This dissertation has been 6 3—70 microfilmed exactly as received MANN, Harbans Singh, 1917- COOPERATIVE FARMING AND FAMILY FARMING IN THE PUNJAB: A COMPARATIVE STUDY,
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1962 Economics, agricultural
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COOPERATIVE FARMING AND FAMILY FARMING IN
THE PUNJAB: . A COMPARATIVE STUDY
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
by
Harbans Singh Mann, M.A., M.A., M.Ed.
The Ohio State University
1962
Approved hy
Adviser Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKIT OWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to those who have contributed toward the completion
of this study and especially to:
The Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs, Inc., New York
for the award of a fellowship for advanced studies in the United States
of America.
The Department of Education, Punjab Government for grant of
leave _of absence for advanced study at the Ohio State University.
My adviser, Dr. John H. Sitterley, Professor of Agricultural
Economics, Ohio State University for his wise counsel, leadership and guidance in the preparation of the study.
Dr. Russell 0. Olson, Chief Land Use and Farm Management Branch,
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations for his wise counsel and leadership in the conduct of this study between January i960 and August 19&1 as my adviser at the Ohio State University and earlier during his assignment in India as Group Leader of the Ohio
State Agricultural Education and Research Mission to India.
Members of my advisory committee Dr. George F. Henning, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University and Dr. Guy W. Miller,
Professor (Emeritus) Agricultural Extension, Ohio State University for very useful suggestions.
Dr. 2>fervin G. Smith, Chairman, Department of Agricultural
Economics and Dr. Robert W. McCormick, Associate Professor of Agri cultural Education and Assistant Director of Extension, Ohio State
ii University for constant encouragement and advice.
Dr. Selmer A. Engene, Professor of Agricultural Economics
University of Minnesota and Dr. William David Hopper, Assistant
Professor of Economics, University of Chicago for their interest
in the study and useful suggestions at the Research Seminar at the
University of Minnesota in Summer i960.
Dr. Carl C. Taylor, Visiting Professor df Rural Sociology at
the Ohio State University in Summer i960 for his interest in the
study and suggestions about its sociological implications.
Members of the Farm Management Research Group at the Tenth
International Conference of Agricultural Economists at Mysore, India
for their interest in the study and valuable suggestions.
Dr. Arjan Singh,,Director of Agriculture Punjab for his advice
and guidance.
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Punjab, Assistant
Registrars, Inspectors of Cooperative Societies for their cooperation
in making this study.
The officials and members of the cooperative farming societies
and the Operators of the family farms for giving information about
the accounts and working of their farms and their hospitality.
The late Dr. Ajaib Singh, Professor of Agriculture, Government
College of Agriculture Ludhiana and Supervisor Studies in the Economics
of Farm Management in the Punjab for his advice and guidance.
Dr. Jaswant Singh, Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Punjab for his advice in the early stages of the study.
iii Mrs. Bonnie Lowery for her excellent work in typing the manuscript.
My wife, Mohinder, for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and encouragement and inspiration.
My children Ripdaman, Purshottarn, Karamvir and Balrup who had to stay hack in India during the period of my studies in the United
States. CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION...... I
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 26
III SENA NAGAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY...... 57
IV GAGRA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY...... 88
V JALLOWAL AND KZNGRA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY. 102
VI GILL CHOWGAWAN COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY...... 113
VII SANJIWAL KAFURE COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY...... 138
VIII KOTLA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY...... l68
IX BAJWA, GHUMMAN, SANDHU COOPERATIVE FARM SHAHABFURA...... 193
X UNDATA FAZALFUR COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY...... 222
XI MODEL COOPERATIVE JOINT FARMING SOCIETY, KHAI FHEMEKE...... 232
XII EX-SERVICEMEN COOPERATIVE TENANT FARMING SOCIETIES IN KARNAL...... 251
XIII COOPERATIVE FARMING AND LAND RECLAMATION...... 270
XIV COOPERATIVE FARMING IN GARDEN COLONIES...... 290
XV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 302
APPENDIX...... *.... 328
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 331
AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 33^
v
& MAP OF THE PUNJAB Showing Locotion of the Farms
SIMLA
3 JULLUNDUR
Qill^lnwgowa
#K a ... _ • L y allpur C.F
DELHI
RGAON 4n 30 2p lft-4up 20 30 y MILES Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Need for the Study
An important problem facing the developing countries which are engaged in the task of planned economic development is the decision about the future pattern of their agrarian economies. In India this question has engaged the attention of the government and the people for the last 15 years since the independence of the country. The necessity for improving our agricultural production for the supply of food for our growing population and raw material for our growing industries can hardly be over emphasized. Small and fragmented hold ings being a great hurdle in the way of agricultural improvement, cooperative farming has been thought of by same people as a possible way out of the difficult situation. Others hold that pooling of land in cooperative farms will create more problems than it will solve.
Por the last few years there has been a controversy about the desira bility and feasibility of introducing cooperative farming as a general pattern of our agrarian economy. While the Planning Commission has recommended the organization and study of a large number of experi ments, most of the discussion on cooperative farming has been more or less on a theoretical plane. Most of the writers on the subject start with the presumption that cooperative farming is good or bad, and base their arguments on the theoretical advantages of hig farms and small farms to support their point of view. There are others who have recommended a policy for our country in the light of the experience of cooperative farming in other countries, without giving due weight to the "basic differences in our economic, social and political conditions.
The Planning Commission, the Indian Cooperative Union and others have made studies of some cooperative farms, but there are few comparative case studies of cooperative farms and family farms under more or less similar conditions, which could bring out the relative merits of the two types of farm organization.
The Problem
There is an imperative need to increase agricultural production and farmers' income in India. Although the index of agricultural production increased by 1+1 per cent between 1950-51 and 1960-61, food grains of the value of Rs 1,500 crores were imported in India between
191*8-19 and 1958-59 to feed the growing population. In the year 1955"
56 the average production of paddy per acre was about two-sevenths that of Japan, per acre production of wheat and corn was less than one-third that of the United States, while per acre production of sugar cane was about one-sixth that of Hawaii.The national income at 1960-61 prices has increased by 1*1 per cent between 1950-51 and 1960-61, while per
^Report of the Working Group on Cooperative Farming. Department of Cooperation, Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation, Government of India (Hew Delhi, December, 1959)> Vol. I, pp. 7-8 . capita income has increased by 16 per cent from Rs 2&k to 330*^
According to Baljit Singh, income from agriculture at constant prices has improved by less than 1.5 per cent per year, while population has increased at the rate of about two per cent between 1950-51 and
1957-58* Estimates of per capita rural income for India are not available for the whole of India but the estimates for the State of
Uttar Pradesh reveal that the per capita rural income in terms of
1918-1+9 prices has remained constant at Rs 197 since 19^8-49 •~)
Can the problems of Indian agriculture responsible for its backwardness, like small holdings, lack of capital, weak bargaining power of the farmer, and the problems of livestock, farm equipment, seed, manure, irrigation, credit and crop pests be better solved by pooling of land in cooperative farms or the organization of service cooperatives helping the farmers operating family farms?
Decision-maker
The problem will be studied in terms of the decision-maker being
(a) the farm operator (b) the Government of India and the Government of the Punjab.
All the policy statements of the Government of India and the
Planning Commission on the subject of cooperative farming emphasize that the organization of cooperative farms will be entirely voluntary. The decision to organize a cooperative farm or to join or not to join a
2 Third Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India (New Delhi, 1961), p. 35*
^Baljit,Singh, "The Ordinary Villager Has Hardly Benefited by Increased Rural Income" Kurukshetra, Vol. IX, No. 5 (New Delhi, January 26, 1961), p. 8. a cooperative farm if one already exists in the village, therefore, ultimately rests with the farm operator. It is, therefore, necessary to study what benefits the farm operator will get by joining a cooper ative farm and what sacrifice he may have to make to get those benefits.
It is necessary to see how far and in what ways joining a cooperative farm will help or hinder the achievements of the goals of the farm operator. The problem has also to be viewed in terms of the decision maker being the government who are responsible for the economic development of the country. How far will promotion of cooperative farming help in the achievement of the goals of society? What help can the government give to cooperative farms by way of loans, subsidies and technical advice? Can the same resources be used with better results to promote other types of farmers' cooperatives for the a- chievements of the goals of society?
Goals
Goals of the Farmer
Goals of the individual farmer are assumed to be:
(a) Maximum farm income.
(b) Independence in decision-making.
(c) Respectable social status in the village community.
Goals of Society
According to the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee there are four objectives which our agrarian economy must satisfy:
(a) The agrarian economy should provide opportunity for the
development of individual's personality.
(b) There should be no exploitation. (c) There should he maximum efficiency of production.
(d) The scheme of agrarian reforms should he practicable.1*
The Planning Commission has accepted these goals of land policy.
In the First Plan, while the highest priority was to he given to the
increase of agricultural production, the social objectives of re
duction of disparity in wealth and income, elimination of exploitation,
security of tenure and equality of opportunity for all sections of the rural population were considered of no less importance. ^ According to the Second Plan the two-fold objectives of land reform are the removal of impediments upon agricultural production arising from the character of the agrarian structure and the creation of conditions for evolving an agrarian economy with high levels of efficiency and productivity. Programmes for abolishing intermediary tenures and giving security to tenants were expected to provide the tiller of the soil with fuller incentives for increasing agricultural production and to lead to the establishment of an agrarian economy based predominantly on peasant ownership.
According to the Third Plan, land reform programmes have two specific objects. The first is to help create conditions for evolving as speedily as possible an agricultural economy with high levels of efficiency and productivity by removing such impediments
li Report of the Congress Agrarian Ref onas Committee, All India Congress Committee (New Delhi, 1959); P» 20. 5 •\First Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India (hew Delhi), p. l8h. ^Second Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India (New Delhi, 1 9 5 ^ PP» 178-79• 6 to an increase in agricultural production as arise from the agrarian structure inherited from the past. The second object is to eliminate all elements of exploitation and social injustice -within the agrarian system, to provide security for the tiller of the soil and assure equality of status and opportunity to all sections of the rural population. With the implementation of the programme of land reform, the vast majority of cultivators in India would consist of peasant proprietors. They are to be encouraged and assisted in organizing themselves in voluntary cooperative bodies for credit, marketing, processing and distribution and with their consent, progressively also for production.^
In the interest of long-term agricultural development, according to the Third Plan, it is necessary to intensify and speed up efforts toward the following accepted goals:
1. Bringing about technological changes, especially the adoption of scientific agricultural practices and improved implements and other equipment;
2. Fuller utilization of manpower resources in rural areas and the organization of the maximum local effort;
3. Reorganization of the rural economy along cooperative lines, including the provision of services, credit marketing, processing and distribution, and cooperative farming;
V cit. pp. 220-221. 7
_ 4. Improved utilization of available land resources through
systematic land use planning, extension of multiple cropping and
introduction of'improved cropping patterns; and
5. Expansion of non-agricultural activities in rural areas
so as to diversify the occupational structure and reduce dependence D on agriculture.
Definition and Classification
Definition of Cooperative Farming
The term cooperative farming has been rather loosely defined in
the past to include different types of societies for agricultural
cooperation. Following the Report of the Cooperative Planning Com
mittee (19^6 ), cooperative faming societies have generally been
classified into four categories:
1 . cooperative better farming societies
2 . cooperative joint faming societies
3. cooperative tenant farming societies
cooperative collective farming societies
In 1953, Driver wrote that joint cultivation is what distinguishes
a cooperative farming society from other societies for agricultural
cooperation. "I have no doubt whatsoever that there can be no
cooperative farming without actual cultivation being carried on
jointly. The number of actual operations of cultivation done jointly and the nature of such operations should be very clearly settled if
®0p. cit. p. 2b» there is scope for believing that this is not yet settled.He
explains that as a cooperative better farming society is not meant
for joint cultivation, it cannot be called a cooperative farming
society. The members of a cooperative better farming society work
independently on their own farms although there is generally agreement
on a common plan of cultivation adopting improved methods and cooper
ative purchase of farm requirements and marketing of produce. A
cooperative tenant farming society is organized by the society taking
over land in freehold or leasehold and dividing it among the members who farm their respective shares of land independently subject to
the payment of fixed rent to the society. The society may have
arrangements for provision of credit, purchase of farm supplies and
marketing of the produce of the members.
The statement in the Second Plan that •cooperative farming
necessarily implies pooling of land and joint management* has given a
definite meaning to the term cooperative farming. This concept is
used as a working definition in this study. Service cooperatives,
cooperative better farming societies and cooperative tenant farming
societies are examples of cooperation in faiming and not of cooper
ative farming. Schiller explains the distinction between cooperative
O P.N. Driver, "Some Implications of Cooperative Farming in India," The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. XXXI\J No. 132 (July 1953^ 9
joint farming and cooperative collective farming in the following words:
In modern literature, generally cooperative farming is understood as a form of farm management In which land is used jointly. In India for this type of farming a distinction is made between "joint farming" and "collective farming". It is called "cooperative joint.farming" in cases where the ownership of land which is pooled together Is preserved as a title and the value of land contributed is one of the factors which is taken into account when the income is shared. It is called "cooperative collective farming" in cases where, in addition,to land, all other resources of the members are pooled together and the ownership of land disappears in so far as the farming income is divided among the members only according to the work done by each member.^®
The research seminar on cooperative farming organized by the
Indian Society of Agricultural Economics at Poona in May 1958j devoted one of its sessions to a discussion of 'definition, scope and objectives of cooperative farming1. The analogy of the firm and the plant was used to define the essential element of cooperative farming, the relationship of the constituent members to the cooper ative farm being comparable to that of the plants to the firm. The following definition emerged from the discussions:
It Is an essential element of cooperative farming that its constituent members agree to surrender their indi vidual rights and capacity to take major decisions in respect of the farming enterprise to a common body constituted by them and accepts its decision instead. Normally, such an organization would not be able to operate without the pooling of land.
100tto Schiller, Cooperative Farming and Individual Farming on Cooperative Lines (New Delhi: All India Cooperative Union, 1957)> p. 2. •'--4?he Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Seminar on Cooperative Farming (Bombay, 1959)* 10
Classification of Cooperative Farms
In this study cooperative farms in the Punjab have been classi fied into the following four categories:
1. Cooperative farms with a predominant membership of peasant proprietors (a) displaced (b) non-displaced.
2. Cooperative farms with a predominant membership of absentee or non-working landowners (a) displaced (b) nan-displaced.
3. Cooperative farms organized for reclamation and cultivation of land leased by the Punjab government with a membership of
(a) ex-servicemen (b) others.
k. Cooperative farms in garden colonies.
Definition of Family Farm
Family farm is commonly defined as an operating unit on which the farm family supplies most of the management and labor. Schickele defines family-type farming as "a farm unit where the bulk of labor is provided by the members of the farm family where little wage labor is employed, where the family head is an entrepreneur and at the same time a farm operator and worker. Owner-operators as well as tenants 12 are included in this term".
Types of Family Farms
Three types of family farms are included in this study:
1. Owner-operated farm: the whole of the farm is owned by the operator.
12Rainer Schickele, "Land Economic Research for World Agricultural. Development" (Mimeograph), p. h. 11
2. Tenant-operated farm: the tenant has taken the whole of
the farm on cash or share rent.
3. Partly owned farm: the operator owns part of the farm.
The remaining part he takes on cash or share rent.
Theoretical Approach
The part of economic theory that is pertinent to this study
relates to economies of size. Three types of economies of size that
may be encountered in crop farming are those arising from (l) technical
relationships, (2) acquisition of inputs, and (3 ) vertical integration
of the farming operation.
The decrease in per unit costs resulting from technical economies
associated with size of crop farms continues upto the point where the
larger or more expensive pieces of equipment are more or less fully 13 utilized. J This type of cost reduction arises mainly as the
indivisibility of factors is overcome when size and output is in- lh creased. The most expensive indivisible unit of equipment of the
Indian farmer is his pair of bullocks and plough and there would be a
minimum size of farm that can utilize the pair of bullocks to its full
capacity. The area of such a farm could be called a plough-unit.
Economies in the acquisition of inputs and economies of integration in
processing and marketing can be secured by the operator of small farms
through membership of service cooperatives.
Edwin Farris, "Economies of Scale in Crop Production." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLIII, No. 5 (December 1961). ■^Earl 0. Heady, Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use (Prentice Hall, 1952)7 P • 362. ' 12
Figure I. Possible economies associated with size.
3 CL I- 3 ^-econceconomies O constant average ( arisiarising from gross revenue ntegration O
-technical economies ------A C (£ LU CL _ACr \ economies in the C/D HI acquisition of inputs UJ CL 3 CL ± Small Medium Large OUTPUT
Figure I indicates the major types of economies and the relevant relationships that might exist as the farm operation increases in
size. The AC curve labeled "technical economies" decreases very little after the medium sized farm is attained. As a result of the economies
in the acquisition of inputs the average cost per unit may be denoted by AC . As a result of the economies arising from integration the average revenue curve for large farms may be denoted by AR . However, if operators of medium farms are members of well organized service cooperatives for the supply of farm requirements and marketing of produce, the average cost curve and the average revenue curve of these I / farms may be denoted by AC and AR . Methodology
There is no "better justification for the methodology used in this study than the paper that Schickele has recently written on the types and methodology of land economics research that can meet the need for solving land policy issues in the under-developed agrarian regions of the world. It is necessary to study the effect of change in present institutional arrangements on the farmer's motivations, incentives and opportunities to improve their production performance living standards and social status.
The traditional tools of neo-classical economic analysis are not sufficient for studies of this kind... The nature of the problem demands that, instead, we manipulate specific key institutional arrangements as independent variables, to see what happens to farmers' incentives and production performance as dependent variables with quantities of certain key resources assumed available for certain time spans as parametric constants, and with the ultimate goal of keeping all resources fully employed Under conditions of advancing technology and organizational efficacy.
The focus of the enquiry is: what is the result of a certain change in various institutional patterns and collections of resources and services likely to be on the total income, and which changes are likely to affect the total outcome most favorably with respect to pro duction, income and welfare. These policy goals are taken to coverage toward the superior end of creating an agrarian structure which facilitates acceleration of farmers' production performance through promoting land resources development and infra-structural investment, and generating appropriate motivations, incentives and opportunities for developing production skills, managerial functions and civic participation, rights and responsi- bilities.1^
■^Rainer Schickele, op. cit., pp. 30-31. Schickele emphasizes the role of comparative case studies which
would yield factual information concerning the relevant aspects,
qualitative and quantitative, of the problem, and make it possible
to predict the effect of contemplated changes on the total outcome.
Analysis and conclusions are based upon analogy and deductive inference, transferring relationships, events, etc., from one case to another with appropriate adjust ments for important differences in certain qualitative and quantitative aspects between cases. If competently carried out, the level of reliability even of the quantitative aspects of the conclusions from comparative case studies is likely to be, for most practical purposes, as high or higher than that of conclusions based on statistical correlation or production function analyses of complex economic factors.
Care should be taken in the selection of cases which should be- -
"typical" in the sense of a certain set of characteristics, but not
-necessarily in the sense of a modal concentration of statistical
occurence.
Objective
The objective of this study is to examine the experience of
cooperative farming under different settings in the Punjab, to
identify and examine the problems of cooperative farms and family farms
of different types in the region. This study is not a contribution
to the controversy on the policy about cooperative farming, but it may
help to clarify some of the issues involved.
Hypotheses
The following are the hypotheses for the study.
1. Net income per acre of the cooperative farm would be
higher than that of the family farms in the same area.
■Gainer Schickele, op. cit., p. 35. 2. The cooperative farm will have a letter pattern of
cropping.
3. The yield per acre of crops will be higher in the
cooperative farm.
1t. The cooperative farm will have a greater intensity of
cropping.
5. Cooperative farming will result in increased employment.
6. Net income per worker of the cooperative farm would be
higher than that of the family farms in the same area.
7. Cooperative farming will result in economizing of
bullock power.
8. There will be a greater investment in machinery and
improved implements in cooperative farms.
9* Economies of size are possible in farming in the Punjab.
10. The owner-operator considers his social status in the
village community as a landowner and the prestige of being his own
employer as more important than some improvement in the size of his
income.
11. Family farms can get the economies of size without the pooling of land in cooperative farms.
12. Cooperative farming is better suited for land reclamation than family farming.
13. Cooperative farming is better suited for newly settled land than family farming. Procedure
Selection of the Farms
In the year 1952-53 there vere 112 cooperative farming societies
in Punjab, out of which b2 were in Karnal district, 32 in Ferozepur
district, while the rest were spread over other districts.-1-? About
one-fourth of the total.number of societies did not function as
cooperative farms although they were registered as such. They did
not try joint cultivation or were under liquidation or existed on
paper only. Fifteen cooperative farms were selected for intensive
study in consultation with the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies Punjab. Only farms where land was pooled for joint management vere selected. According to the Office of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies these were the comparatively more successful of the different types of cooperative farming societies. The distribution of the cooperative farms selected for study among the different types is as follows:
1. Displaced peasant proprietors 3
2. Non-displaced peasant proprietors 1
3. Non-displaced absentee or non-working
landowners 2
4. Displaced absentee or non-working landowners 3
5. Ex-servicemen cooperative tenant farming
societies 3
^The Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab, A Study of Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab. Economic and Statistical Organization Government, Punjab (Chandigarh, 1958), p. 26. 17
6. Societies for reclamation and cultivation
of land leased "by the Punjab government 2
7. Cooperative farming societies in garden
colonies. 1
For each of the nine cooperative farms of the first four types, five
family farms vere selected in the same village or the neighboring
village as the cooperative farm for comparative study. Only three
family farms in the garden colony and one partnership farm and tvo
family farms engaged in land reclamation in the area of the land
reclamation societies vere available for comparative study. Only
those family farms vere selected in consultation vith the inspector
of cooperative societies and the agricultural inspector in the area vhich vere villing to give full information about the accounts and working of their farms. Subject to this condition, the family farms
selected vere of varying sizes and vere cultivated under different
systems like owner-operated; tenant-operated on cash or share basis; and partly owned and partly rented. The method of purposive sampling vas used for the selection of cooperative farms and family farms for
comparative case studies. In viev of the small number of cooperative farms in the Punjab in the year 1952-53 many of vhich existed only on paper, it vas not possible to select an adequate number of cooperative farms by the method of random sampling, an intensive study of which would bring out the peculiar problems of cooperative farms of different types. Collection of Data
Data vere collected "by the author by personal visits to the villages. At the first visit he vas generally accompanied by the agricultural inspector or the inspector or sub-inspector of cooper ative societies of that area. The farms vere visited tvice in the year 1953~5^> after the kharif and rabi crops had been collected. The methods of observation, personal intervievs and group intervievs vere used for the collection of data. Detailed notes vere taken at the time of these intervievs. Data on inputs and output of the farm, area under different crops, yield and price, rent of land, vages, depreciation and interest on equipment and vorking livestock, price of fertilizers and seeds for the year 1953-5^ for the cooperative farms and the family farms vere collected. The proformas and schedules used by the Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab for collecting data for "Farm Accounts in the Punjab" vere used for recording data at the time of the inter vievs. The average Punjab farmer does not maintain farm records and accounts but he has a vonderful memory about the quantity of different inputs, the area under different crops and their yields. As the author vas raised on a farm in the Punjab, he did not have any difficulty in establishing rapport vith the farmers-and collecting information from them. The cooperative farms vere also revisited in subsequent years to study their progress, difficulties and achievements.
