Online Appendix

List of Figures

A1 Computing District-level Aquifer Coverage ...... 2 A2 Pre-existing Irrigation Coverage and Congress Performance ...... 6 A4 Dis-aggregating the Impact of HYV Crops by Opposition Party Type ...... 9 A5 Correlation between Aquifers and Economic Indicators Over Time ...... 11 A6 Relationship Between Rainfall Shocks and Agricultural Productivity ...... 12

List of Tables

A1 Descriptive Statistics for Major Variables in Analysis ...... 3 A2 States and Election Years in Analysis ...... 4 A3 Balance on Pre-Green Revolution Covariates of Cross-sectional Measures of Suit- ability for HYV Crops ...... 5 A4 IV Estimates: Effects of HYV Crop on Single-Party Dominance in India Using Pre- Irrigation Instrument ...... 7 A5 Coding of Top 20 Opposition Parties ...... 8 A6 IV Estimates: Dis-aggregating the Effects of HYV Crops by Opposition Party . . . . 10

1 Figure A1: Computing District-level Aquifer Coverage

2 (a) Aquifer Map (b) Overlaid 1961 District Boundaries

(c) District-Aquifer Polygon Intersections (d) Computed District Aquifer Coverage Table A1: Descriptive Statistics for Major Variables in Analysis

Variable 1957-66 Mean 1967-76 Mean 1977-87 Mean SD Within-SD Panel A: Constituency-level INC Win 63.79 52.05 42.75 49.99 47.88 INC Vote% 45.41 39.70 38.36 16.95 15.15 Agrarian Win 0.86 7.32 32.50 36.73 33.93 Agrarian Vote% 0.99 5.55 27.38 22.14 19.41 Non-Agrarian Win 29.68 34.68 21.92 45.01 43.06 Non-Agrarian Vote% 46.18 46.90 30.16 23.37 22.17 Panel B: District-level HYV 0.00 0.14 0.33 0.20 0.17 Yield 1055.88 1315.25 1344.52 774.87 367.20

3 Wage 4.03 4.09 5.11 1.90 1.13 Price Index 121.13 127.57 101.07 31.49 24.10 Wheat Price 134.54 130.85 103.94 31.51 25.64 Fertilizer 1.92 10.17 28.23 21.35 17.14 Tractors 0.22 0.90 3.15 3.65 2.92 1966 Irrigation 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.00 Aquifer 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.00

Notes: Within-SD is within-district standard deviation after partialing out district fixed effects. Descriptive statistics at assembly constituency-year level for political variables and district-year level for economic variables, for years 1957-1987. Panel A: Win is a binary indicator of winning the seat, multiplied by 100. Vote % is vote share, multiplied by 100. See text for coding of agrarian vs. non-agrarian opposition parties. Panel B: HYV is share of agricultural land under HYV crops. Yield is agricultural productivity measured in terms of rupees/hectare for the top 6 major crops: rice, wheat, sorghum, millet, maize, sugarcane. Wage is the daily wage of a male agricultural laborer in rupees/day. Price Index is a revenue weighted average of the price in rupees/quintal of the top 6 crops. Wheat Price is price of wheat per quintal. All monetary amounts are deflated by state-specific consumer price indices to obtain real prices, base year 1973. Fertilizer usage is measured in terms of kg./ha. Tractors is number of tractors per 1000 hectares of agricultural land. 1966 Irrigation is share of agricultural land with irrigation access in 1966. Aquifer is district aquifer coverage. Table A2: States and Election Years in Analysis

State Election Year Andhra Pradesh 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1985 Bihar 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1985 Gujarat 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1985 Haryana 1957, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 Madhya Pradesh 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1985 Maharashtra 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1985 Orissa 1957, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1985 Punjab 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1985 Rajasthan 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1985 Uttar Pradesh 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1985 West Bengal 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 Karnataka 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1985 Tamil Nadu 1957, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1984

Notes: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are the states of Mysore and Madras before 1967. The districts that comprise Haryana were a part of Punjab before the 1967 elections. In the 1957 elections, the districts that comprise the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were part of Bombay state. Districts in all major states except Assam and Kerala are included in the analysis, covering 85% of India’s land area.

