To this may be added the old traditional methods of farming and unfavourable seasons. The result was the creation of a large body of uneconomic holders clinging on to their tiny bits of land, without realising whether their business was profitable or not. The peasants somehow carried on and borrowed money against the security of land they held very often to meet the expenses of the house- hold. In a large number of cases the debt could not be repaid and a further debt was added by the accumulation of interest and new borrowings. The whole thing ended up by the transfer of the mortgaged lands to the money-lenders. And as most of these money-lenders were not agri- culturists, they asked their ex-owners to continue cultivation on lease. The process of transfer continued apace as the figures of land held by non-agriculturists from time to time have shown.

The farmers' ignorance and extravagance helped to aggravate the situation. With the growth of transport and communications the village was linked up with the world and its intricate price-mechanism of which the peasant knew little. CC A tiny cog in an intricate mechanism of inter- national trade, he is moved by its gigantic forces. Once the peasant • begins to produce for the market, the web of his prosperity is woven by the price mechanism on the money machine. That is the crux of the persent problem." i During the period of rising prices he borrowed freely 1. Report of the Peasant Enquiry Committee of the Maharashtra Provincial Congress Committee.-- 1936, p. 7. • AGRARIAN CLASSES ABD THE GROWTH OF TENANCY IN GUJARAT 103

:ntial in the hope of repaying the amount at the next harvest. For sometime wani the illusion of security lured him into lavish expenditure. The prices fell pose and the peasant was unable to pay back even the interest. He borrowed ator, again this time to balance his budget. Thus he went deeper and deeper ,ying into debt the escape from which was through the transfer of his land. rated with The transfer of land has not been only from agriculturists to non- a agriculturists. Within the agriculturists class the process of transfer was has also carried on, for, the business of money-lending is not confined to non ',sant :cultivating class only. "The wealthy agriculturist in the village who invests his savings in money-lending business is more or less in the same category as the sowkars whom he resembles in some respects. The smaller 3ame farmers and even agricultural labourers who have any savings which dis- could not profitably be invested in land, advance loans to their needy ; and brethren on terms not in any way more favourable than those of the row.. sowkar. .there are several amongst them who have an eye on their was debtors' lands and do not rest satisfied until they acquire the lands, some- tion, time by sale with or without the intermediate stage of mortgage."' The I the well-to-do Patidars, Kunbis, Desais, Bohras and other agriculturists are unit inclined to take to this business and therefore would prefer to let their I the lands to others. It is quite likely therefore that this tendency might have esult 'contributed considerably to the growth of tenancy. their table Another factor which has also contributed to the growth of tenancy ainst is the fact of migration by some occupants to urban areas in search of )use- economic betterment. The growth of commercial and industrial towns rther like Ahmedabad, Broach, Surat, Bombay, etc., attracted many small hold- ings. ers to such areas leaving their lands to be cultivated by tenants. Some )the Kunbis, Patidars, Bohras, and other advanced and enterprising people in agri- other parts of Gujarat sought their fortune in foreign lands like South ease. land East Africa, leaving their large holdings to tenant-cultivators. And d by several of these on return would buy some land just for the sentiment .attached to landowning. Sometimes, shortage of labour in some parts -would compel landholders to let their lands, which at one time were cul- ; the tivated by them with the help of hired labourers, to tenants. llage rhich 1. Bombay Banking Enquiry Committee Report. nter- isant n by E the 'reely ittee—