Analysis of Data
The information about the cooperative farms has been analysed for a study of the motives for organizing or joining cooperative farms,, 19 arrangement for decision-making, arrangement for remuneration of member workers and provision of incentives, finances, progress of cooperative farms, difficulties and achievements, causes of success and causes of failure.
The data have been processed to work out the pattern of cropping, intensity of cropping, yield per acre of crops, net income per acre, components of the inputs, net income per worker, number of farm workers and bullocks per hundred acres of land and investment per acre in machinery and improved implements for the cooperative farm, family farms and the average for the family farm and presented as the form of tables.
Limitations
The chief limitations of the study arise from the limited time and resources at the disposal of the author at the time of collection of data. The farms were visited at the week ends and between quarters.
Some of the farms were at a distance of upto 10 miles from a motorable road and the only means of transport available in good weather conditions was a bicycle. Data for one year, 1953-5^ for the family farms and cooperative farms were collected without any financial assistance.
With better resources it would be desirable to collect data of inputs and outputs of a bigger sample of farms for a period of about five consecutive years. The survey method was used as the farmers did not keep any accounts. It would be necessary to have one enumerator at each of the villages for maintaining records of day-to-day operations if the cost accounting method was to be used. The family farms are located in the same village as the cooper
ative farm or in case the whole of the land of the village was with
the cooperative farm, the family farms selected are in the adjacent
village. This has eliminated the variable of soil types and weather. However, in some respects the comparison of the accounts of
the family farms with those of the cooperative farm may not he
strictly valid. The cooperative farms got some government assistance by way of loans and subsidies. The family farms did not have any
such assistance. If the family farms were members of service cooper atives which were subsidized by the government to the same extent as the cooperative farm, the comparison may be more meaningful. It may be said that to the extent that the family farms selected were those which were willing to give information about their accounts, they were above average. However, an attempt was made to select out of the list of farms which were willing to give information about their accounts, those farms which were of varying sizes and were more or less typical of the area in respect of characteristics of the family farms in the area. Moreover, most of the members of the cooperative farms are not typical farmers and in any case the organizers and leaders who are responsible for the management of the cooperative farm are far above the average farmer In the area, in education, resources and influence.
The advantage, if any, in the comparison would seem to be on the side of the cooperative farms and if any discounting is necessary, it is the physical returns of the cooperative farms that have to be discounted.
In view of these limitations it may not be possible to mahe too many 21
generalizations on the "basis of the comparison of the accounts of the
cooperative farm with those of the family farms. But the comparison
would definitely show what are the problems of the cooperative farms
and family farms of different types.
Meaning of Terms and Estimation of Costs
Pattern of cropping. Percentage distribution of area under
different crops to total cropped area.
Intensity of cropping. Percentage of the total cropped area
in the farm to the total area under cultivation. Intensity of crop ping gives an estimate of the area yielding more than one crop in the year.
Gross income. Gross income consists of the value of the total
output of the farm. It consists of the value of all the crops raised, whether paid out as wages in kind, consummed at home, sold or disposed of in any other way. It includes the cash obtained for produce actually sold, and the value of the remainder at prices prevailing at the harvest time in the village.
Expenditure. Expenditure is the value of all the inputs purchased and the inputed value of all the inputs provided by the family. It includes rent of land, wages of family and hired labor, cost of bullock labor, seed, manure, water rates, depreciation of imple ments, interest on capital and value of other inputs.
l8The Board of Economic Enquiry Punjab, Farm Accounts in the Punjab, 1953-5**, Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punjab (Chandigarh, 1957)> PP* 3-8. 22
Items of Expenditure
Labor, This includes cash wages paid to hired workers plus the price of wages paid in kind plus the inputed cost of family workers, calculated according to the rate prevalent in the village.
Bullock labor. Comprises interest and depreciation on the value of the working cattle and the cost of feeds. The cost of forage given to working cattle is not available separately because roughages are fed jointly to all cattle on the farm, including milch cattle and young stock. The share of the working cattle is worked out from the total cost in proportion to their number. For this purpose an animal two years old and above is taken as one unit, between one and two years as half -unit, young stock less than one year have been ignored. A camel has been taken as equivalent to two units. In most farm operations in the Punjab a camel, where used, does the work of two bullocks.
Seed. Value of seed purchased is reckoned at market rates in the sawing season. Value of home grown seed is reckoned at prices prevailing at the previous harvest.
Implements. Interest and depreciation on the value of imple ments costing more than Rs 10 each and total cost of implements cost ing less than Rs 10 each.
Machinery. Interest and depreciation on the value of farm machinery and cost of fuel and repairs.
Wells and Persian wheels. Interest and depreciation on the original cost of sinking the well, the cost of setting up the Persian wheels, cost of repairs and replacements. Rent. The annual net rental value of owned land estimated at the level of rent of similar land in village plus the actual net rent paid for land taken on rent.
Depreciation. This is charged at the rates given below on the original value until the total value is covered by depreciation. After that no depreciation is charged even if the bullock, implement continued to be serviceable. If a bullock dies or an implement be comes unserviceable before its value is covered by depreciation, the remaining value is debited in full to the expenditure of that year.
Rate of depreciation Item (per cent per annum)
Bullocks 12
Wells 3
Buildings, pacca 22-
Buildings , kacha 5
Iron Persian wheels-chains 25
Cart 12
Chaff-cutter 20
Cane crusher 10
Gur boiling pan 10
Tractor 20
Tube-well 10
Pumping set 10
Interest. This is charged in all cases at 8 per cent per annum on the value of the item not covered by depreciation. Three Bases of Met Income
Net income on basis C. This is calculated by subtracting the
total value of all the inputs owned or purchased from the total value
of the output. Net income on basis 'C' is comparable between
different types of farms. It gives the profit for the entrepreneurial work of the operator of the farms.
Net income on basis B . This is calculated by excluding the
inputed value of family labor from the value of input. It gives a measure for the return of the family labor including entrepreneurship.
Net income on basis A . This is calculated by excluding Inputed value of family labor, interest on owned capital invested in bullocks and implements and rental value of owned land from the value of the input. Cost here means the out-of-pocket expenditure actually incurred by the farmer. Net income on basis 'A' gives the return of the farmer for work of the family members on the farm and ownership 19 of land and working capital.
Glossary. A glossary of Indian terms used is given in
Appendix I.
Framework of the Report
Chapter II gives a review of previous literature on the subject.
Chapter III and IV give two comparative case studies of cooperative farming societies of displaced peasant proprietors in Parwa district,
^Studies in Economies of Farm Management in Punjab, Report for the Year 195^-55, Directorate of Economies and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India (Delhi, 1957), PP- 80-81. Kapurthala and Gagra district, Ludhiana and five family farms in each of the areas. Chapter V compares the working of the cooperative farm of peasant proprietors at Jallowal district, Jullundur for the year
1952-53 with the working of the four constituent family farms for
1953-5^ into which the farm was split. Chapter VI relates to
Gill Chowgawan Cooperative Farming Society with a membership of non-displaced peasant proprietors and five family farms in the village of Gill Chowgawan. Chapters VII and VIII relate to two comparative case studies of cooperative farms of non-displaced non-working or absentee landowners at Kapure district, Ferozepur and
Kotla district, Hoshiarpur. In Chapters IX to XI three comparative case studies of cooperative farms of displaced absentee or non-working landowners at Shahabpur district, Gurdaspur, Fazalpur district,
Jullundur and Khai Fhemeki district, Ferozepur and five family farms in each of the areas are presented. Case studies of cooperative tenant farming societies of ex-servicemen settled on land leased by the government are presented in Chapter XII, while the case studies of other cooperative farming societies for land reclamation are given in Chapter XIII. Chapter XIV gives a comparative case study of the cooperative farming society in the garden colony of Khankot district,
Amritsar and three family farms in the garden colony. Summary,
Conclusions and Recommendations are given in Chapter XV. Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In M s review of ’Problem of Cooperative Farming in India* by Khusro and Agarwal (1961) which presents the case for cooperative farming, Dantwala says that it is a pity that so much of the literature on cooperative farming in India "is being presented in the form of a case for and against cooperative farming. In any such form of writing, the temptation to over-state one's case and under state that of the 'opponent* becomes difficult to resist1'."1" A brief review of literature presented in this Chapter seems to confirm
Dantwala*s opinion that most of the writings on cooperative farming in India fall into one of the two categories.
Report of the Cooperative Planning Committee
The Cooperative Planning Committee recommended that the primary
Cooperative Credit Society should not confine its activities to supply of credit but should have multiple objectives like marketing of the surplus produce, the supply of members' farm and household require ments and maintaining agricultural machinery for the joint use of members. For a permanent solution of the problem of increased agricultural production, un-economic holdings being the chief
% . L. Dantwala, "Problem of Cooperative Farming in India". Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XVI, No. U (October-Deceraber 19^1 ), p. VS. 26 obstacle, they consider that besides consolidation of holdings some
form of large scale cultivation is necessary. They, however, do not
find corporate fanning, state farming and collective farming suited
to Indian conditions and are of the opinion that cooperative farming
has a fair prospect of success in our country. They recommend that
experiments in cooperative farming should be organized at the rate of
two societies in each district. Each Cooperative Joint Farming
Society should employ a farm manager who is a trained agricultural
graduate. In the first few years the expenditure on the entire es
tablishment of a Cooperative Joint Farming Society should be met by the State. The committee considered the desirability or otherwise
of the mechanization of cooperative farms and are of the opinion that the pace of mechanization of the farms would depend upon the speed at which surplus labor can be transferred from agricultural to other occupations.^
Report of the Indian Delegation to Palestine
In May 19^6, the Government of India sent a delegation of officials and non-officials to Palestine to study the methods of ■5 cooperative farming adopted by that country. The report describes the history and organization of the various types of cooperative settle ments in Palestine and the important part played by the Jewish Agency,
p Report of the Cooperative Planning Committee, Government of India (19^6), pp. 25-3^.
^Report of the Indian Delegation on Cooperative Fanning in Palestine, Department of Agriculture, Government of India (19^6). 28 the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Foundation Fund in the develop ment of the cooperative settlements. The reports recognizes the importance of the peculiar social and economic factors which con tributed to the success of cooperative farming in Palestine.
The social and political factors responsible for the development in Palestine are one religion and one language the Zionist ideal and political zeal for settling on Palestine land at any cost; common social and political objectives amongst those forming themselves into a group for the purpose of collective or cooperative farming, common social and food habits, the high degree of education among the Jewish immigrants and the equal part played by women in the organization and working of all the types of collective and cooperative farming as also other cooperative and social institutions. These considerations explain largely the reasons underlying the success achieved in Palestine in such a short period. None of them is present in the Indian rural society nor is it feasible to create them voider the existing social and economic conditions.
The report considered the cooperation of the type practiced by the collective settlements in Palestine unsuitable for India as "an average Indian farmer would never agree to live and work collectively".
The delegation were in favor of organizing small holders cooperative settlements of ex-servicemen and landless .laborers on unoccupied lands.
In areas' already occupied they recommended linking of marketing and credit through cooperative societies for marketing of farm produce and purchase of farm requirements managed by government officials.
. Cooperative farming in areas already occupied would not be a feasible proposition because of the land laws and systems of land tenure and the individualistic attitude of an average Indian farmer. Conditions under which land is held and exploited are not favorable. The human material is not ready.5
^Ibid, pp. 92-93
5Ibid, p. 97. Cooperative Farming in Maharashtra
Donde has studied the working of five Cooperative Farming
Societies in Maharashtra for the year 19^7* He has examined the problems of organization, distribution of work, division of income, management and the form and extent of cooperation. He suggests that cultivators of un-economic holdings should first be organized in
Cooperative Better Farming Societies which should be later transformed into Cooperative Joint Farming Societies when the enthusiasm of the members has been created. For every region a limit to which an area is considered un-economic for cultivation should be determined. The pamphlet ends with a note on 'collectivization in Russia*.
Report of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee
The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee (19U9 ) examined the suitability of different types of large-scale farming for India in the first chapter of their report. They do not recommend capitalist farming, state farming or collective farming as a general method of land utilization in India. For holdings above the basic size, they recommend individual peasant farming assisted by multipurpose cooper ative organization. Family farming for holdings below the basic size is justified in the hope that the provision of multipurpose cooper ative facilities would reduce to a great extent the inefficiency involved in farming on such units. For holding below the basic size, the committee recommend cooperative joint farming. They recommend experiments in collective farming on reclaimed waste lands only.
" " ■ ’ " • in Maharashtra (Bombay: 30
Service cooperatives have a very important place in this programme.
We recommend that in India to achieve maximum efficiency of production as well as individual freedom there should be a multipurpose cooperative in every village or group of villages, the membership of which would ultimately come to be compulsory for all farmers carrying on „ cultivation either individually or jointly or collectively.
In the concluding paragraph of this Chapter the committee remarked,
It would be premature at this stage to decide in favor of any particular pattern of agrarian economy. Only by experi mentation and observation can we evolve--may be after a quarter of a century— the type of farming which should be „ the ruling pattern of the agrarian economy of the country.
Brochure on Cooperative Farming
In October 1959> the Directorate of Economics and Statistics,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India issued a brochure entitled 9 'Cooperative Farming' prepared by research officer Me non. Sub-division and fragmentation of agricultural holdings being the main reason for the backwardness of Indian agriculture the need for cooperative farm ing is recognized. Some kind of cooperative association is necessary for the survival of the small holder. The choice of a suitable type of cooperative society would depend upon the system of land tenure, kinds of crops grown, homogeneity or otherwise of the farming class, size of the farming units, degree of technical skill available, the
T0p. cit.j p. 22.
®0p. cit., p. 2 9 .
%.S. Menon, Cooperative Farming, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (Hew Delhi: October 19^9)• incentives given by the government and the degree of cooperative
spirit manifested among the fanners. A review of cooperative farm
ing in Italy, Yugoslavia, Soviet Russia and Palestine is followed
by a review of experiments in cooperative fanning in India. The case
for cooperative farming is presented on grounds of economic security
for the fanners, better adjustment of production to market needs, the
possibility of cooperative farms being valuable agencies for the
State and the possible social value of an agricultural cooperative
comprising a whole village. Talking of the Russian model the author
recognizes the fact that any piecemeal attempt to transplant foreign
institutions on a section of the Indian soil is fore-doomed to failure.
It is observed that even on newly reclaimed lands farmers are reluctant
to come together on a joint basis, unless definite inducements are held
out to them of eventual individual ownership and hereditary possession.
For old lands it is proposed that Cooperative Multipurpose Societies
should be organized for supply of credit, farm requirements and market
ing of produce. Where successful these would prepare the ground for ventures in joint farming. Government assistance for the promotion of cooperative farms in the form of subsidies, loans, cheap supplies and technical advice would be necessary. The government should take all measures to make the experiments in cooperative farming a success.
Reserve Bank Brochure on Cooperative Farming
In December 19^9 > the Reserve of India published a brochure entitled 'Cooperative Farming' .‘L0 In this brochure an account of the
•^Cooperative Farming, Reserve Bank of India (Bombay: December 19^9 ). experiments in cooperative and collective farming in other countries is
followed by a review of experiments in cooperative farming in different
parts of India. According to this report, there is a vast scope for
introduction of cooperative farming on large areas of land brought
under cultivation under land reclamation schemes and multipurpose
river projects. Cooperative farms can also be organized in ryotwari
areas and areas where zamindari is abolished. Use of mass media to
carry on propaganda to acquaint people with the benefits they are
likely to get by adoption of joint farming is recommended. Some of
the factors which should be taken into consideration in successfully
organizing Cooperative Farming Societies are the selection of good
land and good members, government assistance in the form of provision
of trained managers, tractors and machine tools at concession rates,
concession in land revenue and other taxes, provision of finance and
development of subsidiary industries. The government will find the
organization of Joint Farming Societies convenient for extension work and carrying out policies like regulation of crop production, procure ment of food grains and collection of statistics.
Cooperative Farming in Bombay State
In this brochure entitled ’Cooperative Farming V7ith Special
Reference to Bombay State1 issued by the Bombay Provincial Cooper ative Institute in 1951, Talpade starts with a review of cooperative farming in Russia, Palestine, Mexico, U.S.A, and Italy. This is
■^■R.M. Talpade, Cooperative Farming With Special Reference to Bombay State (Bombay: Provincial Cooperative Institute, 1951)• 33
followed by a brief account of the progress of cooperative farming in
Bombay. He lists five conditions which lead to success of cooperative
farms:
1. An assured increase in production and income and if possible, employment over a longer period.
2. Membership consisting of members who are more or less of the same economic status.
3* Wise leadership preferably from among the members.
h. Active and willing cooperation of the members.
5. Presence of some special factors which would help in 12 ensuring the loyalty of the members of the society.
Information about the location, registration, area and financial assistance received by the Cooperative Farming Societies in Bombay upto September 30, 1950 is given in a statement in the Appendix of the pamphlet.
The First Five Year Plan
The First Five Year Plan emphasized the importance of the multipurpose Society for the rural areas and the need for each village to have a cooperative organization to cater for the multiple needs of the members. Every encouragement was to be given for the establish ment of cooperative farms.^ In particular, small and medium farmers were to be encouraged to group themselves into Cooperative Farming
12Ibid, p. 30. ^Op. cit., pp. 165-167. Societies. A systematic study of cooperative farms and service
cooperatives was recommended.
There are at present in progress throughout the country a number of experiments in cooperative farming and in the organization of various activities on cooperative lines. If a systematic study of this experience were made useful suggestions which could assist in the progress of cooper ative effort throughout the country would emerge. There is need also for an expanding programme of training and experiments in cooperative farming and cooperative organizat ion.^
Experiments in Cooperative Farming
Agrawal reported in 195^ a study of two of the oldest cooperative
farms— Dorauna and Nainwara farms in Uttar Pradesh.^ He found that
the gross income and net earnings per acre of the cooperative farm were lower than those of the individual holdings. The standard of management of the cooperative farms was low. The output of work per day of the member workers was lower than that of the outside hired workers. On the other hand he found in the cooperative farm an increase in the area commanded per pair of bullocks, saving in interest charges, economy in marketing costs and economy in operating costs per acre.
Rural Progress Through Cooperatives
The object of this report was to study "the possibilities offered by the system of free and voluntary cooperation on the part of the farmers with a view to meeting the requirements of technical
•^Op. cit., p. 196.
•^g . D. Agrawal, Experiments in Cooperative Farming. Darauna and Nainwara Farms in Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad: Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, U.P. India, 195*0* and economic progress in agriculture while preserving the rights and freedoms of the individuals.""^ According to the report the success of cooperatives depends upon the intensity and continuity of the desire of the individual members for the services provided by the cooperative, able management and type and amount of government help.
A loss of close personal attention, particularly to intensive crops and livestock and a loss of incentives of individuals and families to work diligently and save carefully, are widely recognized as liable to result from amalgamation of small farms. Many small farm families fear a loss of freedom of economic activity and security if they in any way pool their individual rights. The experience of different countries with cooperative and collective farms is reviewed in the report. Some of the factors affecting the position of collective and cooperative farming in India and Pakistan according to the report are high population pressures, need for intensive farming, limited scope for mechanization and the attachment of the families to their plots of land.
Tire Second Five Year Plan
The Second Five Year Plan proposed to establish by 1960-61,
10,^OO larger sized credit Societies, each with a trained manager for the provision of credit for seeds, manures, agricultural implements and essential consumer goods to the agriculturist and for marketing of his
^•^Rural Progress Through Cooperatives, United nations, Department of Economic Affairs (New York: 195*)• produce. It is observed that "the main task during the Second
Five Year Plan is to take such essential steps as will provide sound foundations for the development of cooperative farming, so that over a period of ten years or so a substantial portion of agricultural lands are cultivated on cooperative lines.11 ^ The main steps re commended are (a) undertaking of experimental or pilot projects in cooperative farming in each national extension and community project area for evolving better methods of management and organi zation; (b) settling on cooperative lines of areas declared surplus as a result of the imposition of ceiling on holdings; (c) bringing into cooperatives to which surplus lands are allotted of farms smaller than the prescribed basic holding, provided their owners agree to pool their lands; (d) improving the condition of the existing
Cooperative Faming Societies; and (e) assisting Cooperative Farming
Societies formed by voluntary groups in the supply of credit, seed, fertilizers and preference in the grant of leases of lands reclaimed by the government.^
Studies in Cooperative Farming
The Programme Evaluation Organization published in 1956, a study of 22 Cooperative Farming Societies in the different parts of 19 the country. Each Society was visited by an evaluation officer who
^Op. cit., p. 201.
•*-®0p. cit., pp. 228-229. 19 ^Studies in Cooperative Farming, Programme Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission, Government of India, (December 1956). collected facts about its working and composition.
The names of .the Societies selected for study were suggested
by the State governments. All the three Societies from Pepsu and
Punjab area, namely the Sewa Nagar Cooperative Society, the B.G.S.
Cooperative Farm and the Undata Fazalpur Cooperative Farming Society
studied by the Programme Evaluation Organization form the subject
of Chapters III, IX and X respectively of the present study.
Monograph on Cooperative Farming
In 1956, the Indian Cooperative Union published a monograph . 20 entitled 'Cooperative Fanning— Some Critical Reflections'. The
authors pointed out the difficulties and disadvantages of organizing
cooperative farms and advocate establishment of service cooperatives for purchase, sale, processing and credit. They consider the experience of the refugee resettlement Cooperative Farming Societies
organized by the Indian Cooperative Union since 19^8 in some villages of Delhi State as typical:
The first two or three crops were raised on a collective basis, the next two on a group basis, and all the rest on an individual basis. The continuation of joint cultivation became nearly impossible because of factionalism among the members and the executive committees, disputes about the relative intensity of work put in by different members, mistrust regarding the use of funds by the executives etc. Gradually, implements and cattle had to be distributed on an individual basis although they were obtained on a collective basis— Differences about the assignment of work, the distribution of proceeds and loan shares have been so acute that even the constant guidance and leadership of the Indian Cooperative Union and the
^laj Krishna, L. C. Jain and Gopi Krishan, Cooperative Farming--Some Critical Reflections, (New Delhi: Indian Cooperative Union, 195^)* 38
presence of many strong members in the cooperatives themselves failed to compose them.
