19th February 1949 ECONOMIC WEEKLY A Case For Mechanised Farming V. B. SINGH College of Commerce, Delhi University

OONER, rather than later, our agriculture is to mechanised farms shows how great is the improve­ S be re-organised on a new basis so that it be­ ment effected: comes a modern food industry; and we should lay the fundations properly. Such an enterprise must Yield per acre in Czarist and Soviet Russia guarantee an optimum per capita income, which is the final criterion of agricultural efficiency. For that, it is necessary to increase the yield per acre, to improve the quality of the crops grown, to intro­ duce more variety and to reduce waste to the mini­ mum. The efficiency of labour will also have to be raised and production and exchange organised on The increase in the yield of other crops reveal scientific lines. similar results. It may be concluded, therefore, that These objects cannot be achieved under present even if there is a small difference in the production small peasant economy. The fragmented and of large and small farms, the reduction of wastage undersized holdings, the shortage of livestock, the and losses on the mechanised farms increase the net pressure on land, the imperative necessity of food national dividend. The organisation of large scale production and similiar other factors,—all underline mechanised farming is also commendable because the urgency of large scale mechanised farming. So the use of machinery becomes economic, efficient the cardinal problem is to know whether farming is and labour saving through a progressive reduction to be mechanised or it is to remain at the plough- in the proportionate cost, up to a point. and-bullock stage of agricultural technique, even in It is interesting to note that the argument against the future. mechanised farming compares the net produce of the two types of farm in terms of price, not of volume. Mechanised agriculture has been opposed on Profitability of two small scale farming may be the ground that it lowers per acre production and made to appear higher because of the fact that, throws millions of men out of employment. To small farmers of Europe and America supplement create such a situation under the present conditions their income by raising chicken and by other means. is to make confusion worse confounded, because the The other objections against mechanisation, viz., march of our industrialisation can never be quick that the absence of full industrialisation will create enough to absorb the displaced persons. We are unemployment for the displaced rural population, neither in a position to manufacture agricultural and that we lack capital goods to mechanise agricul­ machines, not to import them; and we lack the ture.' do not appear to be really sound. The petroleum and crude oil to run them. Therefore, ' mechanised agriculture is not a feasible proposition. national economy should be treated as an integral It is noteworthy that these arguments are not used whole. We cannot march forward in one sector of only for the short term but they are pressed also our economy, and remain behind in the other. The against mechanisation of agriculture in the long rehabilitation of our agriculture has to go hand in term. Therefore, they carry weight. hand with radical changes in the industrial sector. This calls for the immediate nationalisation of key Sometimes it has been stated that the per acre industries, if private enterprise lags behindhand yields of large farms are smaller, because they are their planned expansion to supply essential goods at not so well tilled. This may happen in the case of a cheap prices, to ensure employment of the surplus extensive farming under exceptionally bad condi­ rural population and the production of equipments tions; but normally mechanisation, as opposed to neded for the mechanisation of agriculture. With­ mere extension of the size of firms, raises the yield out speeding up the tempo of industrial expansion, very materially. there cannot be a planned development of our primi­ A study of the yield per acre in the pre-Revolu- tive agriculture. For, ultimately, any scheme of tion non-mechanised farms and the post-Revolution agricultural reconstruction implies the minimum

12 ECONOMIC WEEKLY 19th February 1949 supply of machine, power, "fertilisers, etc.

It is clear that the difficulties which arise from the lack of industrialisation and from the consequent shortage of capital goods are very real. But it does not follow that we can not overcome them. The argument about the shortage of petroleum, how­ ever, is weighty and should make us pause. Mecha nised agriculture will keep us dependent politically for ever on those powers who control the world's oil resources. This excessive dependence on foreign sources should be reduced, as far as possible, by the development 01 power alcohol within the country. It is possible that adoption of prohibition may help in this direction to some extent by diverting the distilleries to the manufacture of power alcohol. But to what exent, we do not know. It would be unwise in the extreme, therefore, to ignore this as­ pect of mechanisation or to underestimate its signi­ ficance in the political future of the country, and in our international alliances.