4 Table A3: Balance on Pre-Green Revolution Covariates of Cross-sectional Measures of Suitability for HYV Crops

Urbanization Productivity Literacy Pre-INC Urbanization Productivity Literacy Pre-INC (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Aquifer 1.060 49.847 0.001 1.945 − − (1.586) (51.292) (0.011) (2.759)

1966 Irrigation 2.513 470.648∗∗∗ 0.074∗∗∗ 2.836

5 (3.497) (109.633) (0.024) (6.090)

Constant 16.351∗∗∗ 482.181∗∗∗ 0.209∗∗∗ 66.053∗∗∗ 15.352∗∗∗ 402.830∗∗∗ 0.193∗∗∗ 65.640∗∗∗ (0.972) (31.450) (0.007) (2.456) (1.017) (31.897) (0.007) (2.541)

Observations 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270

Notes: Aquifer is district-level aquifer coverage according to historical groundwater maps. 1966 Irrigation is share of district-level agricultural land with access to irrigation prior to the green revolution in 1966. Urbanization is the urbanization rate according the 1961 census. Productivity is estimated agricultural revenue divided by the total rural population in 1961. Literacy is the literacy rate in 1961. Pre-INC is the pre-1967 Congress

party seat share at the district level. Analysis estimated by OLS. ∗p 0.1; ∗∗p 0.05; ∗∗∗p 0.01 < < < Figure A2: Reduced Form Relationship Between Pre-existing Irrigation Coverage and Congress Performance

A. Before Green Revolution B. After Green Revolution

●● ●● ● 100 100 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●●

80 ●● 80 ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●● ●●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●

60 ● 60 ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●●● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●● ●● ● ●

change$preAC ● change$postAC 6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● 40 40 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● Congress Seat Share ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● 20 20 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 ● ●

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Year Year

1966 Irrigation

Notes: Horizontal axis represents share of agricultural land with access to controlled irrigation in 1966, prior to the introduction of HYV crops. Verti- cal axis represents percentage point Congress party seat share. Panel A represents the pre-1967 period and panel B the post-HYV crop introduction period. Points represent districts. Lines represent fitted bi-variate OLS regression lines. Table A4: IV Estimates: Effects of HYV Crop on Single-Party Dominance in India Using Pre-Irrigation Instrument

Dependent variable: INC Vote % INC Win

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

HYV 11.71∗ 13.68∗∗∗ 18.23∗∗∗ 0.60 9.41 66.89∗∗∗ 62.12∗∗∗ 73.36∗∗∗ 54.68 54.84∗ − − − − − − − − − (6.04) (5.22) (6.77) (7.52) (8.81) (17.58) (17.50) (18.92) (34.74) (32.10)

First-stage 1966 Irrigation Post-1967 0.42∗∗∗ 0.36∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗∗ 0.44∗∗∗ 0.31∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗∗ 0.36∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗∗ 0.44∗∗∗ 0.31∗∗∗ × (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) (0.10) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) (0.10) (0.08)

F-statistic 39.12 29.04 22.20 17.83 13.65 39.12 29.04 22.20 17.83 13.65

7 Specification Main Controls Northern Non-North State-Year FE Main Controls Northern Non-North State-Year FE Region-Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No District FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 21907 20057 9889 12018 21907 21907 20057 9889 12018 21907

Notes: Unit of observation assembly constituency-year for election years between 1957-1987. Outcomes: INC Vote % indicates Congress vote share and INC Win indicates whether Congress won seat, both multiplied by 100 so that coefficients have a percentage point interpretation. Explanatory variables: HYV crop adoption is district-level share of agricultural land with HYV crops (0-1). Instrument is pre-green revolution district-level irrigation coverage in 1966 interacted with a time dummy variable which switches on following the introduction of HYV crops to India in 1967. All specifications control for district fixed effects and region (North, South, East, West) fixed effects interacted with year dummy variables. Control variables include initial district-level Congress party seat share in 1957, the level of urbanization and per capita agricultural productivity in 1961, indicator for historical exposure to direct British colonial rule, and share of land exposed to a landlord-based colonial land tenure system. Controls are interacted with year dummy variables (the lower order terms are absorbed by the district fixed effects). Analysis estimated by OLS. Standard

errors adjusted for two-way clustering within districts and by region-year. ∗p 0.1; ∗∗p 0.05; ∗∗∗p 0.01 < < < Table A5: Coding of Top 20 Opposition Parties