Report of the Indian Delegation to China on Agrarian Cooperatives
In July 1956, the Planning Commission sent a delegation to China to study the methods adopted in China for developing agrarian cooper- 22 atives. The delegation submitted its report in February 1962, and recommended a program of cooperative farming on economic and social grounds. They recommended that about 10,000 cooperative societies should be organized in a period of four years so that by 1960-61 there vas at least one Cooperative Farming Society in every group of fifty villages. The principle of voluntariness was to be strictly adhered to and a member, it was recommended, should be free to leave the cooperative farm at the end of the season, should he so desire.
Two of the members of the delegation in their minute of dissent, stated that the Japanese experience showed that a ccrabination of family farming and service cooperatives with liberal aid from the welfare state would be the correct policy to follow for increasing production per acre in over populated countries. They did not share the view of the majority that cooperative farming is the panacea for all our agrarian problems. They believe that nothing secures more intensive farming and greater yields per acre more easily than a
21Ibid, p. 29. ^^Report of the Indian Delegation to China on Agrarian Cooperatives, Planning Commission, Government of India, (New Delhi, May 1957). 39
system of family farming. The economies of scale can he made
available to individual farmers through service cooperatives for
example, economies of cheap credit, hulk purchase and sale and in
suitable cases, carrying out of essential agricultural operations.
They would not rule out cooperation in production if people wanted
it. But they believe that development of cooperative farming should
not be the subject of a governmental program.
Report on Certain Aspects of Cooperative Movement in India
In Part III of his report published in June 1957> Darling remarks
that some Cooperative Farming Societies are formed to obtain the very
liberal assistance granted by the State governments to this type of 23 farming. Some are little more than family concerns, a few members of which do the farming with the help of paid labor while the other members employ themselves in other occupations. Many Societies do not function at all. This applies to per cent of the 71 registered in Pepsu and to nearly 80 per cent of the 87 in Rajasthan.
In this report as in the foreword to Schiller's study 'Cooper
ative Farming and Individual Farming on Cooperative Lines', Darling
remarks that collective farming is a very very difficult form of
cooperation and makes little appeal to the peasant proprietor.
2 ^Malcolm Darling, Report on Certain Aspects of Cooperative Movement in India, Planning Commission, Government of India (New Delhi, 1957J.
2ltIbid, p. 20. Cooperative Fanning and Ind.ivld.ual Farming on Cooperative Lines
In this study Schiller remarks that it is hardly possible to show any examples that peasants in an existing old village have voluntarily given up their individual use of land and have pooled it for joint utilization. "This seems true also for India." Talking of prospects of cooperative farming in new settlements he says, it has to be considered whether the administrative expenditure for recording of each members work and the lack of personal attachment to the soil are sufficiently compensated by the technical advantages with regard to large scale operations.He believes the cooperative farming in the form of joint or collective use of land has little chance of being adopted in old villages. It is necessary to examine whether the expect ed advantages of cooperative farming can be achieved by combining cooperative methods with individual use of land, so as to preserve the farmer's personal initiative and attachment to the soil.
Advantages of mechanization are not a sufficient justification for the introduction of joint farming in over populated countries.
It is a mistake to believe that advantages of large scale operations can be brought to the small cultivator only if land is pooled to make big managerial units. Means of progressive farming such as improved seed, fertilizers, improved crop rotation, effective plant protection can be used by the small farms. The managerial functions of a large farm such as planning, financing, investments, supply and marketing
^Schiller, op. cit., pp. 2-6. 1*1
which contribute to the advantages of large scale farming can be
carried out cooperatively without merging the small holdings.^0 For
promoting farming operations by cooperative methods without
depriving the small cultivator of his independence and without
paralyzing individual initiative, Schiller suggests the introduction
of a cooperative society for improved individual farming:
The essence of individual farming on cooperative lines may be described as follows: all functions which cannot be executed in the limited boundaries of a single small farm, or are beyond the capacity of the small holder, such as planning including field arrangements and cropping scheme, the fiancing of investments, the keeping of large sized equipment, the wholesale supply and marketing, etc., should be turned over to the cooperative society for improved individual farming. All other functions of farm management, which can properly be executed within the boundaries of a single small farm should remain with the independent individual.^7
Cooperatives and Land Use
In this FAO Agricultural Development paper prepared by Margaret
Digby, the author reviews the experience of different countries with
compulsory and voluntary joint .farming projects and with experiments pQ in joint production without pooling of land. In the latter case,
members retain individual holdings but agree to a common cropping plan
and undertake to make joint use of very type of cooperative service—
credit, supply, marketing, machinery, stock-breeding. In the part of
the section on Cooperative Land Settlement dealing with India, the
^Schiller, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
27schiller, op. cit., p. IT.
^®Margaret Digby, Cooperatives and Land Use, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, (Rome: 1957). h2
author gives a brief account of the official policy with regard to land
reclamation and Internal colonization. An account is given of some of
the Cooperative Farming Societies in reclaimed lands ani in settled
villages. A brief description of the Seva Nagar Cooperative Society
which forms the subject of Chapter III of the present study is given
on page h6 of the report under review.
In the note on the future of cooperative farming in India, the
author remarks that experience shows that where too much pressure is
applied in the form of inducements-subsidies or loans-it does not as
a rule produce a stable or contented cooperative farm. The pros and
cons of pooling of land are summarized in the following words:
The advantages of the permanent pooling of land in a country like India are that fragmentation is eliminated; the abolition of unnecessary boundaries adds something to the cultivated area; mechanization becomes possible; crop protection is easier and more effective; a certain amount of labor specialization becomes possible. Against this must be set the reluctance of the peasant to surrender his land, which is also his security against starvation and the base of his social position; the difficulty of securing discipline in work and the proper care of livestock and implements; the fact that there is no exact means of measuring work done by traditional methods so that, while the lazy are known and resented, they cannot easily be checked; the problem of providing capable and honest managers; the need for fairly complex accountancy where none was needed before.
In the concluding Chapter the author remarks that the experi
ence of nearly every country indicates that collective farming is not
suited to the production of livestock or to crops requiring much personal attention and skill. Records of failure in these fields are
29Ibid, p. 49. ^3 too numerous to ignore. One of the greatest problems of the collective or cooperative farm is to secure discipline and intelligence in work.
Collectivization is no cure for national over population and could create as many problems as it solved. In the long run agricultural progress depends on the intelligence and good will of the individual farmer. All plans for the cooperative use of land must be considered not only with an eye to technical possibilities they offer, but to their acceptability to those most concerned.
In general, those to whom cooperative farm appeals are either intellectuals without previous farming experi ence; the technically minded, to whom machines and all that goes with them are more important than the bare ownership of land; the more dependent type of share cropper, and laborers with no experience of managing farms of their own; or tribal peoples who have no tradition of individual ownership. Experience shows that laborers and tenants, though they may at first accept land pooling, tend to develop the traditional peasant attitude as their experience increases and to demand the division of land into individual holdings.
• •• • • • Collectivization is almost always disliked by the established landholding peasant who is compelled, or even merely •urged to contribute livestock and land which his family may have cultivated for generations to the pool and become, as it seems to him, a paid hand instead of an independent producer.3®
Experience of Cooperative Farming in India
Experience of cooperative farming and other systems of mutual aid in cultivation in India was one of the three subjects of discussion at the l8th conference of the Indian Society of Agricultural
Economics held in Nagpur in December 1957* About 20 papers were
3°Ibid, pp. 105-106. hh
presented about the experience of cooperative faming in different
parts of India. Sixteen of these papers were published in the
Conference Number of the Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.
A perusal of these papers according to Shah indicated that generally
speaking Cooperative Farming Societies have not taken to better
technique of cultivation than those of the individual farm. Most
Societies indicated no particular advantage with regard to increasing
productivity per acre. The total number of human labor days and
bullock labor days per acre used on the cooperative farm was
considerably reduced. Measured by the participation of the members
in the farm activities, the Societies studied did not indicate the 32 presence of the cooperative spirit.
Seminar on Cooperative Farming
The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics held a Seminar on
cooperative farming in May 1958 at Poona attended by 33 economists from 33 all parts of India specially interested in the subject.The topics
discussed at the three sessions were (l) definition, scope and ob
jectives of cooperative farming, (2 ) technological efficiency of a
cooperative farm and, (3 ) problems of organization and management of a cooperative farm. The definition that emerged from the discussions
33The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Conference Number, Vol. XIII, No. 1, (January-March, 1958). 32 J S.M. Shah, Assessment of the Working of Cooperative Farming Societies in Different States, Seminar on Cooperative Farming, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, (Bombay, August 1959), Appendix III, pp. 129-131.
33Seminar on Cooperative Farming, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, (Bombay, 1959)* has "been considered in the introductory Chapter of the present report.
Regarding objectives it was agreed that cooperative farming should meet the three tests of higher production, increased income for the majority of the members and more employment. It should help in better economic use of the pooled resources. Regarding technological
efficiency it was felt that the advantages of large scale farming under comparable management have yet to be demonstrated. It was
necessary to organize and study experiments in cooperative farming
and cooperative Servicing. In some cases it may be possible to use better technology under cooperative servicing. A comparison of the results would show whether servicing societies or completely
integrated cooperative farms fare better. It was felt that until more physical results are obtained and studied by economists, we have not enough material to go to the stage of attempting to popularize a programme of cooperative farms. Some of the problems of organization and management of cooperative farms discussed were the evolving of
standards of evaluating labor, problems of incentives and bonus payments, maintenance of stocks and accounts, marketing of produce and the importance of good leadership.
The Peasant and Cooperative Farming
In this study Ranga and Parachure make a case for peasant family farming as they feel that all the economies of scale expected from cooperative farming can be derived in a better manner by the self- employed peasants from the fullest and all round development of h6
qli. service cooperatives.'' Social considerations can never Justify the
replacement of peasant family farming by cooperative farming. The
natural incentive of being his own master makes a man do more work
at lesser cost. Hence, the best manager for agriculture is the
peasant proprietor cultivating his own land. In labor intensive
agriculture like ours, small scale farming supported by service
cooperatives is more productive, efficient and economical than large
scale farming. Past experience shows that peasant proprietors will
not voluntarily agree to pool their land and resources to reap the
economic and social benefits of cooperative farming. The authors
conclude that small scale family farming, based on peasant proprietor
ship is superior to cooperative farming both from economic and social
considerations.
Agriculture, organized on the system of peasant family farming, provides the people engaged in such enter prise not only with the economic monetary returns but also with equally important non-economic returns like the self-employment status, freedom and independence from organizational bureaucracy, freedom from the disabilities of wage labor and emotional Joy and satisfaction resulting from family ownership of land.— The importance of such a system in the modern Society which is becoming more and more centralized cannot be under-estimated.35
Study of Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab
The Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab reported a study of
Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab. The report starts with
■all J II.G. Ranga and P.R. Parachure, The Peasant and Cooperative Farming - A Socio-Economic Study, (Nidulerolu: The Indian Institute, 195&) • 35ibid, p. 141. an account of cooperative farming in foreign countries followed by
an account of cooperative farms in other States of India. There
were 279 registered Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab in
the year 195^-55• The sample included 20 per cefct of the Societies
in each district selected at random. Out of the bQ Societies
surveyed, 26 were organized by owners of land, 10 were seen on rented
lands while 12 were not doing Joint farming as most of them had
failed after trying Joint farming. .Among the landowners' Cooperative
Farming Societies, ^9 per cent of the members had no land in the
Society. Most of them were dependents of the landowning members.
Most of the Societies were dominated by the comparatively bigger
landowners. Almost all the farms had tractors. Most of the work
was done by hired workers. The majority of the members were blood
relations. In most cases, manual labor was avoided by the member workers, some of whom maybe doing supervisory work. Working members
formed 26.5 per cent of the total membership of these Societies. None
of the Societies was engaged in any subsidiary industry. Some:of the
causes of the failure of Cooperative Farming Societies according to
the report were inexperience in mechanized agriculture, financial
losses, undertaking too big projects without adequate equipment,
unwillingness of working members to take orders from the elected
supervisor or manager and self-interest of the members. The survey is
followed by three brief case studies of Gagra Cooperative Farming
Society, B.G.S. Cooperative Farming Society and Sewa Nagar Cooperative
Farming Society. According to the supervisor of the study, the case studies "show that all is not well with the movement, that in fact, it is a sad picture, for all the grants and loans and other facilities, results are poor." ^ one of the members of the sub-committee which examined the report for publication, remarks that in the report*s
"conclusion, stands out the dismal failure of cooperative farming."
Some of the suggestions with which the report ends do not at all follow from the findings of the-survey. There is even a suggestion for use of coercion for the promotion of Cooperative
Farming Societies. The report suggests amendment in legislation to exempt Cooperative Farming Societies from the provision of ceiling on holdings. Some of the other recommendations are the organization of Model Cooperative Farming Societies, subsidies and loans and propaganda for creating the proper climate for cooperative farming.
Report of the German Agricultural Delegation
Schiller is the author of the section of the report dealing 37 with the problems of cooperative farming in India. He recommends that systematic studies should be undertaken to evaluate the experience of the existing Cooperative Farming Societies. He mates some recommendations for the success of experiments in cooperative farming. It is not advisable to consider legislative measures for the introduction of cooperative farming by majority vote. Financial
3^Board of Economic Enquiry, op. cit., p. 3 . 37 Report of the German Agricultural Delegation to India on Cooperative Farming, Farm Machinery, Fertilizer, Land Consolidation and Dairy Processing, Ministry of Food and Cooperation (April i960). assistance to cooperative farms should not exceed the limits establish
ed by economic principles. Financial privileges of cooperative farms
should not prevent financial assistance for individual farming. When
a cooperative farm disintegrates, an attempt should be made to main
tain cooperation among the constituent units in spheres other than production. In expanding supervised credit, more attention should be
given for the promotion of farming operations of the individual small holdings. Holdings below the minimum size should be combined with
one or more others to form farming units.
Cooperative Farming in Gu.jarat
A study of the working of the Cooperative Farming Societies in
Gujarat for the period 19^9-50 to 1955-56 conducted by the Gujarat
Cooperative Farming Survey Committee was published in 1959* The
survey covered all the working Societies totalling 83 out of which
39 were tenant farming, 16 joint farming and 28 collective farming.J
An intensive survey was made of 2k of these Societies in order to bring out the peculiar problems of cooperative farming. The method
of purposive sampling was used to include only those Societies which offered these possibilities. Working of these Societies with respect to cropping pattern, yield per acre, cost of production and financial conditions has been examined. Ten case studies of selected Societies are presented.
The study showed that out of the three types, tenant farming was
^Cooperative Farming in Gujarat, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (Bombay, 1959)* the most favored, vhile joint farming was the least favored. Ten out
of 16 joint farming Societies had resumed individual cultivation.
Seventy-eight per cent of the membership of all Societies consisted
of landless laborers. Three-fourths of the Societies have been formed on government fallow land. In most of the Societies the bullocks were not pooled and the Societies got these on hire from the members who maintained them individually. The Societies received government assistance by way of loans and grants. Main purposes for which assistance was given were share capital contribution, subsidy for managerial expenses, subsidy for seeds and manures, land develop ment, irrigation, purchase of implements, purchase of bullocks, and construction of go-downs and cattle sheds. Most of the managers were not qualified for the job. Very few Societies had undertaken cottage
Industries programmes. Case studies showed that the most important causes of success of cooperative farms were adequate land, adequate financial resources, good management and homogeneous membership.
Financially tenant farming Societies were the most successful of the three types of Societies.
Joint Farming X-Rayed
Inthis book, Charan Singh makes a case for an economy of small farms operated by animal power and human labor helped by service on cooperatives. ^ He believes that the cooperative principle has a very fruitful mission in agriculture, but when stretched to the point of merger of holdings it violates the essence of true cooperation. Land
^Charan Singh, Joint Farming X-Rayed - The Problem and Its Solution (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1959). being the limiting factor in India, our aim must be the highest
production per acre and not the highest production per man. Paid
laborers cannot devote the same attention in tending crops or animals
as the members of a peasant family. Right of ownership of property is
meaningless without the right to control. The author quotes some
studies to show that the output per acre of small holdings is higher
than that of the large holdings. The commerical and financial
advantages of large farms can be achieved by small holdings through
service cooperatives. Incentives will remain unimpaired when a merger
of holdings is not necessary. Mechanization of agriculture besides
being unnecessary, impracticable and too expensive in India conditions will lead to unemployment. A system of agriculture, based on small
enterprise, where the worker himself is the owner of the land under the plough will foster democracy.
Solution to the problem of our poverty according to Charan Singh
lies in the development of non-agricultural resources, intensive utilization of land resources and population control. Surplus lands
obtained by putting a ceiling on large holdings should be distributed among the sub-basic holders rather than the landless people. We should
lay emphasis on handicrafts and small scale decentralized industries
of low capital intensity using the findings of science and technology.
As real incomes rise we should progress to light and medium industries and from thence to heavy industry. He recommends a programme of population control which should accompany a plan for intensive agriculture and a coordinated and parallel development of industries. 52
Working Group on Cooperative Farming
The working group on cooperative farming appointed by the
Government of India in June 1959 to recommend measures for the promotion of cooperative farming submitted its report in December
1959* The group visited 3^ cooperative farms in different States and received information from the States about 150 Cooperative Farming
Societies of good, bad and indifferent types. Sixty-seven institutions and 11 individuals responded to the general questionnaire on cooper ative farming and 3^ financing institutions replied to the special questionnaire.
The impression of the group about Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab are summed up in the following words:
A large number of Societies were formed by refugees from West Pakistan and they were apprehensive of a certain measure of non-cooperation, if not opposition, from local residents. A few examples of small holders forming these Societies on existing holdings are also found. Some of them were organized with a view to evade the land reform measure relating to ceiling on holdings. In seme cases, they are merely a family affair. Some of the Societies have been formed for obtaining State assistance and facilities available to Cooperative Farming Societies. To many, cooperative farming appeared to be a way of achieving the goal of machanized farming. 0 According to the report, before organizing a Cooperative Fanning
Society, it is necessary to ensure that there is a real desire for joint farming among the members. A Cooperative Farming Society has a better chance of success if there is homogeneity of interests among the members and most of them participate in the farm work. Legislative
Report of the Working Group on Cooperative Farming, op. cit., P. 31. measures compelling members to set up or join a cooperative farm should
not be undertaken. The period of pooling of land should be five years.
Retiring members should be given land of equal productivity as the one
contributed by them. Six out of seven Societies visited by the group
had tractors. Differences in skill and ability of workers should be
properly evaluated and rewarded and some system of norms should be
introduced. Cooperative farming need not necessarily lead to
mechanization. The group recommended that 320 pilot projects should
be carried out in four years from 1960-61 to I963-6U in those Rational
Extension Service blocks where cooperation programme has advanced so
that there may be one project per district. In each of these blocks
10 Cooperative Farming Societies may be organized. Besides these 3*200
Societies, it is expected that the idea of cooperative farming would
gain ground, and 20,000 new Societies would come into existence by the
end of the Third Five Year Plan. A financial assistance of Rs 12,800
is recommended for each Cooperative Farming Society. It is recommended
the advisory boards for cooperative farming should be set up at the
State and Rational levels. The total outlay on the assistance to
Cooperative Farming Societies, education and training of members and
office-bearers of the Cooperative Farming Societies and the establish ment of the advisory boards would be over Rs 350 million during the
period of the Third Plan.
Rext Step in Village India
On the basis of a study of 8k6 sample households in six villages
in U.P., Baljit Singh concludes that village Society is essentially a faction Society.^ "At an average 17 or 18 households in a village
have formed themselves into a separate faction more or less hostile to
one another."^2 Factionalism is caused primarily by private landowner-
ship and inequality in the distribution of land. Out of 61 factional
splits studied in detail, 2k were accounted for by disputes over land.
Baljit Singh sees a solution of the problem in a 15 acre ceiling on
individual holdings and cooperative farming. Dantwala in his review
of this book remarks, "This neat Marxist fit to the economic situation may provoke a query as to whether the conclusions led to the convictions
or the other way roundl"
The respondents were asked to suggest three most important land
reforms that should be introduced. Forty-one per cent suggested land redistribution, 2k per cent a ceiling on holdings, 19 per cent
consolidation of holdings and 7 per cent cooperative farming. "Cooper
ative farming is thus among the four most important land reforms
suggested by the villagers of their own Accord. Obviously, a ceiling
on land holdings, land redistribution, and cooperatization of agri
culture are the felt needs of the village people." However, according
to a reply to another question, 6l per cent of the respondents are
Singh, Next Step in Village India (New York: Asia Publishing House, 196 lT*
^2Ibid, p. 9 .
Indian Journal of icultural Economics, Vol. XVI, No. U, Octobe _ opposed to cooperative farming. As 50 per cent of the sample house holds have no rights in land, it would he interesting to know, how many respondents having rights in land are in favor of cooperative farming. With a low man land ratio and a ceiling on holdings at Uo acres; one would look to over all economic development rather than land redistribution and cooperative farming for a solution of the problem of rural poverty. The study was financed by the Education
Ministry Government of India and the University Grants Commission, but there is no suggestion in the study of the possibility of a program of universal education and adult education having some effect on factionalism in villages.
Third Five Year Plan
The Third Five Year Plan regards the programme of cooperative farming as a part of the community development movement.
In the main, cooperative farming has to grow out of the success of the general agricultural effort through the community development movement, the progress of cooperation in credit, marketing, distribution and processing, the growth of rural industry, and the fulfillment of the objectives of land reform— -the main problems of cooperative farming are organizational, technical and educational. The problems of internal management with which many Cooperative Farming Societies are faced, need to be studied systematically and practical solutions appropriate to different regions found for them. ^
Cooperative Farming Advisory Boards have been set up at the
National and State levels. The recommendation of the working group for setting up 3,200 Cooperative Farming Societies as pilot projects and giving financial assistance of about Rs 12,000 to each Cooperative
^Third Five Year Plan, op. cit., p. 209. Farming Society has been accepted. A provision of Rs 120 million has been made for the purpose. The plan recommends that non-working members should not exceed one-fourth of the total membership. Members are expected to pool their lands for a minimum period of five years.
The decision to join a cooperative farm will rest with the farmer.
Economic Basis of Land Reform
In his paper entitled 'The Economic Basis of Land Reform in
Underdeveloped Countries', Long uses seme of the data from the
Economics of Farm Management Studies in India and from a study of some
farms in Bihar to show that the gross output per acre of Indian farms I15 decreases with increase in size. As the marginal cost of human and bullock labor from the social point of view is zero and variable
capital inputs very small, he argues that gross value productivity per acre is as relevant to policy decisions under Indian conditions as is net operator income under American conditions. He concludes that the use of effective extension techniques, applicable under an cwner-
operatorship mode of farm organization may accomplish more than group farming on the productivity front.