Whatever the technique of cultivation that is adopted in the future, it must solve the special pro­ blems facing our agriculture of which excessive dependence on the vagaries of nature easily takes the pride of place. It is not only that oar harvest depend on the monsoon. The timing of the agricul­ tural operations and the technique are also deter­ mined by it, pretty rigidly. To give a simple in­ stance, the seed bed for rabi crops is prepared during and after the rains. When it rains continuously, the cultivator does not get enough time to do the sowing properly. After the harvesting, the thrash­ ing and chaffing has also to be done by hand. Here again, rains often interfere with these operations. both in the beginning as well as in the end, the rabi crop is damaged by rain. The use of suitable equipments can easily repair the damage. It fol­ lows that if thrashing and chaffing can be finished earlier, the cultivator will have enough time for growing leguminous crops and thus have the green manure which adds such a lot to the yield. More­ over, the time saved in the other operations will. widen the scope for double cropping. Thus with the help of a tractor in the irrigated areas, food grain can be raised in turn with cash crops, with very beneficial results. Further, since most of our cultivable waste land is either malarious, or full of deep-rooted "kans", it cannot be properly cultivat­ ed at all, without the use of the mechanical aids to farming.

Therefore, mechanisation of agriculture is the obvious solution for most of our agricultural pro-

13 19th February 1949 ECONOMIC WEEKLY blems. It alone can't lighten the pressure on land, intensive capitalisation. It will then be for the encourage specialisation, and create the conditions State to decide whether it will leave the tillers at necessary for exploiting to the fullest extent the the mercy of un-regulated and probably more acute potentialities of agricultural production by bringing competition in agriculture than in industries, or to its aid the service of mechanical power and the whether it will assist and encourage them to adapt fruits of agricultural science. themselves to a new and co-operative form of enterprise that will lay the foundations of a Thus the urgency of mechanisation is great. genuinely democratic economy. Capitalist farm­ what pattern will it follow? Will it be the pattern ing, if it is large scale, may mean the elimination of large-scale private farming on the American of the middle and smaller peasantry; it may also model, or follow the lines of the Gezira Scheme of mean a more intensive exploitation of the peasantry to be encouraged by the State? Or have we along with that of the agricultural proletariat to organise co-operative farming as a prelude to full through the introduction of rationalisation. Its scale collectivisation? Even expert opinion in success will, therefore, involve an accumulation of this country has not yet fully crystalised on these land in fewer hands through large farms, while the issues. great majority of rural people are thrown off the land and tend to get even poorer. Obviously in There are a few portends, however, which are this case, betting on the strong would not be com­ worth noting. The UP. Congress created quite a mendable social policy. furore by passing a resolution in April 1947 urging the U.P. Government to start cultivation on the Let us first examine the more Capitalistic Russian Model. A large section of the press hailed patterns. There is the Gezira scheme of Sudan. this news. The socialistically inclined intelligen­ Cultivation in the triangular strip lying between the tsia and the organised peasants and workers also Blue and White Nile, known as Gezira, is based on champion this plan. Those who consider the a tripartite partnership between the Government, Report of the National Planning Committee as the Sudan Plantations Syndicate and the tenant practical and feasible would also support this view. cultivators. Their respective shares are 40, 20 and 40 per cent. The land is protected against frag­ The enquiry now being conducted by the Cen­ mentation and transfer. The Government meets tral Agrarian Reforms Committee set up by the the interest on working capital, the tenant also pays Congress President, has brought the question of the a proportionate share of the expenses and agricul­ size of holding and the type of farming in our future ture is mechanised on a large scale. agriculture to the fore and invested it with a good deal of topical interest. A comparison of the diffe­ The obvious attraction of the scheme is for the rent types of mechanised farming may not, there­ middle peasants. They can pool their holdings to fore, be out of place;—an analysis of the defects and form the land-share' of this 'Joint Stock Company', merits of these types may even help to resolve the The Joint Stock form of enterprise, with its attrac­ controversy. tion of limited liability is not quite unknown in the management of land even in India. Lately, its Private large scale farms are only another adoption has been on the increase as it offers a name for the penetration of developed capitalism convenient "opportunity to the bigger cultivators to in the spheres of agriculture. If the remnants of become capitalist farmers, and ensures the survi­ disintegrating feudalism are eliminated from our val of the middle cultivators against the competition land holding with a greater energy than is suggest­ of big cultivators. The middle peasants who lack ed by the various half-hearted and hesitant mea­ capital may also be attracted by this type of farm­ sures of Zamindari "abolition" that have come up ing, because it places capital at their disposal. But SO far then the dominant trend in agricultural pro­ in the very nature of this type of farming, the seeds ductions will be capitalistic. It has so far remained of capitalism are ingrained. The adoption of co­ acapitalistic, that is 'to say, more a way of life to operation for the supply of credit, for the processing which tradition and accident of birth has relegated and marketing of produce, or even in the use of those who follow it than a calling or a commercial agricultural machinery or in providing means for proposition chosen for its profitability after a care­ irrigation etc., cannot conceal this basic fact. The ful balancing of costs against prospective returns. control passes inevitably into the hands of a few But the reorganisation of the land system now clever master entrepreneurs,—the others are re­ in being may soon open up our agriculture to more duced to a position of non-entity.