Seats Agrarian Notes Sources Party NCU 82 No Congress (Urs): split from Congress in 1978. Manor 1980 GP 87 No Ganatrantra Parishad: conservative party supported by Bailey 1959 landlords. Joined SWP in 1962. PWP 109 No Peasants and Workers Party of India: left-wing party formed Srinivas 1957 in 1947. FBL 127 No Forward Block: left-wing nationalist party, formed in 1939 by Sinha 1965 Subhas Chandra Bose. NCO 166 No Congress (Organisation): conservative wing which split from Hardgrave 1970 the Indira-Gandhi led faction of the Congress party in 1969. TDP 203 Yes Telugu Desam Party: regional party founded in 1982. Lead- Kohli 1988 ership and support drawn considerably from the Kammas, a prosperous farming caste. BKD 212 Yes Bharatiya Kranti Dal: pro-rural, anti-urban party founded in Duncan 1988 1967 by INC dissident Charan Singh SAD 235 Yes Shiromani Akali Dal: Sikh-Punjabi sub-nationalist party Kumar 2004 founded in 1920. Leadership drawn significantly from pros- perous farming communities. LKD 247 Yes Bharatiya Lok Dal: founded in 1974, descended from BKD. Brass 1981 SSP 249 No Samyukta Socialist Party: split from PSP in 1964. Fickett 1973 BJP 357 No Bharatiya Janata Party: Hindu nationalist party founded in Jaffrelot 1999 1980, descended from BJS. ADK 385 Yes All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam: split from DMK Wyatt 2009 in 1972. DMK 400 Yes Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam: Dravidian sub-nationalist Wyatt 2009 party. Populist platforms consisted significantly of subsidies for farmers. PSP 460 No Praja Socialist Party: socialist party formed in 1952. Fickett 1973 SWA 505 No Swatantra Party: conservative party founded in 1959. Erdman 2007 BJS 569 No Bharatiya Jana Sangh: Hindu nationalist party founded in Jaffrelot 1999 1951 by Syama Prasad Mookherjee. CPI 691 No Communist Party of India: India’s first communist party, founded in 1920. CPM 885 No Communist Party of India (Marxist): split from CPI in 1964. Kohli 1983 JNP 1716 Yes Janata Party: merger of several opposition parties in 1977, Rudolph 1980 with large support base amongst farmers. IND 1780 No Independent: independent candidates were typically local Chhibber and Kollman 2009 notables without organized party ties.

Notes: Table contains top 20 opposition parties by seats won. Party is classified as agrarian if it received signif- icant political support from and/or advocated programs oriented around interests of agricultural producers.

8 Figure A4: Dis-aggregating the Impact of HYV Crops by Opposition Party Type

Distribution of Estimates Janata Parties Regional Parties Left Parties 1.0 1.0 1.0 20 0.8 0.8 0.8 ● ● 15 0.6 0.6 0.6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 10 Frequency 0.4 0.4 0.4

Outcome Party List Share ● Outcome Party List Share ● Outcome Party List Share 5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−40 −20 0 20 40 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

IV Estimate Quartile Quartile Quartile

Splinter Parties Conservative Parties Independent Religious Parties 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ● 9

● 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

●

0.6 ● 0.6 ● 0.6 0.6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

● Outcome Party List Share Outcome Party List Share Outcome Party List Share Outcome Party List Share

● 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

● 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile

Notes: Histogram represent distribution of estimates of HYV crop adoption on vote shares across every unique grouping of 7 families (Janata parties, Regional parties, Splinter parties, Left parties, Conservative Parties, Religious parties, Independents) of top 20 opposition parties. In party- wise plots, a positive gradient indicates that the party is associated with groupings of opposition parties that tended to benefit electorally from HYV crops. Janata Parties include the Bharatiya Kranti Dal, the Bharatiya Lok Dal, and the Janata Party. Regional parties include the DMK, ADMK, Telugu Desam Party and Akali Dal. Splinter parties include the Congress (Organization) and Congress (Urs). Left parties include the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Praja Socialist Party, Samyukta Socialist Party, Peasants and Workers Party, and Forward Block. Conservative parties include the Swatantra Party and Ganatantra Parishad. Independent represents candidates without party affiliation. Religious Parties include the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party. Table A6: IV Estimates: Dis-aggregating the Effects of HYV Crops by Opposition Party

Janata Regional Left Splinter Conservative Independent Religious (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Panel A: Vote%

HYV 16.04 17.633∗∗∗ 0.491 7.778 4.064 19.597 29.540∗∗ − − − (15.90) (4.737) (13.197) (6.891) (10.900) (20.092) (12.897)

Panel B: Win

HYV 13.4 24.3∗∗∗ 11.6 5.9 20.1 7.9 18.3∗ − − (19.9) (7.6) (19.3) (5.9) (13.3) (17.3) (10.5) 10

Region-Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes District FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 21906 21906 21906 21906 21906 21906 21906

Notes: textitNotes: Unit of observation assembly constituency-year for years 1957-1987. All specifications instrument for HYV crop adoption with interaction term between a time dummy variable indicating the introduction of HYV crops in 1967 and cross-sectional measure of district-level aquifer coverage: coefficient estimate 0.20 (standard error: 0.03). F-statistic on excluded instrument: 35.78. Janata Parties include the Bharatiya Kranti Dal, the Bharatiya Lok Dal, and the Janata Party. Regional parties include the DMK, ADMK, Telugu Desam Party and Akali Dal. Splinter parties include the Congress (Organization) and Congress (Urs). Left parties include the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Praja Socialist Party, Samyukta Socialist Party, Peasants and Workers Party, and Forward Block. Conservative parties include the Swatantra Party and Ganatantra Parishad. Independent represents candidates without party affiliation. Religious Parties include the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party. Explanatory variable: HYV crop adoption is district-level share of agricultural land planted with HYV crops (0-1).