To the writer the weight of evidence thus far is in favor of an effective research-extension programme, supple mented by a set of government or cooperative services, in support of a flexible system of small scale, owner-operated farms as the proper goal of land reform policy.^3
lie Erven J. Long, "The Economic Basis of Land Reform in Underdeveloped Economies" Land Economics, Vol. XXXVII, No. 2 (May 1961), pp. 113-123.
^6Ibid, p. 123. Chapter III
SEWA KAGAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
This comparative study relates to the Seim Nagar Cooperative
Society Ltd., Village Parwa, district Kapurthala and five family farms in the adjacent village of Khera for the agricultural year 1953-5^*
Parwa is situated at a distance of about three miles from the
Phagwara town. The village was visited twice in the year 1953-5^> after the kharif and rabi crops had been harvested. Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm, the last of these being in January 1959*
This study is of special interest for the following reasons:
1. The whole of the area of the residents of the village
Parwa with the exception of bo standard acres is under the control of the cooperative farm.
2. The land is allotted not to the individual members but to the Society.
3. The Society tried the experiment of cooperative living for over a year.
U. The working of the Society up to the year 1955-56 has been studied by the Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning
Commission, Government of India and the Board of Economic Enquiry,
Punjab, and it is interesting to compare these studies with the present study for which the data was collected for the year 1953"5^> but the
57 58 progress of the farm has been examined up to the end of the year 1958.
Origin
The Sewa Nagar Cooperative Society was registered on April 21,
1950 with a membership of 33 heads of displaced farm families. One of the members who died in 1952 was replaced by his four sons. This raised the membership to 38 . Nine of these families, hailing from village G.B. Chak No. 2U0 near Jaranwala, district Lyallpur had been temporarily allotted land in Sirhind Bassi. The rest of the families coming from village G.B. Chak No. 101, about seven miles from Jaranwala were temporary allottees in the Jullundur district. The leaders of these two groups of families were keen to get quasi-permanent allot ment of land in the village Parwa. They were advised by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Pepsu to get these families registered as a Cooperative Society. After registration the Society was allotted
565 standard acres of land in the village Parwa.^
Motives for Starting the Society
1. The members wanted quasi-permanent allotment of land in one place.
2. The leaders of these families were keen on trying the experiment of joint farming and cooperative living.
3 . The members were displaced cultivators, who had migrated from West Pakistan. They were in need of financial aid for the
llhe members of the Society got the allotment of land in village Parwa in the year 1950 and not in the year 19^7-U8 as stated on page 7^ of "A Study of Cooperative Farming Societies in The Punjab", Publication No. U7 of the Board of Economic Enquiry Punjab (India)- Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punjab, 1958. 59 purchase of equipment for breaking the land which had been neglected by the temporary allottees.
1*. They wanted to avail of the concessions given by the government to Cooperative Farming Societies and develop Parwa as a model village.
Rights and Liability of Members
According to the by-laws of the Society, membership is limited to the residents of Parwa or owners of land in Parwa and is terminable when a member leaves Parwa or on resignation, if approved by a two-thirds majority of the members. Members cannot claim lien on particular plots of land nor can a member transfer his land to an outsider. In fact, the whole of the land of the members has been allotted by the Rehabilitation Department in the name of the Society and there is no demarcation of individual plots. Every member knows his share in terms of standard acres in the total land allotted to the Society, but he cannot lay his finger on a particular plot as his.
There is no share-capital and according to the by-laws the number of shares held by each member is equal to the number of standard acres owned by him. Every member has one vote. The liability of the members is limited. For the first 10 years no owner ship-dividend
(Chakota) will be paid to the members for the contribution of land.
The profits during this period will not be distributed but will be used for further development of land or repayment of loans. Generally this provision is made in the by-laws of Cooperative Credit Societies. But as the erst-while Pepsu State did not have any standard by-laws for 6o
Cooperative Farming Societies, the by-laws of this Society are based on those of the Credit Societies, and provide for the pooling of all the profits for the first 10 years in the reserve fund for further develop ment. All able-bodied members are liable to work under the directions of the General Body.
Working Capital
The bullocks, milch cattle and the implements of the individual members were taken over by the Society. These were evaluated by a sub-committee and the accounts of the individual members were credited with the price of the cattle and other equipment contributed by them.
The members' deposits thus amounted to about Rs 6k ,000 at the time of the formation of the Society. The.maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed at Rs 30,000.
TABLE 3*1
Balance Sheet as on June 30, 195^
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs
Machinery and Tractor 16,726 .00 Deposits of members 19,001 .59
Houses 7,000 .00 Deposits of non-members 2,927 .87
Furniture 910 .81 Government aid 10,180 .00
Cattle 9,226 .00 Loans 12,077 .00 Stock in hand 18,178 .00 Outstanding creditors 18,551 .50
Share in Coop. Bank 250 .00 Profits 18,071 .25
Advances to members 27,331 .39
Cash in hand 1,193 .01 Total 80,815 .21 Total 80,815 .21 6l
Experiment in Cooperative Living
An outstanding feature of the Society has been the experiment
of a common mess for all the 33 member-families. The common mess was
started in March, 1950, when 20 men and two ladies first arrived in
Parwa. They brought their families to Parwa in May 1950, when the rest of the member-families also joined them. During the first three months of the common mess, meals were taken by the working members
only, and no charges were made. The hazri (meal-units) system was
started in June 1950. An account was maintained indicating the number
of adults and children who had their meals for the day. Children below the age of three were not charged while those between the ages of three and twelve were charged at half-rates. One adult talcing meals at the
common mess for one day accounted for one hazri. The ladies cooked the meals in the common kitchen by rotation in batches of six for a month and were paid Rs 23 per month each for the period they worked in the kitchen. The cost of meals per hazri was calculated at the end of the year by dividing the total expenditure of the mess by the total number of hazri. The cost of meals provided to each family was thus worked out. and deducted from their wages.
The common mess continued for about 13 months up to the end of
June 1951. There was lack of variety in the menu and it was not possible to cater to individual tastes. For the first six months only mash and moong pulses without any butter were served along with chapatties. Some people also found it difficult to keep to regular timings for their meals. Most Of the families, therefore, wanted to 62 prepare their meals separately. As soon as the members got wheat out of the new crop in June 1951, the common mess was abolished.
All the milch cattle of the Society were kept in common up to the middle of August 1951* after which the members were allowed to keep their own milch cattle separately. Milk was supplied to the members at the rate of three seers per rupee at the Society dairy which continued to function up to June 1952, when the milch cattle of the Society were sold out to individual families.
Administration
The administration of the Society is the responsibility of the
Managing Committee which is elected by the General Body and consists of the president, the vice-president, the secretary, the treasurer and a committee member. The president who is an old congress worker is held in great respect by the members. He attends to the day-to-day working of the Society and its dealings with the government and the outside world. The death of the first secretary in October 1952 gave a great set-back to the Society, as he was an influential man and had a good hold on the other members. The treasurer/accountant maintains the accounts of the Society and attends to the office work.
Labor
For the first 15 months up to June 1951, the member-vorkers were paid wages at Rs ^5 per month. For the year 1951-52, one-fifth of the gross produce of the Society was distributed as wages. Remuneration was thus linked with output in order to give incentive to the workers.
A record was maintained of the number of man-days for which the member-workers worked on the farm. The price of one-fifth of the produce divided "by the total number of man-days gave the rate of pay ment per man-day. For members who started work late, a proportionate deduction was made. For harvesting of wheat and gram the member-workers were paid 1.2 maunds of grain per day. For the year 1952-53* the members worked in two groups with 301 acres and 2^1 acres of land respectively. For the year 1953"5^ there were four groups, one with
2^1 acres, two with 120 acres each and the fourth with 6l acres. The area with each group was equal to the total allotment of the members of that group. The groups were formed as all the members could not work together smoothly in one group. Division into groups, it was believed, would give an incentive for hard work as there would be competition between the groups for increased production. One-fourth of the gross produce of each group was taken by the group as wages and was distributed among the member-families of the group in pro portion to the number of man-days for which the members worked on the farm. The group leader assigned work to the members and supervised their work. All the member-workers in the group got remuneration for their labor at uniform rates, although the stronger among them were given heavier work. The members were of the view that it would not be possible to keep a record of the quality and amount of labor put in by each member in the year for working out his annual wages. Besides, if remuneration varies according to the nature of work and some members are paid more than others, it might give rise to mutual Jealousies.
With the exception of the secretary and the treasurer who were paid
Rs 55 per month each, no additional payment was made to member-workers a for special types of work such as tractor driving or supervision. A non-member mistry was employed, at Rs l4o per month for looking after the tractor and the tube-wells.
Equipment
The Society purchased a tractor along with implements in 1951 for a sum of Rs 18,800. Two pumping sets were installed in 1950 at a cost of Rs 8,000, two more in 1951 at a cost of Rs 7*600 and another in
1952 at a cost of Rs 3,900. All the farm equipment, agricultural machinery, implements and bullocks are owned by the Society.. With the exception of the tractor, all the equipment as well as the bullocks are distributed among the groups for use. In the year 1953-5**-> the
Society had 35 bullocks. These were divided among the groups and sub-divided among the individual families in order to fix the re sponsibility for looking after them. Fodder and concentrates for feeding the bullocks were supplied by the Society. Out of the five pumping sets, group A had two 10 h.p. pumping sets, groups B, C and D had one 12 h.p., 10 h.p. and 8 h.p pumping set each respectively. For the year 1953-51* the tractor of the Society was used by the groups in turn. Each group had its own tractor driver and paid for the fuel.
In the year 195*1-55 the Society purchased another tractor along with implements, a trailer, a thresher and installed two more pumping sets with the help of a subsidy which it got from the department of cooper ation. This subsidy covered 50 per cent of the cost of the tractor and the pumping sets, 75 per cent of the cost of the thresher and the whole of the cost of the trailer. Since July 195*+* the groups have been pay ing to the Society for the use of the tractor at the rate of Rs 3 and Rs 4.5 per acre for tractorization with the cultivator and disc-plough respectively. The Society pays for the fuel and the secretary and the treasurer drive the two tractors.
Accounts
The working cultivation expenses of the groups other than wages which account for one-fourth of the gross produce of the groups are met out of the remaining three-fourths of the gross produce. What remains, after this is transferred to the Society, is the net profit of the group. Income and Expenditure account is maintained separately for each group "by the treasurer/accountant of the Society. The
Society incurs expenditure on the salary of the secretary, the treasurer and the mechanic, repair of machinery and implements, pay ment of land revenue, interest on loans, travelling expenses of staff and entertainment. All other expenses are incurred by the group.
Relations with the State
Besides substantial loans, the Society has received subsidies from the government from time to time amounting to Rs 28,867. In the year 1950-51, the Department of Agriculture, Pepsu gave a loan of
Rs 12,300 under the grow-more-food campaign for the purchase of a tractor along with implements. This amount covered 75 per cent of the cost. This loan had been repaid by January 1956 in ten six-monthly installments. In the same year, the Cooperative Department gave a subsidy of Rs 150 and the Department of Agriculture, Pepsu gave a subsidy of Rs 3,750 for the installation of three pumping sets. Next year (l950~5l) the Society got a subsidy of Rs 250 from the Cooperative Department. From the Department of Agriculture it got a subsidy of
Rs 1,250 for the installation of another pumping set. It also got a
loan of Rs 2,000 from the Department of Agriculture for the instal
lation of pumping sets. This loan was repaid in 1952* In the year
1953-54 and 1954-55it got subsidies of Rs 3>28oand Rs 1,500 respectively from the Department of Agriculture for the repair of old wells on the condition that the Society spend Rs 125 per well from
its own funds. Individual cultivators in Pepsu were also entitled to
similar help under the grow-more-food campaign. But because of the
Cooperative Farming Society, it appears, that at Parwa village they
got subsidies for a larger number of wells than other villages with family farms. In the year 1954-55 the Society was given a subsidy of
Rs 12,230 by the Cooperative Department for the purchase of tractor with implements, a trailer, a thresher and the installation of two pumping sets. The same year, the Development Department gave a subsi dy of Rs 6,207 for the construction of a go-down. The Society got loans from the Central Cooperative Bank, Phagwara from time to time totalling about Rs 3,000. All this had been repaid by May 1956, after which no loan was taken. The Rehabilitation Department gave a loan of Rs 18,000 at 4 per cent interest to some of the individual members for the purchase of bullocks and another Rs 3>000 for the repair of houses.
The whole of this loan will be paid back by June 1959 when the last, installment is due for payment. TABLE 3.2
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area owned in acres Ho 13 10.5 H.oo 10 7T-5o 5H2
Area taken on batai - - - 3.25 - 3.25 -
Area taken on cash rent --- 3.25 - 3.25 -
Total Area HO 13 10.5 10.50 10 8H.00 5H2
Humber of family workers 2 1 2 2.5 1 8.50 33 Number of hired 0 0 workers 3 1 - - - • 1
Total Number of workers 5 2 2 2.5 1 12.5 3^
Number of Bullocks 5 H 3 H 2 - 35
o\ —a Description of the Farms
Table 3.2 gives the particulars of the farms selected for study.
A detailed study has been made of the input and output of the cooper ative farm and these family farms for the agricultural year 1953-5^
(July 1 to June 30) • Output consists of the value of all the crops raised. Input includes rent of land, human labor (family and hired), bullock labor, seed, manure, depreciation of implements, interest on capital, etc. Net income on basis C is calculated by subtracting input from output. Net income on basis B has been calculated by excluding the imputed value of family labor from input and on basis A by excluding, besides this, interest on owned capital invested in bullocks and implements and the rental value of owned land.
TABLE 3.3
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative For Family Name of Crop Farm A B c D E farms
1 .Food-grains 58.2$ 5^.2$ 6 3 .7$ 55.0$ 68.3$ 60.0$ 58.3^
2 .Fodder 16.8 25.0 31.5 36.0 22.2 2 6.6 27.0
Total of 1 & 2 75.0 79.2 95.2 91.0 90.5 86.6 85.3
3 .Sugar cane 8.U 11.u 2.U 9.0 7.2 6.7 8.7
Cotton 15.5 9.b - - 2.3 6.7 5-7
5.Miscellaneous 1.1 •- 2,k -- - 0.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Pattern of Cropping
Table 3.3 gives a comparison of the pattern of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. Food-grains, fodder crops, sugar cane and cotton are the main groups of crops in this area, food-grains being the most important group both in the cooperative farm and the family farms. For the purpose of this comparison, farms with a higher percentage of cropped area under commercial crops or cash crops and a greater diversity of crops are considered to have a superior pattern of cropping. The percentage of the total cropped area under food-grains in the cooperative farm is about the same as the average for the family farms. But the percentage of the cropped area under fodder crops in the cooperative farm is 16.9 against the average of 27.O for the family farms taken together. It had a smaller percentage of the cropped area under fodder crops than any of the
Family farms, as with its tractor and pumping sets it had to maintain a comparatively smaller number of bullocks. Farm A too had a tractor and a tube-well but as it had eight non-working cattle besides five bullocks, it had a comparatively higher percentage of the cropped area under fodder crops. The percentage of the total cropped area under food-grains and fodder crops taken together varies from 79*2 on farm A to 95.2 on farm B, the average for the family farm being 85.3 against
75.0 for the cooperative farm. The cooperative farm had about the same percentage of the cropped area under sugar cane as the average for the family farms. The suitability of soil and the climate for the growing of sugar cane and the proximity of the sugar mild, at Phagwara, providing a ready market for sugar cane account for the importance of
sugar cane in this area. The percentage of the area under cotton on
the cooperative farm was about three times as high as the average for
the family farms taken together. Two of the family farms, holdings
B and C did not grow any cotton. Farms B and E raised only desi
cotton, while the cooperative farm and farm A raised American cotton
on 77 per cent and 89 per cent of the area under cotton respectively.
Except for a higher percentage of the area under cotton and a lower percentage Tinder fodder crops, the cooperative farm does not show any
superiority over the family farms in respect of pattern of cropping.
TABLE 3.4
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B CD E farms
1 0 9*^ 120.0 109.6 105.7 132.5 100.0 115.8
Intensity of Cropping
Table 3 .1+ compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. Against the average intensity of cropping of 115.8 of the family farms, the cooperative farm with an area of over six times the total area of all the family farms had an
intensity of cropping of 109.^. This was lower than the intensity of cropping of any of the family farms, D, A or B. The members of this huge cooperative farm did not have double-cropping to the same extent as the family peasant owners. The tendency of the percentage intensity of 71
cropping to decrease with increase in the size of the holding is also 2 observed in the Economics of Farm Management Studies in the Punjab.
Farm D with 2.5 family workers and four bullocks and an area of 10.5
acres showed the highest intensity of cropping (132.5 ) of all the
farms. The intensity of cropping on the batai portion of this holding
(3*25 acres) was 100.0 while the intensity of cropping for the rest
of the farm (7.25 acres) which was partly owned and partly taken on
cash rent was 147.0. The other family farm with a distinctly higher
intensity of cropping than the cooperative farm is holding A with five
workers, five bullocks, and a tractor operating on an area of 40 acres.
Only holding C, with two family workers and three bullocks and holding
E with one worker and two bullocks had a lower intensity of cropping
than the cooperative farm.
TABLE 3.5
Yield Per Acre of Different Crops (irrigated) in Maunds
Average Name of Cooperative A B c D E for family crop Farm Owned Batai farms
Wheat 12.7 15.0 16.7 17.8 7.3 6.2 13.8 14.2
Sugar cane 217.3 456.9 417.0 560.0 240.0 450.0 441.4
Maize 9.6 12.0 12.5 11.3 9.1 - 20.0 12.7
American Cotton 7.0 11.8 -- - -- 11.8
Cotton desi 4.9 6.0 - - 3.0 - 12.0 4.8
Gram 10.4 10.0 - - - - 8.0 9.6
^0p. cit., pp. 43-44. Yield of Crops
Table 3*5 compares the per acre yield of crops of different farms. The most important crops of the cooperative farm are wheat,
American cotton, sugar cane and maize and the yield per acre of all these crops on the cooperative farm is lower than the average for the family farms. With the exception of wheat and maize on farm D, the yield per acre of all these four crops is lower on the cooperative ■A farm than any of the family farms. The yield per acre of desi cotton and gram is slightly higher for the cooperative farm than the average for the family farms. However, for desi cotton two of the three family farms which raised this crop had a higher yield per acre than the cooperative farm. The members of the cooperative farm, it appears, did not cultivate the land with the same care and personal interest as family cultivators working on their own lands. This finding contrasts with the statement, "The yield per acre on the farm is higher than that in the neighbouring family holdings. They produce about 8 to 12 mds. of wheat per ghumaon (or 12 to 18 mds. per standard acre) as against 6 to 7 mds. in other individual holdings."3
■3 ^Studies in Cooperative Farming, Programme Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission, Government of India (December 1956),, p. 227. 73
TABLE 3-6
Input, Output and Net Income (On Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C D E farms
Input 226.5 353.4 237.2 310.8 255.5 203.8 300.0
Output 190.4 322.8 227.8 288.0 170.5 197.7 269.8
Net Income -(36.1) -(30.6 ) -(9.4) -(2 2 .8 ) -(8 5 .0 ) -(6 .1 ) -(3 0 .2 )
Net Income Per Acre
Table 3.6 compares the input, output and net income per acre of the cooperative farm with the family farms. The cooperative farm with an area of 542 acres had a total output of the value of Rs 103,210 and an input of Rs 122,787. Against this the five family farms with a total area of 84 acres had a total output of Rs 22,666 and input of
Rs 25,20 3 . The average output, input and net income per acre of the
cooperative farm is lower than the corresponding average per acre for all the family farms taken together. The net income per acre of the
cooperative farm is lower than that of any of the family farms except holding D. The yield of land depends on the care with which the farmer
cultivates the soil and protects the crop and the members of the
cooperative farm did not give the same care and have the same personal
interest As the owners of the family farms. Farm D showed the lowest net income per acre of all the farms. An area of four acres only was
owned by the cultivator, the remaining 6.5 acres having been taken on batai and cash rent. The area taken on batai was not cultivated with proper care. The standard of cultivation on the area on cash rent and the area owned was also low and the yield per acre of aid the crops was the lowest of all the family farms.
TABLE 3.7
Net Incane in Rupees Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C D E Farms
Basis B 0.5 5.2 2k.B 61.7 20.7 38.U 21.2
Basis A 101.8 1U2.9 85.7 156.6 75.0 126.6 125.8
Table 3.7 gives the net income on basis B and A. For working out the net income on basis C in Table 3 .6 , all the items of expenditure are included in the costs. This is necessary for a comparison of the net return on the different farms. All the farms show a net loss per acre on basis C. In order to see how these fanners are carrying on from year to year, net income per acre has been worked out In Table 3.7 above on basis B by excluding the imputed value of family labor from expenditure. The net imcome on basis B is positive on all the farms.
On basis C, holding D shows the lowest net income per acre of all the farms. But as family labor accounts for Rs 1,110 out of a total input of Rs 2,533, "the net income on basis B on this farm is higher than that of holding A or the cooperative farm. Family labor accounts for only 9*8 per cent and 16.5 per cent of the input of these farms respectively while on farm B it accounts for 1+3.8 per cent of the input. The net return has further "been calculated on "basis A "by excluding "besides imputed value of family labor, the interest on capital invested in bullocks and implements and the rental value of owned land. This gives us the farm business income which is the real measure of the earning of the farmer and his family for management, risk, labor and use of land and capital. TABLE 3.8
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the Farm AB C D E family farm
1. Human Labor 17.90 21.80 29.80 28.70 41.40 24.20 25-90
2. Bullock Labor 14.2 7.2 27.1 32.9 24.9 15.9 15.6
3. Rent of Land 42.2 28.2 33.7 25.7 22.0 39.3 28.9
4. Machinery 17.4 33-7 -- - 18.9
Total of 1, 2} 3 and 4 91.7 90.9 90.6 87.3 88.3 79.^ 89.3
5. Agricultural implements 0.5’ 1.0 1.4 3-4 ^.9 ^.9 2.1
6. Seed 2.9 2.5 3.8 2.6 3.6 6.5 3.1
7* Fertilizers 1.4 0,9 0.7 1.3 1.6 - 0.9
8. Others 3-5 4.7 3.5 5.4 1.6 9.2 4.6
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
o\ 77
Components of Input
Table 3.8 gives the components of the total value of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Rent of land occupies the most important place in the input of the cooperative farm and that of all the family farms taken together, next in importance being human labor. Human labor forms a lower percentage of the input of the cooperative farm than that of any of the family farms. The use of the tractor resulted in some saving of human labor. The percentage of human labor in the inputs of the family farms varies from 4l.4 to 21.8 depending upon the strength of the family of the family farmers. Of all the family farms, human labor accounts for the lowest percentage of the input in farm A where a tractor was maintained.