14 ECONOMIC WEEKLY 19th February 1949

But we are afraid some of our well-to-do cul­ dency by introducing diversification to ensure the tivators have already been thinking along these production of food grains as well as of the raw lines and an official publication has also given its materials needed for our industrial consumption sanction to this principle. The Memorandum on and for earning foreign exchange. Foreign inte­ the Development of Agriculture and Animal Hus­ rests are more interested (particularly U.S.A. and bandry in India, pp. 36-37 reads: "Each cultivator Great Britain) in our agricultural development on would retain the rights in his own land. But culti­ a capitalist-cum-commercial basis than in our vation operations would be carried on jointly. The industrial advance, because it will give them the expenditure would be met from a common fund raw materials they need, cheaply and it will also and deducted from the gross income. The net in­ preserve the backward countries as export markets come would then be distributed among cultivators for their manufactures. Needless to emphasise, this in proportion to the land belonging to each." type of farming will be detrimental to our economic This formula contains the rudiments of the interests and should not be encouraged. Sudan Farming principles. True, Lie three parties The other alternative that is left is co-operative are not specifically mentioned or separately recog­ fanning. But what does it mean? The system of nised but if the cultivators start a Joint Stock Agri­ land tenure varies so greatly from country to cultural Company, the State must step into the country that there has not been any uniformity in picture for providing the initial capital at conces­ the application of the principles of co-operation in sion rates. Whether there are three parties or not, the domain of agriculture. In the Scandinavian is not relevant, as long as the mode of production countries it is not extended to tillage. In the remains capitalistic. It should also be realised that Soviet Union it embraces each sector of national any agricultural farm which is run on a capitalist economy. Therefore, the implications of the term commercial basis is bound to develop into must be more fully examined. a producing centre for a single cash crop, most way. And the consideration of the problems will likely an export crop. We have to check this ten- need an article by itself. THE PROBLEM OF LINGUISTIC DIVISIONS M. G. BAILUR

[The author presents the case for building India of the future into an unitary state and con­ tends that if this aim is accepted, we should not countenance linguistic separation in any form, least so, by giving it the stamp of approval by the State,and by extending to it juridical and administrative recognition. He questions the motives of those who are agi-tating for linguistic provinces and opposes these divisions on the ground that they will delay, if not prevent altogether, the growth of a common lan­ guage and common culture, and will interfere with, rather than help, economic planning and contends that cultural autonomy in any case does not demand administrative separation. He analyses the expe­ rience of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. to support his contention. On such a controversial subject, the other side of the case should also be fairly presented. We pro­ pose to do so in one of our coming issues.—EDITOR.]

THE problem of linguistic divisions is part of the The evidence tendered by the supporters of yet unformulated and unresolved problem of linguistic divisions before the Dhar Commission, the choice between decentralisation and a strong which recently made its recommendations, falls centre in the future development of India. If this into three distinct types of arguments. The first were realised, many arguments for and against such puts forward the demand that linguistic provinces divisions, which are now taken for granted, would are needed for ensuring the cultural autonomy for lose their force. The heat generated by the con­ the different language groups. This need, however, troversy has obscured important considerations and has yet to be proved, in the context of present con- has lent an air of plausibility to arguments which ditions, and also in relation to our ultimate poli- are a curious mixture of irrelevance and reticence. tical ends. It would be necessary to show why,

15