Standard errors adjusted for two-way clustering within districts and by region-year. ∗p 0.1; ∗∗p 0.05; ∗∗∗p 0.01. < < < Figure A5: Correlation between Aquifers and Economic Indicators Over Time

HYV Real Yield Real Wage 4 0.4 1500

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1000 ● ● ● 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

0.2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0.0 −500 −2 −0.2 −1000 −1500 −0.4 −4 Correlation Between Aquifer Coverage and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between Correlation Between Aquifer Coverage and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 ● Wheat Price Fertilizer Tractor Time Period Time Period ● Time Period ● ● ●

60 ● 40

● 11 ● ● ● ● ● 5 ● 40 ● ● ● ● ● 20 ● ● ● ● Correlation Between Aquifer and Economic Indicators Aquifer Correlation Between ● ● 20 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 ● ● ● 0 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● −20 −20 −40 −5 −40 −60 Correlation Between Aquifer Coverage and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between Correlation Between Aquifer Coverage and Congress Performance Coverage Aquifer Correlation Between 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Time Period Time Period Time Period

Year

Notes: Unit of analysis assembly district-year for years between 1957-1987. Outcome is specified economic outcome variable. Points represent estimates of coefficient on time period dummy variables interacted with the cross sectional measure of suitability for HYV crop adoption based on district-level aquifer coverage. Vertical axis represents plus or minus two standard deviations of outcome variable. Regression also controls for region-year fixed effects. Analysis estimated by OLS. Standard errors adjusted for two-way clustering within districts and by region-year. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence interval. Figure A6: Relationship Between Rainfall Shocks and Agricultural Productivity 100 0 Real Yields | X Real Yields −100 −200 −300 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

Standardized Rainfall Shock | X

Notes: Unit of observation district-year. Rainfall shock measured in terms of standardized deviation from long- run district level mean rainfall. Analysis estimated by generalized additive model, controlling for district and year fixed effects. The effect of rainfall shocks is modeled with a penalized spline function, with the number of knot points selected through cross-validation.

12 Online Appendix References

Bailey, Frederick George. 1970. Politics and Social Change: Orissa in 1959. University of California Press.

Brass, Paul R. 1981. “Congress, the Lok Dal, and the Middle-Peasant Castes: An Analysis of the 1977 and 1980 Parliamentary Elections in Uttar Pradesh.” Pacific Affairs 54(1): 5-41

Chhibber, Pradeep and Ken Kollman. 2009. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton University Press.

Duncan, Ian. 1988. “Party Politics and the North Indian Peasantry: The Rise of the Bharatiya Kranti Dal in Uttar Pradesh.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 16(1):40–76.

Erdman, Howard L. 2007. The Swatantra Party and Indian Conservatism. Cambridge University Press.

Fickett, Lewis P. 1973. “The Praja Socialist Party of India–1952-1972: A FInal Assessment.” Asian Survey 13(9):826–832.

Hardgrave, Robert 1970. “The Congress in India–Crisis and Split.” Asian Survey 10(3):256–262.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. 1999. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, 1925 to the 1990s: Strategies of Identity-Building, Implantation and Mobilisation. Penguin Books India.

Kumar, Ashutosh. 2004. “Electoral Politics in Punjab: Study of Akali Dal.” Economic and Political Weekly 39(14/15):1515–1520.

Kohli, Atul. 1983. “Parliamentary Communism and Agrarian Reform: The Evidence from India’s Bengal.” Asian Survey 23(7):783–809.

Kohli, Atul. 1988. “The NTR Phenomenon in Andhra Pradesh: Political Change in a South Indian State.” Asian Survey 28(10):991–1017.

Manor, James. 1980. “Pragmatic Progressives in Regional Politics: The Case of Devaraj Urs.” Economic and Political Weekly 21(5):201–213.

Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber and Lloyd I Rudolph. 1980. “The Centrist Future of Indian Politics.” Asian Survey 20(6):575–594.

Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar. 1957. “Caste in Modern India.” The Journal of Asian Studies August: 529–548.

Wyatt, Andrew. 2009. Party System Change in South India: Political Entrepreneurs, Patterns and Processes. Routledge.

12