Bullock labor accounts for a lower percentage of the cooperative farm than that of all the family farms taken together or of any of the family farms except farm A. The use of the tractors in farm A and the cooperative farm accounts for the saving of bullock labor. Machinery accounts for 17.U per cent of the input of the cooperative farm and
33.7 per cent of the input of farm A, the only family farm which had a tractor. As this farm maintained a tractor on an area of Uo acres only, the cost of machinery forms a higher percentage of its input than that of the cooperative farm. Human labor, bullock labor, rent of land and machinery together account for 89.3 per cent of the total value of input of all the family farms taken together and 91*7 per cent of the value of the input of the cooperative farm. The percentage of these four items on the family farms varies from 7 9*^ per cent on farm E to 90*9 per cent on farm A. Chemical fertilizers were used by all the farms except farm E. The credit for this goes to the staff of the National Extension Service Block, Phagwara for the distribution of fertilizers in the area. The farmer E did not take to cultivation of
land seriously as he was engaged in the supply of milk to the neighbouring town of Phagwara. As the manure droppings of three milch cattle and two working cattle were applied on the land no chemical fertilizers were used by him.
TABLE 3.9
Net Inccxae Per Worker in Rupees on Basis C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C D E farms
Basis C -(575.8) -(2kk.ll) -(6l.O) -(12 0 .0 ) -(157.2) -(60.5) -(203.0 )
Basis B 71.5 kl.6 151.0 32k. 0 86.8 383.5 lk2.3
Basis A 1,622.2 l,lk3.0 556.8 822.0 330.0 1,265.5 8k5.0
Net Income Per Worker
Table 3*9 gives the net income per worker on three bases. Net income per worker on basis C gives the return per worker for management only. The net income on basis B gives the return per worker for manual labor and management. Net income on basis A gives the return per worker for manual labor, management and ownership of land. The return per worker for management (basis C) is negative in all the cases and as a result the return for management and manual labor together
(basis B) is lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates.
These farmers, evidently would be better off as field laborers, although few of them realized this, for they do not keep farm
accounts, and with them farming is a way of life and not a business
proposition. But even if they realized this, their sense of social
prestige would not permit them to warh as wage earners on other
people’s farms in the village or in the workshops and factories in
the neighbouring industrial tcum of Phagwara.
TABLE 3.10
Number of Permanent Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C D E farms
6.3 12.5 15.U 19.0 23.0 10.0 lit. 9
Saving of Labor
Table 3.10 gives the number of workers per hundred acres. The
cooperative farm had fewer farm workers per hundred acres of area than
any of the family farms. The number of workers maintained by it per hundred acres was less than half the average of the family farms. This was partly due to the use of machinery. Farms A and B engaged three
and one hired laborers respectively. Farmers D and C with the largest number of farm workers per hundred acres had larger families and did not engage any hired laborers. 80
TABLE 3.11
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B CD E farms
6.5 12.5 30.8 28.6 33.1 20.0 2 1 .1+
Saving of Bullock Labor
Table 3*11 gives the number of bullocks per hundred acres. The number of bullocks per hundred acres of land maintained by the cooper ative farm was less than one-third the average for all the five family farms take nr.together. This economy in the use of bullocks was the result of the use of machinery and a more rational use of bullock labor. Of the family farms, holding A had the smallest number of bullocks per hundred acres of land as it had a tractor. However, as the tractor had been purchased just before the beginning of the year under study, it had not been possible to dispose of any of the five bullocks with the result that the number of bullocks maintained by this farm is double the corresponding number for the cooperative farm.
TABLE 3.12
Investment in Rupees Per Acre on Machinery and Improved Implements
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C P E ____ farms
U9.1 1+31.3 3.1+ 4.7 2.1+ 8.0 207.7 8 1
Investment in Machinery and Improved Implements
Table 3*12 gives the investment in machinery and improved
implements. The: term 'machinery* here stands for power-driven
machinery, like the tractor and its accessories, tube-we 11s and
irrigation pumping sets. Improved implements include iron plough,
rabi drill, single row cotton drill, triphali, bar-harrow, chaff-
cutter, iron sugar cane crusher and carts with pneumatic tyres.
Machinery was used by the cooperative farm and farm A. The investment
per acre in machinery is higher on farm A than the cooperative farm
because with its area of UO acres only, a tractor along with imple ments and a pimping set were maintained. This also accounts for the
higher average investment on machinery on all the farms taken
together. Chaff-cutter was the only improved implement used by the
other four family farms. None of them used any machinery.
Progress of Cooperative Farm
The members worked in one group for a little over two years up
to June 1952. For the year 1952-53 they divided themselves into two
groups and for the next year into four groups. In the year 195^-55,
some of the members formed sub-groups within the four groups while
others started individual cultivation. The smallest of the groups
did not render any accounts to the Society for that year. With effect
from July 1955, all the members have taken to individual cultivation.
The members got land from the groups according to their shares in the total allotment of land. They have demarcated the individual plots by mutual agreement. The bullocks were evaluated and distributed among 82
the members in proportion to the land allotted to them. The members
keep all the produce with them and pay to the Society land revenue
and their shares of the installment of loan repayments and other
dues. However, some Joint accounts of the Society are maintained on
paper by the secretary/accountant for the satisfaction of the
officials of the Department of Cooperation.
All cooperative societies pay an audit fee which is assessed as
a percentage of the profits to the Department of Cooperation. As
Chakota was not paid by this Society to the members, it was shown as part of the profits in the balance sheet. This inflated the profits and as a result the audit fee was assessed at Rs 3>383 for the year 1953“5^* The Society had represented that these charges were exhorbitant and that they should be required to pay only the actual cost of audit. If chakota had been excluded from the profits, the
Society would have shown a loss in which case the Society would be required to pay only the minimum amount of audit fee of Rs 1 5 . In subsequent years this difficulty has been gotten over by showing
'Chakota Payable* as a separate item in the balance sheet and excluding it'.from profits. This difficulty is also experienced by other cooper ative farming societies who sometimes do not keep accurate accounts in order to show a net loss in the balance sheet so as to avoid payment of high audit fee. The position would improve if the basis for the assessment of audit fee is changed.
One of the tractors was disposed of in 1957* The other tractor is maintained by the Society. Members pay to the Society for its use on an hourly basis. The secretary/accountant who is paid Rs 60 per
month also works as the tractor driver. For the year 1958* the tractor has been out of use as it needs repairs. The mechanic who
looks after the pumping sets is paid by the groups at the rate of
Rs 15 per month for each pumping set. His wages and the costs of repairs are Shared by the members in proportion to the area of their
land. Each member pays for the fuel for the time he uses the pumping
set. A Cooperative Credit Society was established in the village in
the year 1957* with ho members. Out of these, 25 are also members
of the cooperative farm. On January 23 * 1959* a minister of the
Government of India visited the neighbouring village of Ucha Pind where
a Cooperative Farming Society has been functioning since May 1955* In
the course of his public speech there, he is reported to have said
that it had been resolved at the Hagpur Congress Session that
cooperative joint farming would be the future pattern of the agrarian
economy of India and all help would, therefore, be given to joint
Cooperative Farming Societies in the country. Since then, some of the members of the Cooperative Farming Society at Parwa have been thinking
of reviving joint cultivation of land. But they want the Society to
be split into four or five cooperative farms.
Results of the Investigation
The comparison of the working and accounts of the cooperative
farm with the family farms for the year 1953"5^* has shown the
superiority of the cooperative farm over the family farms in respect
of pattern of cropping, use of fertilizers, improved implements and machinery and economy in the use of human and bullock labor. While the
Society maintained only 35 bullocks in the year 1953"5^> now in 1959 with individual cultivation about 100 bullocks are maintained by the members. There has also been a corresponding increase in the agricultural implements like bullock carts, chaff-cutters and ploughs. But the intensity of cropping, the yield per acre of important crops and the net income per acre for the year 1953“5^ are all lower on the cooperative farm than the corresponding averages for the family farms.
Although the Sewa Nagar Cooperative Society has now been in existence for about nine years, joint cultivation of land did not work for over five years. A study of the progress of the Society reveals two sets of factors, one working for the success of the Society, the other resulting in its giving up of joint farming operations.
Causes of Failure
The following factors explain why joint fearning operations were given up:
1. On account of the huge size of the cooperative farm, the managing committee was faced with seme difficult problems. While the committee was able to attend to the dealings of the Society with the outside world, it was unable to plan and manage the day-to-day farm ing operations successfully. It was found difficult to assign tasks among the members equitably and to see that these were carried out.
A whole-time trained manager might have been in a better position to deal with these problems. 2. All the members were crwner-cultivators who had always been their own masters on their private farms in the West Punjab and were not used to taking orders from others. As members of the cooperative farm, most of them felt like wage earners, as they did not have any voice in the management. As soon as land had been broken by the
Society and brought under the plough they wanted to take to individual cultivation.
3. The system of wage payment at uniform rates for all types of work did not give any incentive for hard work and most of the members did not work on the cooperative farm with the same consci entiousness as they would on their private farms. Introduction of a system of work-day units was ruled out in view of the difficulties of measurement and evaluation of different types of work and keeping of records. Moreover, it was felt that differences in the member's wages would result in complaints on the part of the members whose remuneration would be less. Division into groups did not improve matters and ultimately members took to individual cultivation.
Factor Leading Toward Success
The achievements of the Society are in large measure due to the leadership of the president who has a strong hold on the members and has influence with the government.
The Society has-been getting liberal financial help from the government in the form of subsidies and loans.
The officials of the Departments of Cooperation, Agriculture and Community Development have been giving the Society technical 86 assistance and guidance.
The allotment of land in the name of the Society has held the members together all this time and it has not been possible for any one of them to leave the Society. If the land had been allotted to the individual members, they would have taken to individual cultivation much earlier. In fact, one of the factors which has prevented the liquidation of the Society so far, is the fear on the part of the members, that if the Society is liquidated the land which has been allotted in the name of the Society may be allotted by the
Rehabilitation Department to other displaced persons and they may have to shift to same other place.
Achievements
The most important achievements of the Society are:
1. Repair of all the houses in the village which had been badly damaged before their occupation by the Society so as to make them habitable, and their allotment to individual, member families according to their requirements,
2. Breaking of land which had been neglected for a number of years after the partition of the country by the temporary allottees,
3. Installation of pumping sets for irrigation purposes,
If. Mechanization of some of the farming operations,
5. The use of improved seed and fertilizers which the Society obtained with the help of the Rational Extension Service Organization,
6 . Supply of wheat seed to the Department of Agriculture, Pepsu for distribution to individual cultivators, T» The starting of a Primary School in 1951 and running it for about two years till the government took it over,
8 . Running a common mess for the member families for about
15 months,
9. Ban in the village on drinking, smoking, gambling and litigation, and
10. Sanction of substantial loans for building up a model village. Chapter IV
GAGRA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
This study relates to the Gagra Cooperative Farming Society
Ltd., Gagra, and five family farms in the same village. Gagra is situated at a distance of about three miles from the Tehsil town of
Jagraon in the Ludhiana district.
Origin
The Society was registered in December 1950 with 16 members owning 200 standard acres,- .all of whom were displaced landholders frcm the Lyallpur district in Pakistan. The main motives for starting the
Society were (l) a desire on the part of one of the leading members to get the benefit of the concessions given by the government to Cooper ative Farming Societies; (2) to get a substantial loan for the purchase of tractor and bullocks for breaking the land which had been left uncultivated for some years, and installation of tube-wells for irrigation; and (3 ) a realization on the part of the members that individually it would not be possible to bring the land under culti vation with their meagre resources.
Terms of Agreement Between the Society and the Members
1. Land was handed over to. the Society for a period of ten years, before which a member could not get his land back.
88 2 . At the end of ten years, if the Society was to he liquidated, members would not have any lien on a particular plot of land, hut there would he a fresh annawari valuation of land for distribution among the members. This provision was entered so that the members might not be particular about permanent improvement on their respective plots of land.
3. Members were to get upto a maximum of nisaf batai as rent from the Society.
Resources
An amount of Rs 10,000 was raised as share capital at the rate of Rs 50 per acre. The maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed at Rs 15,000 by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab and the Society got a loan of Rs 12,000 to start with from the Jagraon
Cooperative Union at the rate of per cent. A concession of
1 per cent was given to the Society as the Union generally charged
5^ per cent for such loans. An amount of Rs 16,000 was raised as deposits from members and non-members related to the members, at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. In the beginning, the total working capital amounted to Rs 38,000.
Farm Operations
Farming operations were started in March 1951 and were carried on with the help of permanent as well as hired laborers. Eight family workers were engaged on the farm at Rs k5 per month. Out of them one was the managing director, two were tractor drivers, one engine driver, three ploughmen and one general supervisor. All of them were 90 paid the same monthly wages, irrespective of the nature, quality and hours of work. Normally this arrangement would not he satisfactory and there should he some system of work-day units. But it was pointed
out hy the members that if the earnings of the family members for the work of the farm differed, it would create ill-feeling among them.
There were four other permanent laborers engaged at Rs 60 per month.
If a laborer absented himself for one day his pay was deducted from his monthly wages. But if he did not absent himself for more than
15 days in the year, he got a refund in pay for that period in the form of a bonus. If a laborer was never absent, he got a bonus equal to 15 days* pay.
For harvesting of wheat and winnowing straw, the casual labor was. paid at the rate of 3*5 seers per maund. For picking of cotton, casual labor whether provided by the family members or outsiders was paid at the rate of Rs 1.5 per maund. The income of the members was supplemented to the extent of about Rs 100 per year, on account of picking of cotton by the women-folk. Hoeing was sometimes done on a contract basis.
The Society used a Fordson Major tractor 28-32 h.p. which was purchased in August 1951 along with accessories, a plough, and a trailer. Two pumping sets, 10 h.p. each and one U h.p. engine for chaff-cutting were also installed at a total cost of Rs 7,000. In addition, six bullocks were purchased at a total price of Rs 3,500 and an amount of Rs 2,000 was spent on the barn, storeroom and cattle shed. 91
Admini strati on
According to the "by-laws, the management of the farm was the
responsibility of the General Body and the executive committee. One
of the members of the Society, who was an Inspector of Cooperative
Societies supervised the working of the Society as its honorary
secretary and maintained the accounts for the first year. He had a hold on most of the members of the Society and the Society was
organized under his leadership. But his chief difficulty was that he
could attend to the work of the Society only on week ends and other holidays. His experience and knowledge of the working of Cooperative
Societies were a great asset to the managing committee of the Society.
For 1952-53 the Society appointed a manager at Rs 125 per month. This man was a Sub-inspector of Cooperative Societies whose services were
lent to the Society. But he was recalled by the government after a few months. For 1953-5^ again the honorary secretary maintained the accounts, but he emphasized the need for a whole-time paid manager who should not be a member, for the successful working of the Society. TABLE 4.1
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area owned in acres 53 25 21 - 5.5 104.5 220
Area taken on batai - - - 18 - 18 -
Area taken on cash rent - -- ■ - 4.0 4 -
Total Area 53 25 21 18 9.5 126.5 220
Number of family workers 1 2 1 2.5 2 8.5 8
Number of hired workers 2 0.5 1 - - 3.5 4
Total Number of workers 3 2.5 2 2.5 2 12.0 12
Number of Bullocks 4 4 2 3 2 15 6 93
Description of the Farms
Table 4.1 gives particulars of the farms in Gagra selected for
study. The tenant on farm C who got one-fourth of the gross yield of crops provided one bullock, one adult laborer (self) and half of the other inputs including water rates. The landowner provided all the land, one laborer, one bullock and half of the other inputs.
TABLE 4.2
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family Farm A BCD E farms
- 80.5 91.0 10T .0 89.3 108.3 100.0 97.0
Intensity of Cropping
Table 4.2 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. The cooperative farm had a lcwer intensity of cropping than any of the family farms.
TABLE If.3
Pattern of Cropping
Cooperative farm ABC D E
Wheat and Gram 5 6 .5$ >+7.9$ 51.5# 2 6 .7$ 48.7$ 31.6$ Cotton 28.3 20.8 11.7 16.0 20.5 15.8 Maize 3 .If 2.1 9.7 13.3 9.0 5.2 Fodder Crops 10.7 29.2 23.k 44.0 21.8 42.1 Miscellaneous 1.1 - 3.7 - - ... 5.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Pattern of Cropping
Table 1+.3 gives the pattern of cropping. Cereals, cotton and fodder crops were the main crops in this area. The cooperative farm had a higher percentage of cropped area under wheat and cotton than any of the family farms. This was possible, as it needed a smaller area under fodder crops. As a result of partial mechanization, a com paratively smaller number of bullocks had to be maintained. Although the percentage of area under fodder crops was less than half of that in holding A, B and D and about one-fourth of that in holding C and D, fodder was supplied to the members for their milch cattle. In holding
C a higher percentage of the cropped area was under fodder, as the bullocks as well as milch cattle of both the landlord and the tenant had to be fed. In the case of holding E, the peasant maintained a minimum unit of two bullocks, in addition to one buffalo and two non-working cattle.
TABLE 4.U
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds
Average Name of Cooperative for family the Crop farm A B C D E farms
American Cotton (Irrigated) .. 17.5 17.5 12.0 13.3 15.0 12.3 15.^ Maize (Irrigated) .. 20.0 14.0 22.0 18.0 18.3 18.0 18.8 Wheat (Irrigated) .. 23.0 19.3 21.5 18.5 16.0 16.7 18.5 Wheat and Gram (Unirrigated). 11.7 7.0 9.0 10.0 7.7 - 7.9 Yield of Crops
Table 4.4 compares the crop yield per acre of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The yield per acre of these crops in the cooperative farm was higher than the yield in the family farm. Better preparation of the soil with the help of the tractor, better supply of irrigation water from the tube-well than from the Persian wheels and use of sufficient manure are among the important causes of this.
TABLE 4.5
Input, Output and Net Income (On Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family Farm A BC DE farms
Input 206.8 150.8 190.3 168.U 209.1 250.1 177-3
Output 249.4 186.3 196.1 144.8 211.2 181.8 184.5
Net Income 42.6 35.5 5.8 -(2 3 .6 ) 2.1 -(68.3 ) 7.2
Net Income
Table 4.5 gives the input, output and net income on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm with an area of 220 acres had an output of the value of Rs 54,864 and an input of
Rs ^5*505• Against this, the family farms with a total area of 126.5 had an output of Rs 23*344 and an input of Rs 22,426.5. The net income per acre of the cooperative farm is higher than the net income on basis
C of any of the family farms. Two of the family farms showed a negative net income on basis C. The smallest of the farms showed the lowest net income on basis C. 96
TABLE 4.6
Net Income Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family Farm A BCD E farms
Basis B 62.2 50.5 53.8 -(7.M 68.8 58.0 44.7
Basis A 133.0 119.5 124.9 68.2 72.3 102.4 104.3
Table 4.6 gives the net income of the farms on basis B which excludes the imputed value of family labor from the costs and basis A which excludes besides this, the rent of owned land and interest on owned capital. The average net income per acre on basis B of the family farms (Rs 44.7) is higher than the net income per acre of the cooperative farm on basis C (Rs 42.6). This comparison is meaningful as the marginal cost of family labor on the family farm is zero. While family labor is free of cost on the family farm, working members and their dependents who work on the cooperative farm are paid wages.
TABLE 4.7
Net Income in Rupees Per Worker on Bases C, B and A ______Cooperative for family ______Farm______A______B______C______D_____ E farms
Basis C 780.1 626.3 58.4 -(248.0) 1 5 .O -(324.5) 171.9
Basis B 1,140.1 893.0 538.4 -( 7 8 .0 ) 495.0 275.5 484.5
Basis A 2 ,438.3 2 ,110.3 1,248.8 716.5 520.6 486.5 1 ,096.7
Table 4.7 gives the net income per worker on three bases. The net income on basis B which gives the return per worker for labor and 97
management is lower on all the family farms except farm A than the
prevailing rate of wages in the village. These farmers would be better
off as wage earners. But their sense of social prestige would not
allow them to work as wage earners even if employment opportunities were available.
TABLE 4.8
Number of Permanent Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B c D E farms
5.46 5.66 10.0 9-52 13-89 23.53 9.5
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Tables 4.8 and 4.9 give the number of workers and bullocks per
hundred acres held by the cooperative farm and the family farms. The
cooperative farm had a smaller number of workers per acre than any of
the family farms. The number of family workers depends upon the size
of the family and not on the size of the family farm. For lack of
alternative employment these persons remain under-employed on the farm.
TABLE 4.9
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family famn A B C DE farms
2.7 7.6 16.0 9.5 16.7 23.5 11.8
The cooperative farm had the smallest number of bullocks per
hundred acres of land as it had a tractor. Otherwise as most of the farms in the village were above the plough-unit size, there was not
much scope for economy in the number of bullocks maintained as a result
of the pooling of land in a cooperative farm.
TABLE U.10
Investment Per Acre in Rupees in Improved Implements and Machinery
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B C D E farms
63.9 0.5 1.2 2.6 1.0 1.5 1.1
Table ^.10 compares the investment per acre in machinery and
improved implements of the cooperative farm and the family farms.
Machinery was used by the cooperative farm only. Chaff-cutter was the
only improved type implement .used by the family farms.
Programme of the Cooperative Farming Society
1. The Society installed two tube-wells turning ^0 acres of
barani land into chahi land and brought eight acres of Banjar Kadim
(not cultivated for eight successive harvest) land under the plough.
The remaining 65 acres of barani land could not be irrigated as these were scattered in fragments. The members were looking forward to the
consolidation of holdings in the village, to turn the entire barani
land into chahi land by installing tube-wells.
2. The members were planning to start a dairy farm which would
result in a definite improvement in the handling of milk and sani tation. 99
3* The Society was t hi liking of installing hosiery machines as
a cottage industry to keep the vomen-folk occupied in their leisure
hours. This is very important for the success of the cooperative
farms. Unfortunately, in none of the cooperative farms in the Punjab
studied by the author is there any provision for any organized
subsidiary industries.
U. The Society proposed to reserve about 12 acres of land for
gardening and vegetable farming for the consumption of the members in
order to improve their diet.
But the Society failed to get any financial accommodation
or technical advice from the government for carrying on the above
programme.
Difficulties Experienced by the Society
1. In the very first year the Society suffered a loss of about
Rs 6,000 in the sale of cotton due to the indifference of the Depart
ment of Agriculture. The Department refused to recognize the Society
and as such did not give any taccavi loan to the Society. Moreover,
they failed to render any technical advice for the demonstration plots.
2. The land of the Society was scattered in eight different
plots. It was, therefore, difficult to keep watch over the crops.
3. The wells of the Society were used in common with other
individual landholders. This stood in the way of their full uti
lization for irrigating the fields of the Society at the proper time.
!+. The maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed very low 100
at Rs 15,000. The application for increase in the maximum credit limit was not accepted.
5. For the year 1952-53 the Society had a whole-time manager who was a Sub-inspector of the Cooperative Department. His services were lent to the Society. Although the Society paid his emoluments,
the Assistant Registrar wrote to the Society to remove him or stand
the cancellation of the Society. His removal was a great loss to the
Society.
6. The Society received a great set-back on account of the
consolidation operations in the village which were completed in
July 1951+. The members were not allotted land at one place but at
different places. This was a death-blow to the Society and the
members took to family farming fran the year 195^-55•
7. This cooperative farm as most of the others in the Punjab
did not have any go-down for storing its produce. A comparison of the
rates at which the main crops were sold by the cooperative farm and
the individual farmers does not show any advantage in favor of the
former. The cooperative farm as well as the individual farmers sold
their produce just after harvest in the Jagraon mandi at practically
identical prices. Actually, it was seen, that the surplus produce of
the cooperative farm was directly transported from the threshing floor
to the mandi, as there was no go-down to store the produce. The
Society could not store the produce in the house of any member, even
if one had sufficient space for stocking it. Some of the individual
cultivators, however, might stock their surplus produce in their
houses and sell it when the prices were favorable. 101
8. One of the members owning 2k standard acres left the Society at the end of the first year and another member with 33 standard acres took to family farming at the end of two years. Although the members had pledged their land with the Society for a period of ten years, it was not found possible to enforce this provision, as the Society could
3 not function smoothly if it retained unwilling members forcibly and did not release the land of such members. Similar is the experience of other Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab. The by-laws of the Societies make provision for a minimum number of years for which members cannot get back their land; but in practice members have been getting their land released for family farming on leaving the Society.
Conclusion
The Gagra Cooperative Farming Society was one of the most successful Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab. All the land of the members was pooled, and two-thirds of the workers on the farm were members or their dependents. The yield per acre and per man was much higher than in the case of the individual farmers in the same village. But inspite of all this, after a brief period of three years, the members took to family farming. Indifference of the government, insufficient credit facilities, and failure of the consoli dation department to allot land to the members at one place contributed to the dissolution of the Society. But the most important cause was the lack of the cooperative spirit. The members realized that they were getting better returns, but they preferred to work independently on their own plots although that might mean a lower income. Chapter V
JALLOWAL AMD KINGRA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
This case study compares the working of the Jallowal and Kingra
Cooperative Farming Society for the year 1952-53 when land was under joint farming with the working of the four constituent family farms into which the farm was divided for the year 1953-5^.
Origin
The Jallowal and Kingra Cooperative Farming Society, Ltd. at
Jallowal Post Office Kala Bakra, district Jullundur was registered on
July 6, 1951 with 23 members and a share capital of Rs 10,650 and an area of 297 acres. Wine of the members were displaced landowners from the Lyallpur district, the remaining 14 being the members of their families. The area of operation of the cooperative farm extended over the two neighbouring villages of Jallowal and Kingra, one of the landowners having his land in Kingra while the remaining eight had their land in Jallowal. These displaced families got possession of this land in the year 1950* ®ie land had not been cultivated for three years before this and was, therefore, infested with weeds. Some of the members were retired army officers. They organized the cooper ative farm as they realized that working separately it would not be possible to break the land with bullock power. Pooling of resources and financial help from the government was needed for the purchase of tractors and installation of tube-wells.
102 103
Terms of Agreement
The members leased their land to the Society for a period of
20 years.The value of each share was Rs 10. The members were allotted shares in proportion to the number of standard acres owned by each. The liability of each member was limited to ten times the value of the shares held by him.
Finances
The maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed at Rs 25,000 to start with and the Society got this amount as a loan from the
Central Cooperative Bank, Jullundur. In July 1952 the maximum credit limit was raised to Rs 33,000. Upto March 1953, "the Society had borrowed a total amount of Rs 39,800 out of which an amount of
Rs 30,252 was over-due in July 195^* The Society was unable to pay the installments regularly as the assessment of installments started shortly after the borrowing and sufficient time was not given to repay the loan out of income. Low yield of crops was given as another cause of over-due loans.
Equipment
The Society purchased a tractor with implements for Rs 10,500 early in 1952. In the same year, a tube-we 11 with six inches pipe was installed in the land in Jallowal for Rs 13,000 while another with four inches pipe was installed in Kingra. Four bullocks and work buffaloes were purchased in the year 1951* The cooperative farm needed another tractor but it could not get the finances to purchase it. 1C*
Labor
Six members worked on the farm for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53*
One of them worked as the manager at Rs 60 per month. The other five were paid Rs ko per month each. There were six hired laborers at
Rs 30 per month plus free meals. The accountant who was a college
graduate and had served as Sub-inspector of Cooperative Societies for
five years was paid Rs 90 per month. The cooperative farm had a provision that if a non-member employee completed a year's service with the Society and contributed 6.25 per cent of his monthly wages,
the Society would contribute an equal amount, and he would get the whole of this amount at the end of the year. The intention of this
provision was to discourage the employees from leaving in the middle
of the year. Sane of the employees did not care to benefit by this
provision.
Facilities Given to Members
According to the by-laws the General Body was to decide the rate
of dividend on land every year. For the first year the meeting of
the General Body decided to pay the members at the rate of Rs 25 per
standard acre. Later in the absence of profits, it was decided not
to pay the members any dividend in cash. They were given only ten
seers of wheat per standard acre in June 1952. In the second year
(1952-5 3 ) the members were given ten seers of rice per standard
acre in December 1952 and ten seers of wheat in June 1953* Besides
this, the member families living in the village were given 1.5 acres
of green forage for the milch cattle. 105
Land Reclamation
In 1951 when the Society started operations out of the total area of 297 acres, an area of 50 acres was under the plough. Luring the first year 1951-52, the Society reclaimed 1^7 acres of land.
Luring the year 1952-53 an area of 197 acres was under the plough while another U8 acres was reclaimed. The remaining unreclaimed area of 50 acres was brought under the plough by the constituent family farms in the year 1953-5^•
Livision Into Family Farms
In June 1953, the Society needed an amount of Rs 10,000 for the sowing of kharif crops, purchase of four bullocks and replacement of one engine. The request of the Society for increasing the maximum credit limit from Rs 33,000 to Rs 58,000 was turned down by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The members did not agree to make any further investment in the cooperative enterprise. It was decided to farm the land on an individual basis and divide the assets and liabilities of the cooperative farm among the members. The tube-well at Jallowal continued to be owned and used cooperatively. The tube-we11 attendant was paid Rs 60 per month. The share of each member, except the member from Kingra who got the second tube-well, was in proportion to the area of land owned by him. Each member used his own fuel and paid his share of the maintenance costs. This arrangement seemed to work satisfactorily. The cooperative farm was divided into the following four family farms:
Farm A. The area of this farm was 136 acres. Three brothers 106 owning 100 acres rented an area of 36 acres belonging to another member on an annual cash rent of Rs 1,^50. They received the tractor of the
Society as part of their share of the assets and did not maintain any bullocks for the year 1953“5^* Two family workers and three hired workers were employed on the farm. Out of the area of 100 acres owned by the three brother an area of 36 acres which was infested with weeds in July 19531 when they started operations as a family farm, was reclaimed during the year 1953“5^«
Farm B . This farm extended over 71 acres of land owned by the member from Kingra. He received the tube-well at Kingra as part of his share of the assets of the Society. The owner's son who was a college graduate managed the farm with the help of three hired workers.
Four working cattle were maintained. An area of lU acres which was infested with weeds was reclaimed during the year 1953-5^•
Farm C . The area of this farm was ^9 acres. Two brothers awn ing U3 acres of land rented six acres of land belonging to one of the other members. Two family workers and two hired workers were employed on the farm for the year 1953-5^. Six working cattle were maintained.
Farm D . The area of this farm was 39 acres owned by one of the members. Two family workers and two hired workers were employed for the year 1953-5U. Four bullocks were maintained. 107
TABLE 5.1
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family Farm A B CD farms
Food-grains 72.7$ 76 .3# 6 8 .9# 77-6$ 7 6.9* 75.2$ Sugar cane 8.0 2.7 17.8 3.0 2.1 5.6 Fodder crops 8.0 10.2 3.1 13.4 7.0 8.8 Miscellaneous 11.3 10.8 10.2 6.0 14.0 10.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 5*1 compares the pattern of cropping of the cooperative i farm for the year 1952-53 with that of the constituent family farms for
the year 1953-54. There seems to he little appreciable change in the pattern of cropping as a result of the division of the cooperative
farm into family farms. None of the constituent farms planted any
sugar-cane in the year 1953-54, as it was the second year of the crop.
The varying proportions of area under sugar cane on the constituent
farms merely reflect the difference in the shares of the constituent
farms in the area planted with sugar cane by the cooperative farm in
the year 1952-53*
TABLE 5.2
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family Farm ______A ______B______C D______farms
76.1 93.0 68.8 68.4 91.6 82.2 108
Intensity of Cropping;
Table 5*2 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm for the year 1952-53 with that of the constituent family farms for the year 1953-5**. Farm B which had only four bullocks which were partly used for breaking lb acres of weed infested land and farm C which could not get enough irrigation water from the common tube-well had a lower intensity of cropping than the cooperative farm. Farm A which had the tractor and farm D which had four bullocks for an area of 39 acres had a higher intensity of cropping than the cooperative farm, with the result that the average intensity of cropping for the constituent farms for the year 1953-5** was higher than that of the cooperative farm for the year 1952-53*
TABLE 5*3
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds
Average Name of Cooperative for family Crop farm A B C D farms
Wheat 10.6 12.5 15.0 12.5 12.2 12.8 Rice 25.0 28.6 2 6.6 25.0 28.8 27.1* Sugar cane 1*05.8 320.0 278.6 210.0 280.0 281.8 Maize 16.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 8.0 15.3
Yield of Crops
Table 5.3 compares the yield per acre of important crops of the cooperative farm for the year 1952-53 with that of the constituent family farms for the year 1953-5**. The family farms had higher yields per acre of wheat and rice than the cooperative farm. This was partly due to use of fertilizers and greater personal attention to crops. The cooperative farm did not use any chemical fertilizers in the year
1952-53, partly "because the members seemed to know that they would he farming their own plots separately next year. Only farm yard manure of the value of Rs 570, besides the manure droppings of six working cattle was used. The four constituent family farms used in the year
1953-54 chemical fertilizers of the total value of Rs l,6l6 and farm yard manure of the value of Rs 190, besides the manure droppings of
20 working cattle. The yield per acre of sugar cane of the family farms was lower as 1953—5^+ was the second year of the crop and proper care of the crop had not been taken between March and June 1953 before the cooperative farm was divided into the family farms in July 1953* '
TABLE 5.4
Input, Output and Net Incme Per Acre on Basis C
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD farms
Input 232.85 189.51 178.55 11+7.89 158.69 173.73 Output 136.55 160.32 172.16 141.88 150.05 157.79 Net Income -(96.30) -(29.19) -( 6.39) -( 6.01) -( 8.64) -(15.94)
Net Income Per Acre and Per Worker
Table 5*4 gives the input, output and net income per acre of the cooperative farm for the year 1952-53 and the constituent family farms for the year 1953*54. The value of the input and output of the cooper ative farm for 1952-53 and those of the constituent family farms for
1953-54 have both been worked out on the basis of the prices prevail ing in the village at the harvest times in the year 1953-54. The 110
cooperative farm -with an area of 197 acres under the plough in 1952-53*
had an output of the value of Rs 26,900 and input of the value of
Rs *15*871. Against this the four constituent family farms vith a
total area of 2I5 acres under the plough in the year 1953-5**- had a
total output of the value of Rs 38,659*13 and an input of the value of
Rs 12,563.85. With a smaller input per acre all the family farms had
a higher output per acre than the cooperative farm vith the result that the cooperative farm showed a greater loss per acre than the family farms.
TABES 5.5
Wet Income Per Worker in Rupees on Basis C
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D farms
-(1,580.92) -(186.5) -(91 .0 ) -(73.67) -(81.5) -(217.1 8 )
Table 5*5 gives the incane per worker of the cooperative farm
and the family farms. The cooperative farm which showed the greatest
loss per worker was, it appears, less efficiently managed than any of
the family farms.
TABES 5.6
Number of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD farms
1.1 1.1 5.6 8.2 10.2 6.1 Ill
TABLE 5.7
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm AB C D farms
2.0 - 5.6 12.2 10.2 U.7
Human and Bullock Labor
Tables 5*6 and 5*7 give the number of farm workers and bullocks per hundred acres of land held. The cooperative farm had a smaller number of workers and bullocks per hundred acres of land held than the family farms. With the division of the cooperative farm into family farms, the number of workers increased from 12 to 18 while that of the bullocks increased from six to 14.
Conclusion
The cooperative farm was organized by displaced landowners with the object of pooling of resources and getting financial help for the purchase of tractors and tube-wells needed for the reclamation of weed infested land which had been out of cultivation for about three years.
During the first year (1951-52) there was great enthusiasm among the members, all of whom were interested in bringing the land under the plough. Difficulties started in the second year when the installments of loans could not be repaid regularly. Further loans were not avail able and the members were not willing to make further investment in the common enterprise. During two years of its life as a cooperative farm, the Society reclaimed 195 acres of land. Inadequate finances, unwillingness of the members to invest in the common enterprise and 112 the desire of the working members to manage their own farms inde pendently were some of the causes which resuited in the break-up of the cooperative farm. The constituent family farms had higher intensity of cropping, higher yields of most of the crops than the cooperative farm. They employed more of human and bullock labor per hundred acres of land held. The cooperative farm showed a greater loss per acre and per worker than the family farms. Chapter VI
GILL CHOWGAWAN COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
The present investigation relates to the Gill Chowgawan Cooper ative Farming Society, Ltd. at village Gill Chcrwgawan, Tehsil Moga, district Ferozepur and five family farms in the same village for the agricultural year 1953-5*+• The village Gill Chowgawan is situated at a distance of about seven miles from Moga. The village was visited twice in 1953-5*+ after the kharif and rabi crops had been harvested.
Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm. It was last visited in April 1958*
The Society was registered on December 8 , 1952 with 11 members from five different families. Six members joined shortly after this.
For the year 1953-5*+ > "the Society had 17 members with 125 acres of land. Agricultural operations were started in April 1953*
Motives for Starting the Society
1. The majority of the members were educated; four of them including two ex-servicemen were government pensioners and understood very well the benefits they would get if they formed a Cooperative
Farming Society.
2. The members wanted to mechanize the farming operations for which bigger area and ample funds for the purchase of agricultural machinery were required.
113 114
3. The members wanted to get their lands consolidated in one block in the village.
4. In a public speech at Kamal in June 1952, the Develop ment Minister, Punjab declared that all possible help would, be given to Cooperative Fanning Societies under the First Five Year Plan.
This stimulated the members to form a Cooperative Farming Society.
Working Capital
The total share capital of the Society was Rs 3,400, divided into 340 shares of the value of Rs 10 each. Each member had purchased on the average. 20 shares. The liability of the members was limited to
10 times the value of the shares held by them. The maximum credit limit which was fixed at Rs 10,000 in April 1953 was raised to
Rs 15,000 six months later. Besides the share capital, the working capital which amounted to Rs 16,371 in September 1953* consisted of a
Central Coopers,tive Bank loan of Rs 9,500 and members’ deposits of
Rs 3,471.
The Central Cooperative Bank Moga charged interest at the rate of 5 per cent, but if the installments were not paid punctually, interest was charged at the rate of 6 per cent. The Society did not pay any installments, after October 1954, and the Central Bank loan outstanding at the time of the liquidation of the Society in 1958 amounted to Rs 11,000.
Equipment
The Society purchased a tractor (Fordson Major 28-32 h.p.) along with implements for a sum of Rs 10,425 in the year 1953 and a pumping 115
set vas installed in the same year at a total cost of Rs 2,110. The livestock maintained by the Society consisted of four bullocks and two camels. These were purchased from the members by the Society at the time of its formation at a price of Rs 2,700. All the farm equipment was maintained by the Society and not by the individual members. A gross income of Rs 110 was received by the Society in the year 1953-5^ for ploughing a non-member*s land with the tractor.
Terms of Agreement
The whole of the land of the members in the village Gill
Chowgawan was leased to the Society for a period of 20 years. If a member resigned, he could not claim his land before the expiry of this period. The rent of land paid by the Society varied from Rs 30 bo
Rs 105 per acre depending upon the quality of land and the irrigation facilities available. After the completion of the consolidation operations, the whole of the land of the Society was consolidated in two blocks and the quality of land was about the same. It was, there fore, decided that all the members be paid rent at the -uniform rate of
Rs 55 per acre.
Administration
The administration of the Society was the responsibility of the
General Body - consisting of all the members having one vote each, and the managing committee, elected by the General Body, consisting of the president who was also managing director, the vice president, the treasurer and two committee members. The managing director and the supervisor, who vas also a committee member attended to the day-to-day 116 working of the Society. The accounts were maintained by the managing director who had introduced all the necessary account books.
Labor
In the year 1953-5^, 12 out of 17 members worked on the farm.
Two of the member workers, the managing director and the supervisor were paid at the rate of Rs 50 and Rs 55 per month respectively. Two other members who worked as tractor drivers were paid Rs k5 each per month. The other member workers were paid at the rate of Rs 35 per month. Under this system some of the members did not put in eight hours' work and, therefore, it was decided in a general meeting to pay the member workers with effect from July 1, 1953, at the rate of
Rs 0.19 per hour. The supervisor allotted duties for daily work and maintained the attendence register where the hours of work put in by each worker were entered. This daily record of hours of work was not maintained properly, nor was it signed by the workers concerned as was done in the neighbouring cooperative farm at Kapure. In View of this, they reverted to the practice of monthly wages for active member workers with effect from September 5, 1953* After this only members who were not active workers were paid by the hour when their part-time services were utilized by the Society. Member workers were entitled to two days' leave with pay in a month. If a member wanted to have a day off, he vas required to inform the supervisor on the previous day.
If a member worker vas absent from work for more than two days in a month, a proportionate deduction from his monthly wages was to be made. In April 195^ the managing committee decided to reduce the 117
leave with pay from two days to one day in a month. If a member worker
disobeyed the orders of the supervisor, he would lose his wages for
that day. On the other hand, a good worker would get a bonus. A
member and non-member worker were each paid a bonus at the rate of
Rs 5 per month for two months, October and Hovember 1953> for good work done in the sowing of the rabi crops. Another non-member worker was given a bonus at the rate of Rs 5 per month for one year for good work done by him in looking after the animals of the Society. But
there was no uniform system for payment of bonus which would encourage
good workers. Two non-member field laborers were employed at Rs 50
each per month out of which an amount of Rs 20 was deducted in each
case for food. This amount was used for reimbursing members who
supplied food to these workers. A meeting of the managing committee
held on April 195*+, resolved that every member must either work him
self or arrange for a man in his place to work on the farm.
Facilities Given to Members
The members got cereals, vegetables and fodder from the farm.
During the first year, the farm purchased seed from some of the
members. An individual account was maintained by the Society for
each member. The price of all issues of agricultural produce was
debited and his wages, rent of his land and price of seed obtained
from him were credited to this account, and the balance was struck
every year. Some of the members kept their deposits with the Society
and some got short term advances occasionally for their family needs. 1X8
Relations With the State
The land of the Society was scattered all over the village in
11 different plots, the smallest of which measured only 0.2 acres.
The existence of such fragments defeated the very purpose of organizing the cooperative farm. The village was under the consolidation of land holdings operations in the year 1953 and the members of the Society submitted an application to the Director of Consolidation of Holdings for allotment of land in one block. This created some misapprehensions in the minds of other villagers on the score that the members of the
Society might be given the best land of the village as a result of the consolidation operations. But this misapprehension did not seem to be justified as the members were prepared to take land in one compact block almost anywhere in the village. The consolidation operations were completed by the end of 1953-5^ and the Society was given land in two blocks. This resulted in the saving of a good deal of labor and fuel which was previously wasted in moving from one field to another and made supervision and watch and ward easier. TABLE 6.1
Particulars of the Parras
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area owned in acres 12 16 6 4 3*5 41.5 125
Area taken on batai - 10 - - 2.0 12.0 -
Area taken on cash rent 28 6 16 10 3.0 63.0 -
Total Area 4o 32 22 14 8.5 116.5 125
Number of family workers 4 4 4 1.5 1 14.5 12
Number of hired workers 1 -- 1.0 - 2.0 2
Total Number of workers 5 4 4 2.5 1 16.5 14
Number of Bullocks 8 4 3 2 2 19 4 Number of Camels - - 1 1 - 2 2
H H VO Description of the Farms
Table 6.1 gives the particulars of the farms in Gill Chowgawan selected for study. All the family farms had taken scane land on rent besides the area owned.
TABLE 6.2
Pattern of Cropping
Average Hame of Cooperative for family . Crop Farm A B c D E farms
1 .Food-grains 81.3# 78.2$ 6 3 .6# 8 8 .6# 80.7# 85.1# 78.3#
2.Fodder crops 7.6 11.9 28.7 3-8 13.0 4.0 13.1
Total of 1 & 2 88.9 90.1 92.3 92 .1* 93.7 89.1 91.4
3.Oil-seeds 3.0 8.5 7.7 7.6 5.8 9.9 7.9
4.Miscellaneous 8.1 l.i* - - 0.5 1.0 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 6.2 compares the pattern of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. Food-grains, fodder crops and oil-seeds are the main groups of crops in this village, food-grains being the most important group, both in the cooperative farm and the family farms.
Food-grains and fodder crops together account for about 90 per cent of the total cropped area in each of the farms, the average for all the family farms being 91.U per cent against 88.9 per cent for the cooper ative farm. This shows the extent to which these cultivators are subsistence farmers raising crops mainly for family use. The cooper ative farm had a higher percentage of its cropped area under food-grains 121 than any of the holdings A, B and D or the average for all the family farms taken together. This is accounted for hy the fact that it had an area of 30 acres (about 17 per cent of the cropped area) under mash which is included under food-grains. But as most of the yield was sold in the market, it might as well be regarded as a commercial crop. Due to partial mechanization, the cooperative farm had only 7*6 per cent of its cropped area under fodder crops against the average of 13*1 per cent on the family farms. With this area under fodder crops besides four bullocks and two camels maintained by the farm, the milch cattle of the members were fed. It had a smaller area under oil-seeds than any of the family farms.
Holding B had the highest percentage of its cropped area under fodder, as besides four bullocks, the cultivator maintained eight non-working animals. Moreover, an area of 10 acres was taken on batai and the owner of this part also wanted fodder for his milch cattle.
Holding C and E had the lowest percentage of the cropped area under fodder crops. This is partly due to the fact that maize, bajra and chari, if they ripen and yield cereals are classified as food- grains, although they also yield fodder as by-products; but if they are cut green, they are classified as fodder crops. Out of a total cropped area of 26 .U acres, holding C had 21 acres under grain and rice. It had one acre each under bajra and maize, but both of these crops were ripened for their grain and have therefore been classified under food-grains leaving only one acre of berseem in the category of fodder crops. For the same reason, in holding E, bajra and maize have been classified as food-grains and only four acres of berseem has been classified as fodder.
Only two working and two non-working animals were maintained. There was
a great diversity of crops on the cooperative farm as it had 8*1 per
cent of its cropped area under miscellaneous crops like watermelons,
potatoes and other vegetables. Except for this the cooperative farm
did not show any superiority over family farms in respect of pattern
of cropping.
TABLE 6.3-
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
137*2 1^7.0 81.6 120.0 123.9 118.8 119*1
Intensity of Cropping
Table 6.3 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. Against the average intensity of
cropping of 119*1 on the family farms, the cooperative farm had an
intensity of cropping of 137*2 , which was higher than the intensity of
cropping on any of the family farms except holding A. All the area in
the cooperative farm had facilities of artificial irrigation. Twelve member workers and two hired laborers were working on the farm. Besides the tractor, four bullocks and two camels were used on the farm. The
land was under self-cultivation by the peasant proprietors and was well looked after even before the formation of the Cooperative Farming
Society, and therefore, the cooperative farm had a comparatively high 123 intensity of cropping even during its first year. It is interesting to note that the cooperative farm in the neighbouring village Kapure had, during the first year about half the intensity of cropping of this farm as the members were non-cultivating owners and the tenants who used to cultivate the land before the formation of the cooperative farm at Kapure had neglected the land. Of all the farms, holding A had the highest intensity of cropping. The whole of the land had facilities of artificial irrigation. The area was partly owned and partly taken on cash rent and as the cultivators did not have to share the produce with the landlord, they had the incentive to work hard in order to get the maximum output from the farm. With five laborers and eight working cattle, there was no shortage of bullock or human labor on the farm.
Holding B, with about one-third of its area taken on batai, and half of the total area without any facilities for irrigation— there being no well on the farm— showed the lowest intensity of cropping.
TABLE 6.4
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds ’ Average Cooperative A B C D E for family ______farm Owned Batai______Owned Batai farms
Wheat & 8.3 12.5 10.0 - 4.8 10.6 1 5 .O 5*6 10.1 gram Gram 8.2 - - - - 6.4 20.0 - 10.8 Maize l4.0 - - 8.3 10.0 17.6 15.0 - 13*3 Bajra . 10.1 5.0 - 5»0 8.0 - 3»3 - 5*2 Mash 4.5 5.0 5*0 - 6.4 124
Yield of Crops
Table 6.4 compares the yield of crops of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. The yield per acre of the most important crops on the cooperative farm - mash, gram and wheat-and-gram, was lower than the average yield per acre of the family holdings. These three crops accounted for about 80 per cent of the cropped area of the cooper ative farm. The yield per acre of maize is slightly higher on the cooperative farm while that of bajra is about double the average for the family farms. On the whole, the cooperative farm did not show any superiority over family farms in respect of yield per acre of important crops. Holding E, the smallest of all the farms under study, gave the highest yield per acre for gram and wheat-and-gram; and for maize the yield per acre was next only to that of holding D. The comparatively small holdings E, D and C gave better yields per acre than the bigger holdings. This is accounted for by more intensive application of human and animal labor per acre of cultivated land in smaller holdings.
TABLE 6.5
Input, Output and Net Income (On Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family _____ farm______A______B______C______D______E_____ farms
Input 217.2 209.5 182.9 216.2 265.7 228.2 211.6 Output 144.9 205.2 128.1 88.1 209.1 178.7 160.4 ' Net Income -(72.3) -( M ) -(5^-8) -(128.1) -(56.6) -(49*5) -(51.2) 125
Net Income
Table 6.5 gives the input, output and net income on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm with an area of 125 acres had a total output of the value of Rs l8,117«5 and input of the value of Rs 27,152. Against this, the five family farms with a total area of 116.5 acres had a total output of the value of Rs 18,690 and input of the value of Rs 2kf6ky. Thus the family farms taken together with a smaller area and lower input gave a higher output than the cooperative farm. As a result, the cooperative farm had a lower net income per acre than the family farms taken together.
This was partly due to the fact that 1953-5^ "the first, year of the cooperative farm. It showed a greater loss per acre than any of the family farms except holding C which showed the greatest loss per acre of all the farms. With the exception of 1.5 acres of chahi land, all the area in this farm was barani. For lack of alternative employment, four family laborers were engaged on the farm and the imputed value of their wages accounted for more than half of the total value of input. The biggest of the family farms, holding A, measuring Jt-0 acres with eight working animals and five workers gave the best returns out of all the farms. Besides the manure droppings of eight working cattle, 50 cart-loads of farm yard manure were applied on the farm. The net loss per acre on the remaining three family farms was about the same as the average for all the family farms taken together. 126
TABLE 6.6
Net Gain in Rupees of Non-Cultivating Owners from Batai Cultivation
B E
Net income from batai 675*0 82.0 Rental value 450.0 90.0 Net gain 225.0 -( 8.0) Net gain per acre 22.5 “(4.0)
Ten acres of land in holding B and two acres in holding E were taken on nisaf batai. The income of the owners consisted of the value of half of the produce on their lands which they got as their share.
Table 6, above, compares the income of the landowners frcm batai cultivation with the rental value of land at the prevailing rates. A comparison of the net gain per acre of these landowners from batai cultivation with the net income per acre of the cooperative farm
(Table 5) shows that these landowners were better off than they would have been if they had joined the cooperative farm. The owner of part of the holding B was a gainer as a result of giving his land on batai instead of cash rent. But his gain was the loss of the tenant and the rate of the batai rent charged by him was higher than that permissable under law. TABLE 6.7
Net Inc cane in Rupees Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
Basis B -(33*1) 66.3 20.2 -(19 .0 ) 7.6 21.1 27.2 Basis A 43.1 93*7 47.6 40.2 63.5 53.8 127
From Table 6.5 it can be seen that all the holdings show a net
loss per acre if all the items of expenditure are in the net returns
on different holdings. One wonders how these farmers are pulling' on from year to year. In order to get an idea of the actual conditions prevalent on each farm, net income per acre has been worked in
Table 6.7 on basis B by excluding the imputed value of the family
laborers from the expenditure. The cooperative farm and holding C
show a net loss per acre even if the imputed value of the member or family workers is excluded from the costs. The net return has also been calculated on basis A by excluding, besides imputed value of family labor, the interest on capital invested in bullocks and imple ments and rental value of owned land. Only holding C showed a net loss per acre on basis A. Net income on basis A is known as farm business income and is the real measure of the earnings of the farmer and his family for management, risk, labor and use of land and capital.
TABLE 6.8
Net Income Per Worker in Rupees on Basis C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
Basis C -(645.4) -(34.4) -(438.5) -(704.8) -(317.2) -(421.0) -(384.5).
Basis B -(295.4) 530.6 161.5 -(104.8) 42.8 179.O 204.3
Basis A 384.3 749.8 377.7 -( 24.8) 225.2 540.0 404.1
The net income per worker on basis C which gives the return for management only is negative on all the farms. The net incane per worker on basis B which gives the return for management and manual
labor together is negative for the cooperative farm and holding C.
In other cases, it is positive but lower than the wages per worker
at the prevailing rates. Net income on basis A gives the return per
worker for manual labor, management and ownership of land and
capital. Even on basis A, except for holding A, the net incane per
worker is lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates. TABLE 6.9
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the farm A B c D E family farm
1. Human Labor 22.5$ 36.1$ 41.C$ 50.5 $ 4o . i $ 36.1$ 4o .656
2. Bullock Labor 6.0 22.4 19.2 18.5 25.4 23.5 21.4
3. Rent 30.3 29.8 31.3 22.2 25.1 30.0 28.0
4. Machinery 25.4 - - - - -
Total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 84.2 88.3 91.5 91.2 90.6 89.6 90.0
5. Seed 4.2 6.1 4.1 5.5 4.6 5.1 5.2
6 . Agricultural implements 1.4 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 - - 7. Fertilizers 1.5 - - - 0.1 -
8 . Others 8.7 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.9 3.5 3.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 130
Components of the Input
Table 6.9 gives the break-up of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The most important item of cost in the case of the family farms is human labor which accounts for U0.6 per cent of the total value of the input of all the family farms taken together, the percentage varying from 36.1 to 50*5 for the different family farms. On the cooperative farm, rent of land is the most important item of cost followed by machinery as a close second. The use of machinery on the cooperative farm results in the saving of human labor and bullock labor which accounts for 22.5 per cent and 6.0 per cent of the total value of the input of the cooperative farm respectively. Bullock labor accounts for 21.k per cent of the total value of the input of the family farms taken together. There is thus a greater saving of bullock labor than human labor on the cooperative farm as a result of the use of machinery. Rent accounts for 3O.5 per cent of the value of the input of the cooperative farm against an average of 28.0 per cent of the input of the family farms taken to gether. Rent forms the highest percentage of the input in the case of the holding B, where 10 acres of land were taken on batai, and the value of the produce, which the cultivator had to part with as rent of land, was more than what he would have to pay if he could get this land on cash rent. Human labor, bullock labor and rent together account for 90 per' cent of the total value of the input on the family farms taken together, while on the cooperative farm these three items account for only 58*8 per cent of the total value of the input. But if the i3i cost of machinery is included along with these items in the cooper ative farm, because machinery has replaced some of the human labor and bullock labor, the percentage share of these items goes up to 8U.2 per cent ■which is closer to the position of the family farms.
With the minor exception of holding D, where ammonium-sulphate of the value of Rs 7 was used, none of the family farms used any fertilizers. However, on the cooperative farm, chemical fertilizers of the value of Rs U20 were used.
TABLE 6.10
Humber of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
11.2 12.5 12.5 18.2 17-9 11.8 13.3
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Tables 6.10 and 6.11 give the number of workers and bullocks per hundred acres held by the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm maintained a smaller number of workers per hundred acres of area than any of the family farms. This was due to the use of machinery. The size of the fanner’s family and not the size or the requirements of the family farms determined the number of family workers employed. Only two family farms, A and D employed one hired worker each. The other family farms did not employ any hired workers.
In respect of economy of labor, this cooperative farm does not compare favorably with most of the other cooperative farms, since as many as 132
12 members were working on the farm. Two hired laborers were engaged,
not because the cooperative farm needed lk workers, but because for
certain tough jobs, member workers did not suit and hired laborers had to be engaged.
TABLE 6.11
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B c D E farms
6. k 20.0 12.5 22.7 28.6 23.5 19.7
All the family farms taken together with a total area of 116.5
acres maintained 23 bullocks, while the cooperative farm with an area
of 125 acres maintained eight bullocks only. This economy in the use
of bullocks was the result of the use of the machinery on the farm.
Otherwise, as all the family farms, with the minor exception of holding
3, were above the plough-unit size, there was not much scope for economy in the number of bullocks maintained as a result of the pooling
of the holdings in the cooperative farm.
TABLE 6.12
Investment Per Acre in Rupees on Improved Implements and Machinery - Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
106.5 0.5 3-5 2.3 3.6 1.7 133
Use of Machinery and Improved Implements
Machinery is used on the cooperative farm only. Chaff-cutters
run with animal power were used on the cooperative farm and holding
B. The other family farms except holding E used chaff-cutters worked with human labor. Ho improved implements other than the chaff-
cutter were used on any of the family farms.
Dissenting Members
Lack of cooperative spirit is one of the chief reasons for the
failure of cooperative farms. It may therefore be of interest to
examine the circumstances under which some of the members withdrew
from the Society. As many as nine members left the Society during the
last quarter of 195^ and six new members were admitted. Trouble arose
a few months after the formation of the cooperative farm. On August 9,
1953 tiro of the members, awning four acres of land, took away by force
two bullocks belonging to the Society while they were being brought
from the fields after the completion of the day's work. These bullocks
had been purchased by the Society from one of these members and the
receipt of sale signed by him was in the file of the Society. They
also took possession of the land which they had leased to the Society
for a period of 20 years. Several representations were made for the
return of the bullocks and the land to the Society, but the members
concerned did not agree. The managing committee decided to request
the authorities to take necessary action to restrain the members
concerned from interfering with the cultivation and management of the
lands. On November 19, 1953 these members forcibly stopped the workers of the Society when they were irrigating the land, which had been taken
on lease from the dissenting members. In the meeting of the General
Body held on November 17, 1953 it was decided that the matter be
reported to the Inspector of Cooperative Societies and as the land
prepared by the Society for sawing had been forcibly taken away by the
dissenting members, the loss sustained by the Society be claimed from
them. The matter was considered by the managing committee at its
meeting held on April 12, 195i when the Sub-inspector of Cooperative
Societies was also present. The Society had tilled these four acres
of land four times with the tractor and had put 21 cart-loads of
manure therein. The Society hoped to raise from this area 120 maunds
of wheat and 120 maunds of bhusa of the total value of Rs 1,980. The
meeting decided to request the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
Societies to get the Society a compensation of Rs 1,980 and possession
of the land.
In a general meeting of the Society held on August 18, 195^ it was unanimously resolved that two other members (father and son) be
expelled from the Society as these members were not cooperating in the
running of the Society and had been disobeying the orders of the
management on several occasions. But as these members repented of
their mis-behavior and agreed to give their full cooperation to other
members of the Society in the future, it was unanimously decided by the working committee at its next meeting on August 26, 195^ to readmit
them in the Society. In a meeting of the General Body held on
September 30, I95U it was unanimously resolved that three members own
ing 13 acres of land who had not been cooperating in the smooth running 135
of the Society and had always tried to plough and improve their own
lands only, be expelled from the Society with immediate effect. The
General Body agreed that the behavior of these members towards other members had been harsh and insulting, with the result that some of the members left the Society in the very beginning and some others had now
given notice to quit.
During the last quarter of the year 195b, as many as nine members
left the Society. Six new members, three of whom were wives of the
existing members were admitted during the same period. According to
the by-laws of the Society and the agreement arrived at among the members, the land of the members was to remain with the Society for a period of 20 years, even if any of the members withdrew from the
Society. But in actual practice it was not found possible to enforce this provision and all the dissenting members took possession of their
lands as soon as they left the Society.
The Liquidation of the Society
The nominal life of this Cooperative Farming Society is about five years, but it functioned as, a cooperative farm only for about three years. Even during this period, there were many differences among the members. From the year 1956-57* the members took to family farming. On the request of the majority of the members of the managing
committee, an enquiry officer was appointed by the Registrar of Cooper
ative Societies, Punjab to hold an enquiry into the constitution, work
ing and financial condition of the Society under Section 39 of the
Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. On March 29, 1958 a meeting of the members of the Society resolved that the managing director of the
Sanjiwal Cooperative Farming Society, Kapure and one other person from
Jagraon be nominated to go into the accounts and have the Society wound up. It was decided that the assets of those persons who were in possession of livestock and other perishable property of the Society be examined and used in order to meet the debts of the Society. The liquidation of the Society was ordered by the Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur on May 15, 1958 &nd a liquidator was appointed. He arranged to dispose of by auction all the stock of the
Society for the recovery of the Central Cooperative Bank loan of about
Rs 11,000. By an irony of fate, the managing director of the Kapure farm, who with the best of intentions encouraged the members at
Chowgawan to start the Cooperative Farming Society in 1953 and had been giving advice and guidance to the managing committee of the
Chowgawan Society from time to time, was requested by a resolution of the Society members at Chowgawan after five years in March, 1958, to arrange for the winding up of the Cooperative Farming Society
Chowgawan.
Results of the Investigation
This study has revealed the superiority of the cooperative farm over family farms in the area in respect of intensity of cropping, economy of human and bullock labor, use of fertilizers, machinery and improved implements. But in spite of all this, the net income per acre and per worker and the yield per acre of the important crops was lower on the cooperative farm than on the family farms and except for a greater diversity of crops, the cooperative farm did not have a better pattern of cropping than the family farms. Differences among the members from the very start of the Society, defective system of wage payment, absence of strong leadership and frequent changes in adminis tration, were some of the factors responsible for this and for the short life of the cooperative farm. This study has also shown the difficulties of running a cooperative farm with peasant proprietors as members and impracticability of retaining the land of the members after they leave the Society. Whenever an attempt was made to enforce the provision of the by-laws in this respect, there were further difficulties. The cooperative farms at Chowgawan and at Gagra, district Ludhiana where the members were peasant proprietors had each a life of about three years while the cooperative farms at Kapure and at Khai Fhenmeke, district Ferozepur with non-cultivating landowners as members have now been running for over five and seven years respectively. Chapter VII
SAIIJIWAL KAPURE COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
The present study relates to the working of the Sanjiwal Kapure
Cooperative Farming Society, Ltd. Post Office Kapure, Tehsil Moga, district Ferozepur and five family farms in the same village for the agricultural year 1953-5^• The village Kapure is situated at a distance of about nine miles from the Tehsil town of Moga. The village was visited twice in the year 1953-5^ after the kharif and rabi crops had been collected. Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm, the last of these being in April, 1958.
Origin
This Cooperative Farming Society was registered on January 3>
1953 with 11 members. Shortly after this, another member joined the
Society, raising the number of members to 12. All the members belonged to different families. The total area with the Society in the year
1953-5^ was lkU acres. The Society started operations in April, 1953*
Motives for Starting the Society
1. All the members were non-working owners and before the organization of the Society, they used to give their batai, but they were not satisfied with their shares of the yield. They did not get enough of food-grains for family use nor fodder for their milch cattle.
138 139
2. In view of the government's policy to give land to the tiller, the members decided to start the Cooperative Fanning Society in order to safe-guard their ownership rights. This was the strongest motive.
3. The most important member of the Society owning about one-sixth of the total area of the farm who was a major in the army, retired from service in 1952. He gave a lead to the other members and organized the Society. He worked as the managing director of the farm.
Two other members have retired from the army, have visited foreign countries and understand very well the advantages of cooperative farming.
1. One of the motives, according to the managing director, was to help the grow-more-food campaign and to improve the agricultural production of the country.
5 . The members wanted to start mechanized cultivation and tube-well irrigation, for which substantial loans were required.
Finance
The maximum credit limit of the Society to start with was fixed at Rs 12,000 on April 18, 1953 and the Society borrowed this amount from the Central Cooperative Bank, Moga. Share capital is contributed at the rate of Rs 25 per acre of land pooled by each member of the
Society. The shares are fully paid up. The Liability of the members is limited to 10 times the value of the shares held by them. ll*0
TABLE 7.1
Balance Sheet as on June 30, 195^
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs
Cash in hand l6o .60 Shares 3,580 .00 Shares of C.B. Moga 100 .00 Deposits of members 10,1*00 .00 Share of Provincial Loans from Central Cooperative Bank Cooperative Bank 11,503 .13 Jullundur 100 .00 Interest Payable 730 .50 Share Dist. Wholesale Fertilizer on credit Society 100 .00 from government 892 .13 Deposits in Central Miscellaneous Payable Bank Saving Fund 63 .95 to members 6,189 .1*2 Due from Arhitias and members 95^ Advances 1*28 .53 Stock and Machinery 18,61* If .53 Livestock 1,900 .00 Stock produce 5,066 .91 Interest due 0 .63 Due from members 517 .28 Loss 5,258 .26 H 03 Total 33,295 • Total 33,295 .18
The maximum credit limit of the Society was raised to Rs 35,800 on
April 6 , 195^ "but after the first loan of Rs 12,000 in April 1953 the
Society never Borrowed anything from the Central Cooperative Bank,
Moga. Hot that the Society did not need funds, for in the general meeting of the Society on August 18, 1957 the members were requested to take loans from the Primary Cooperative Credit Society in Kapure up to the full limit and pay the same to the Cooperative Farming Society on
interest as charged by the Credit Society, as the Cooperative Farming
Society was urgently in need of funds. The managing director was
afraid of the red tape of the Central Cooperative Bank and did not like Ikl signing a new deed everytime the Society got a loan from the hank, pledging the land and stock of the Society as a security for the loan.
By April 1958 out of the original loan of Rs 12,000 an amount of
Rs 3,589 only was outstanding.
Equipment
The Society purchased a tractor (Fordson Major 32 h.p.) in
May 1953> and two pumping sets were installed in May and October 1953 respectively at a total cost of Rs i+,357* livestock maintained by the Society consisted of four bullocks purchased in 1953 at a total price of Rs 1,900. All the farm equipment was maintained by the
Society and not the individual members. In the first year, the tractor of the Society was also used, when free, for ploughing non-members1 land on payment. In 1953"5^, 35 acres of land in the neighbouring village of Salina were ploughed for which the Society charged Rs 350. In subsequent years, the tractor has never been used for this purpose. The managing committee decided not to use the tractor for outside work as there was enough work for it on the farm.
For major repairs, the tractor was sent to Moga. When a mechanic was called from Moga, he charged Rs 10 per 'day, in addition to his bus charges and meals. This arrangement continued till September 195^ when a mistri who lives at village Chowgawan, one mile away from
Kapure, was engaged at Rs 2k per month for looking after the tractor and the pumping sets. It was his responsibility to keep them in working order and inspect them when called for to do so, and at least once a Ih2 month without a call. The part-time wages of the mistri were raised to Rs 30 per month with effect from January 1, 1956.
Terms of Agreement
The whole of the land of the members in the village Kapure has been handed over to the Society on 20 years* lease. If a member leaves the Society, his land will remain with the Society for this period. The rate of rent to be paid to the members is decided at the general meeting every year. The value of shares held by every member is proportionate to the area contributed by him. The dividend paid includes the rent and there is no provision in the lease-deed regard ing the rate of rent payment in cash or kind for the land pooled by the members.
Administration
The administration of the Society is the responsibility of the
General Body consisting of all the members having one vote each, and of the managing committee elected by the General Body, consisting of the president, the vice president, the secretary and two committee members. The managing director and the supervisor attend to the day- to-day working of the Society. The accounts are maintained by the managing director.
Labor
For the year 1953“5^j the Society had two ploughmen at Rs oO per month, two field laborers at Rs 50 per month each, one part-time field chaukidar who slept at the tube-well at Rs 12 per month and a part-time sweeper who was paid Rs k.3 per month. The farm laborers 1U3
were paid Rs 2 each per night extra when they were on night duty for
canal irrigation. All the laborers got four days' leave a year with
pay. But if one was absent from duty for a day, he lost his wages
for that day. For absenteeism during the harvesting season, a
deduction at the rate of double the wages, for the period for which a
laborer was absent, was made from his monthly wages.
In the year 1953"5^> eight of the members, including dependents, worked on the farm. The managing director was paid Rs 100 per month.
The field supervisor was paid Rs per month up to November 30, 1953 when his pay was raised to Rs 50 per month. The other member workers were paid on an hourly basis at the rate of three annas per hour. The
members worked on easy and difficult jobs by rotation. The tractor
driver got Rs 0.25 per hour for ploughing etc. and Rs 0.19 per" '
hour for trailer work, but if he helped in loading and unloading, he
got Rs 0.25 per hour for this work also. Three of the members,
including the supervisor, knew tractor driving. For engine duty at
the tube well, the member workers were paid at the rate of Rs 0.10 per
hour. The field supervisor inarched all the men to duty, kept a daily
record of each man's work, and prepared a daily report, which was hung
in the Assembly Room for the information of the members concerned. On
the third day the managing director got the report. He made the
entries in the daily field book and the attendance register and got
them signed by the working members concerned. Complaints about record
of work were thus minimized. The supervisor went round on a bicycle to see that the members were attending properly to their jobs. If a Ihk member vorker did not show a day's work, he might lose his pay for that day. It was decided in August 1953 that members being absent from the village without permission would be debited with Rs 1.5 for each day of absence. If a member of his dependent wanted to work on the farm, he was always welcome. There was more work on the farm than willing member workers or their dependents could cope with.
The Society suffered heavy loss due to the flood in October 1955 and it was decided in a general meeting on August 13, 1956 that the members would work without pay or allowances for a period of six months. Actually during this period, with the exception of the managing director and the supervisor, the members did not do any work on the farm. Only for the first two years the member workers worked on hourly basis. At present the managing director and the supervisor and the tractor driver are the only members working on the farm. The dependents of the members were paid daily wages at the prevailing rates when they worked on the farm.
Casual Labor
From July to March, casual labor was engaged for weeding at
Rs 2 per day by the cooperative farm. The individual farmers gave free meals to the casual laborers engaged by them in addition to the daily wages, but they worked them for longer hours than the cooperative farm, which did not give them free meals. From March to June, the daily wages for casual labor varied from Rs 3 to Rs 5* 1U5
Facilities Given to Members
The members got fodder, vegetables and cereals from the farm.
An individual account was maintained by the Society for each member.
The price of all items of agricultural produce was debited and his wages and dividend were credited to this account, and the balance was struck every year.
Relations with the State
The land of the Society was spread all over the village and was not in contiguous blocks. This was a great drawback. Consolidation operations were going on in the village in 1953 and the members applied for the allotment of land in one block. Applications to this effect were sent to the Director of Consolidation of Holdings and to the
Minister for Consolidation. After many efforts the Society succeeded in getting all the land in one block, in spite of the opposition of all the landowners in the village who were not members of the Society.
This has resulted in a saving of a good deal of labor and fuel which was wasted in moving from one field to another far off. The officials of the Department of Agriculture have been giving their expert advice and assisting the Society in its agricultural operations. These villages have been in the H.E.S. Block, Moga since 1955* But the
Block Development staff have not contacted the Society so far and have done nothing in particular for the cooperative farm.
For the year 1956-57 the government gave a subsidy of Rs 3,200 for a go-down, managerial staff and implements. For the go-down constructed by the Society at a total cost of Rs. 2,500, the govern ment gave a subsidy of Rs l,000j for the thresher purchased for 1 h6
Rs 2,000, the government contribution was Rs 1,000. For the managerial staff, the government paid Rs 1,200 for the year, which covered half of the annual wages of the managing director, the field supervisor and the go-down and general supervisor.
Farm Operations
Cultivation was generally done with the tractor. When the tractor was out of work, bullocks were used. Swing operations were done with bullock power. The bullock cart vas used for light trans port work, the trailer being used for heavy work. TABLE 7.2
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Famn Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area owned in acres 16 6 20 19 6 67 l W
Land taken on batai 9 18 - - 6 33 -
Total Area 25 2k 20 19 12 100 lifif
Humber of family workers 5 k 2 if 2 17 8
Humber of hired workers - 1 - - l 5
Total Humber of workers 5 k 3 if 2 18 13
Number of Bullocks 1+ k 2 3 2 15 it
Number of Camels l 1 1 1 1 5 m
H - p - 1U8
Description of the Farms
Table 7.2 gives the particulars of the farms selected for study.
Three of the family farms had taken seme land on share rent besides
the owned land.
TABLE 7.3
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm for family farm A B C D E farms
Food-grains 73.6?, 7 8 .2$ 7 9 - 83.0$ 7 8 .9$ 71.136 78.7$ Fodder crops k.O 11.2 9.9 10.^ 21.1 14.8 12.7 Cotton 5.0 5.3 3.2 2.8 - 8.8 3.9 Oil-seeds 9.6 5.3 h.3 3.8 - 5.3 3.9 Miscellaneous 7.8 - 3.2 - - 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 7.3 compares the pattern of cropping of the family farms with that of the cooperative farm. The main crops in the area have been classified into five categories of food-grains, fodder, cotton,
oil-seeds and miscellaneous. It is interesting to note that 73*6 per cent of the total cropped area in the cooperative fazm and 78.7 per cent of the total cropped area of the family farms taken together was under food-grains. This shews the extent to which the family farmers as well as the members of the cooperative farm are subsistence farmers, raising crops mainly for family use. Cereals, being the main item in their unbalanced diet, occupied a place of pride in the pattern of cropping. Besides providing food far the family, most of the food crops like wheat, grain, barley, maize, and bajra supply fodder for
/ the cattle as by products. But for this, it would be necessary for the farmers to maintain a higher percentage of the cropped area under fodder crops. The next important group in the family farms is that of the fodder crops. The cooperative farm had a smaller percentage of its cropped area under fodder crops than any of the family farms, as with its tractor and pumping sets, it had to maintain a relatively smaller number of bullocks. The percentage of the total cropped area under food-grains and fodder crops taken together varies from 100 per cent in the case of holding D to 85.9 per cent for holding E, the average for the family farms being 91«^ per cent against 77*6 per cent for the cooperative farm. Compared with any of the family farms, the cooperative farm had about double the percentage of its total cropped area under oil-seeds. It had a higher percentage of its cropped area under cotton with the exception of holdings A and E. There was a greater diversity of crops on the cooperative farm which had J.Q per cent of its cropped area under miscellaneous crops like sugar cane, vegetables and spices. None of the family farms with the exception of holding B, which had 3.2 per cent of its cropped area under sugar cane, raised any of the crops in the miscellaneous group. All this whows the superiority of the cooperative farm over the family farms in respect of pattern of cropping. 150
TABLE 7.It
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
68.9 150.8 97-1 132.0 100.0 118.3 120.6
Intensity of Cropping
Table 7»^ compares the Intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. As it was the first year of agricultural operations for the cooperative farm, it had the lowest intensity of cropping of 68.9 against 120.6 which was the average for all the family farms. Occupation of part of land from the tenants was not secured until June when it was too late to prepare the fields for the kharif crops. Part of the area had been neglected by the tenants under batai cultivation and could not be prepared even for the rabi sawing. The tractor was purchased in the end of May 1953 an<^ one of the pumping sets started working about the middle of July 1953* The second pumping set was installed late in October 1953* Holding A, with five family workers, two pairs of bullocks and a camel on an area of 25 acres only, had the highest intensity of cropping (150.8 ), follow ed by holding C with an intensity of cropping of 130.0. The whole of the area of 20 acres in holding C was self-cultivated. Two family workers, one hired worker, two bullocks and a camel were engaged on the farm. The hired worker was to get one-tenth of the gross produce of grain on the farm besides free meals and thus had the incentive to work hard. 151
TABLE 7 . 5
Yield Per Acre of Crops (irrigated) in Maunds
Average Cooperative A B C D E for family farm Owned Batai Owned Batai Owned Batai farms
Wheat 16.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 16.0 16.7 16.0 lb.0 Maize 18.0 15.0 15.0 - 6.7 9.8 20.0 8.0 5.3 12.0 Mash 9.5 7.0 7.0 - h.o 5.3 - - 5.6 Cotton 18.6 15.0 15.0 8.0 - 13.3 - 10.0 6.0 11.5 Sugar cane 20.0 - 25.0 18.0 - 20.6 Paddy 27.1+ — — 25.O - — 25.0
Yield of Crops
Table 7.5 gives the per acre yield of crops of the family farms and the cooperative farm. With the minor exception of sugar cane, the area under which was only about a half acre both in the cooperative farm and holding B, the yield per acre of all the crops in the cooperative farm was higher than the average yield for the family farms. This was due to the use of chemical fertilizers besides farm yard manure, better preparation of the soil with the tractor and better irrigation facilities from the two pumping sets. An amount of Rs 892 was spent on the purchase of ammonium sulphate used on the farm during the year.
In the case of holding A, B and E, where part of the land was owned and the rest taken on batai, the yield per acre of crops from the owned portion is higher in most cases than the yield from the portion taken on batai; in the remaining cases the yields are the same. But in no case is the yield from the batai portion higher. This shows that the 152
fanner puts in more of labor and capital in the cultivation of the
owned portion of the holdings.
TABLE 7.6
Input, Output and Net Income (On Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family farm • A B CD E farms
Input 263.6 3OO.9 217.2 222.7 276. V 286.6 £98.8 Output 166.6 286.2 113.8 178. U lUl.l 220.3 10?. 8 Net Income-(97.0) -(lU.7 ) -(103.10 -(^.3) “(135.3) -(66.3) -(71.0)
Net Income
Table 7*6 gives the input, output and net income per acre on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The value of the input per acre exceeds that of the output on the cooperative farm as well as all the family farms. In view of the consolidation
operations in 1953-5^> the Individual farmers knew that they would be having different plots next year, and therefore did not manure their fields nor did they cultivate them properly. The members of the cooper- farm were also making all efforts to get their land consolidated in one place. The loss of Rs 97 per acre on the cooperative farm is greater than the average loss per acre on the family farms taken together, or the loss per acre on any of the family farms A, C and
E. This is accounted for by the same factors which were responsible for the lowest intensity of cropping on the cooperative farm for the year 1953-5^, which have been examined above. Indeed, it would be too 153 much to expect a new farm to give a net profit during the first year of its life. Holding A with five adult family workers, two pairs of bullocks and a camel shows the best results of all the farms under study. Besides the manure droppings of these five working animals, ifO cart-loads of cattle-dung were applied on the farm. Holding C with two family workers, one hired laborer, two bullocks and a camel comes next. The whole of the area of 20 acres was owned by the cultivators. Beisdes the manure droppings of three working animals,
30 cart-loach of cow-dung and ammonium sulphate of the value of Rs 20 were applied on the farm. The third family farm to show better results than the cooperative farm is holding E where two family works rs with one pair of bullocks and a camel were working on the farm. Fifteen cart-loads of cattle-dung besides the manure droppings of three work ing animals were applied on the farm. Of all the farms, holding D shows the greatest loss per acre. Although four family workers, three bullocks and a camel were engaged on the farm, according to the farmey the fields were not properly cultivated in view of the impending consolidation operations. The other family farm which shows a greater loss per acre than the cooperative farm is holding B consisting of six acres of owned land and 18 acres of land taken on batai. Four family workers, two pairs of bullocks and a camel were engaged on the farm. No manure was used. Holdings D and B also show the lowest intensity of cropping of all the farms. 15^ TABLE 7,7
Net Gain of the Non-Cultivating Owners from Batai
A B E
Net income from Batai 1,08U 875 728 Rental value 600 9^0 3^0 Net gain -(85) 3^8 Net gain per acre 53*8 “(^*7) 61.3
Nine acres of land in holding A, 18 acres in holding B and six acres in holding E were taken on Batai from non-cultivating owners of land. The gross income of the owners consisted of the value of their share of the produce (two-fifths on chahi land and one half on canal irrigated and harani land). Net income is calculated by deducting from the gross income half of the water rates which were paid by the owners. Table 7.7 compares the net income of the land owners from batai cultivation, with the rental value of land, at the prevailing rates. The table shows that these non-cultivating owners are better off than they would be if they joined the cooperative farm, and two of them are gainers as a result of giving their land on batai instead. of cash rent. But their gain is the loss of the tenants.
TABLE 7.8
Net Income in Rupees Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family ______farm______A_____ B______C_____ D_____ E____ farms
Basis B -(67.3) 105.3 -(3.1^) 15.6 -(9.0) 33.8 31.0
Basis A 10.9 1^9.5 17.8 76.7 52.7 69.5 75.^ 155 From Table 7.6 it may be seen that all the farms show a net loss
per acre if the costs are calculated on business lines (basis C) to
include all the items of expenditure, which is necessary for a com
parison of the net returns on different holdings. One wonders how
these farmers are pulling on from year to year. In order to get an
idea of the actual conditions prevalent on each farm, net income per
acre has been worked in Table 7*8 on basis B by excluding the imputted
value of family labor from expenditure. Besides the cooperative farm, two of the family farms B and D, show a net loss per acre even on basis B. On basis A, the net income on all the farms is positive, but these figures cannot be used for comparison of the results with the
cooperative farm. Net income on basis A is known as farm business
income, and is the real measure of the earning of the farmer and his family for management, risk, labor and use of land and capital.
TABLE 7.9
Net Income in Rupees Per Worker on Bases C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family ______farm______A______B______C______D E farms
Basis C -(1164.7) -(73.6) -(620.3) -(295.7) -(642.8) -(397.5) -(394.6)
Basis B -( 820.2) 526.4 -( 20.3) 101.0 -( 42.8) 202.5 172.1
Basis A 130.3 7^7-6 107.0 5H.3 250.3 416.8 4l8.6
Table 7*9 gives the net income per worker of the cooperative farm and the family faxms on three bases. The return per worker for manage ment (basis C) is negative in all the cases and as a result, the return for management and manual labor together (basis B) is lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates. {
TABLE 7.10
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the Farm A B c D E family farm
1. Human Labor 22.7# te.5# 1+8.9# 38 .2# ^5.8# 36.3# 1+2.3#
2. Bullock Labor 8.9 21.3 19.0 2k.k 26.3 22.8 22.8
3. Rent 25.8 26.5 22.6 25.1 18.7 31.1 24.8
1+. Machinery 28.6 ------
Total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 86.0 90.3 90.5 87*7 90.8 90.2 89.9
5. Agricultural implements 0.8 2.1 3-1 3.1 1*7 1.9 2 .1+
6 . Seed 3*3 3.U ^.9 3*0 k.3 i+.l
7. Fertilizers 2.3 - O.h - 0.1
8 . Others ’ 7.6 k.2 1.5 k.l *+•5 §.6 3*5
Total 100.0# 100.0# 1 0 0 . 0 # 100.0# 1 0 0 . 0 # 100.0# 1 0 0 . 0 # 157
Components of the Input
Table 7 .10 gives the break-up of the total value of the input of
the cooperative farm and the family farms. The most important items
of cost in the case of the family farms is human labor, which accounts
for U2.3 per cent of the total value of the input on all the family
farms taken together, and 36.3 per cent to H8.9 per cent on the
different family farms. On the cooperative farm, machinery is the
most important item, accounting for 28.6 per cent of the value of the
input. The use of machinery results in the saving of human labor and bullock labor, which accounts for 22.7 per cent and 8.9 per cent of the total value of the input of the cooperative farm. Except in
holding D where the whole of the land is owned by the cultivator, rent
or rental value of land occupies the second important place in the family farms as well as the cooperative farm. Rent accounts for a
comparatively higher percentage of the value of the input in holdings
E and A as part of theland in these holdings was taken on batai and the value of the produce, that the cultivator had to part with as rent of
land, was more than what he has to pay if he could get the land on
cash rent. Part of land in holding B was also taken on batai, but as
is clear from Table 7-7, above, the batai rent in this case was less than the cash rent at the prevailing rates, and rent, therefore, does not occupy the same important place as it does in the other tiro hold
ings, where part of the land was taken on batai. Human labor, bullock
labor and rent together account for about 90 per cent of the total value of the input on each of the family farms, while on the cooperative farm, these three items account for only 5 7 »^ per cent of the total value of the input. But if ve include cost of machinery along -with these items in the cooperative farm, as machinery has replaced some of the human labor and bullock labor, the percentage shares of these items go upto 86.0 per cent which is closer to the position on the family farms. With the exception of holding C where ammonium sulphate of the value of Rs 20 was used, none of the family farms used any fertilizers. However, on the cooperative farm, ammonium sulphate and super-phosphates of the value of Rs 892 were used.
TABLE 7.11
Humber of Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
8.3 20.0 10.0 15.0 21.1 16.6 18.0
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Tables 7.11 and 7*12 give the number of workers and bullock per hundred acres held by the cooperative farm and the family farms.
The cooperative farm maintained the smallest number of farm workers per hundred acres. This was due to the use of machinery. In the case of the family farms, the number of workers depends upon the size of the farmer's family and not on the size or requirements of the farm.
With the exception of holding C, which had two family workers and one hired worker, no permanent hired laborers were engaged on any of the family farms. 159
TABLE 7.12
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred. Acres Held
Average Cooperative ■ for family farm A B C D E farms
2.8 2b. 0 25.0 20.0 26.0 33.3 25.0
The cooperative farm maintained the smallest number of bullocks
per hundred acres held, as it had a tractor. But for mechanization, as
all the family farms under study were above the plough-unit size, there was not much scope for economy in the number of bullocks maintained
as a result of the pooling of holdings into the cooperative farm.
TABLE 7.13
Investment Per Acre in Rupees on Improved Implements and Machinery
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
119.8 0.6 8.3 5.0 2.1 3.3 b.O
Table 7*13 compares the investment per acre in machinery and improved implements of the cooperative farm and the family farms.—
Chaff-cutter is the only improved implement used by the family farms.
Chaff-cutters run with animal power were used by farms B and C. The remaining family holdings had chaff-cutters worked with human labor.
Machinery was used only by the cooperative farm which had a chaff- cutter run with power, besides the one run with human labor. l6o
Difficulties of the Cooperative Farm
-1-* Financial. This is one of the few Societies studied which did not get accomodation from the Central Cooperative Bank for the amount permissible under its maximum credit limit. The fault does not seem to lie entirely with the bank, except that the bank officials could be more sympathetic and explain to the Society that the for malities of the deed for pledging land with the Society could not be avoided under the rules.
2. Payments of wages. The system of payment of wages on hourly basis was quite satisfactory for the member workers, as the record of work was well maintained. The dependents of the members for the first two years were also paid on hourly basis except for the harvesting time, when they were paid at the prevailing rates. But this did not encourage them to work on the farm as they could get higher wages outside. To overcome this difficulty the practice of paying the dependents of the members at the same rates as ordinary laborers was introduced.
3 . Lack of the cooperative spirit. Three of the members awning
29 acres of land in all submitted their resignations in March 1957 on the following grounds:
a. Their land was not levelled along with others since
the start of the Society.
b. Manuring of the fields was not done equitably. Ho manure
was applied to their fields.
c. Daily programme of work was not exhibited in the office. l6l
d. Complaints were made by them but the Society did not
listen to them.
e. Adequate quantity of food-grains was not issued to them.
To consider these resignations, a general meeting of the Society was held on March 31, 1957* The resignations were not accepted'■&&'. the points mentioned therein were, in view of the General Body, baseless.
The members concerned were advised to give their full cooperation.
At this, the dissenting members gave their land on rent for cultivation to non-members in the village, although these lands had already been leased to the Society for a period of 20 years, and pledged by the
Society with the Central Cooperative Bank Moga against a loan of
Rs 12,000 taken by the Society for the purchase of machinery and other stock. They even threatened the workmen of the Society that they would beat anybody who entered their fields. The managing committee met on
September 27, 1957 and decided to request the Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies to get back the possession of the land for the
Society, as the rabi sowing was on, and any delay in the matter would cause a great loss to the Society and a very bad example for other
Cooperative Farming Societies. The Assistant Registrar deputed the farm supervisor to settle the dispute. The farm supervisor sent for the dissenting members in the general meeting of the Society on
October 5th and explained to them the registered by-laws of the Society and the contents of the lease-deeds executed by them in favor of the
Society, which they admitted having understood.
Under the advice of the farm supervisor, it was proclaimed in the village that night by the village chowkidar with the beat of the drum that whosoever took for cultivation or any other purpose any part of the fields of the three members would be responsible for the loss caused to the Society on that account. At this the dissenting members engaged a private person and had him counter-announce that they would stop with force any person entering their fields.
The farm supervisor again visited the Society after a fortnight but failed to resolve the dispute. The Assistant Registrar attended the general meeting of the Society on October 28th and heard the complaints of the dissenting members. It was decided that in view of the complaints (a) fresh levelling should now start from the fields of these members; (b) the practice of each member's manure going to his field introduced in January 1957 should continue; (c) daily programme of work should be exhibited invariably; (d) all complaints should be considered in the committee meetings and suitable action taken if necessary; (e) the committee should give adequate quantity of food- grain for the members and their families. A very lenient view of the complaints was taken in the hope that things might improve and the dissenting members were advised to cooperate with the committee.
However, it is felt that the dissenting members will not give their lands back to the Society.
Results of the Investigation
This study has revealed the superiority of the cooperative farm over the family farms in the area in respect of the pattern of crop ping, yield per acre of different crops, economy of human and bullock 163
labor, use of fertilizers, machinery and improved implements. The net
income per acre and per worker and the intensity of cropping, however,
for the year 1953-5^ were lower on the cooperative farm than the
family farms. But this is accounted for by the fact that part of the
area could not be sown during the first year of agricultural operations
of the farm, as occupation of this land could not be procured well in
time and sane of the machinery and equipment of the farm was purchased
rather late in the year.
The Society has been functioning for over five years now.
Consolidation of the land in one block, mechanization of most of
agricultural operations and tube-well irrigation are some of its most
notable achievements. The method of remuneration of the members on the
basis of the number of hours put in by each is an improvement on the
system followed by most of the other Cooperative Farming Societies
and has some lessons for them. Eight out of 12 members who were with
out any work before the formation of . the Society were employed in the
farm. The contribution of their labor is an important advantage of
cooperative farms of this type. The strong leadership of the
managing director has been in no small measure responsible for the
success of the Society. Another factor responsible for the
comparatively long life of the Society is the fact that all the members
are non-working owners and if they leave the Society, they have no
alternative but to give their lahd on batai, which they think is not
safe in view of the government policy of giving land to the tiller of the soil. The Cooperative Farming Society at Gill Chowgawan started 161* about the same time as the Society at Kapure, had a life of only about three years as the members of the Society were cultivating owners and after three years of joint farming they reverted to family farming.
However, cooperative farming is generally recommended for solving the problems of the small cultivators and not those of the non-cultivating owners of the land.
Conditions of Success and Conditions of Failure
The Kapure cooperative farm and the Gill Chcwgawan cooperative farm were both started with non-displaced members about the same time with similar motives. In fact, the Society at Chowgawan got the inspiration from the Kapure Society. A comparison of the factors responsible for the short life of one and the comparatively long life of the other may throw some light on the conditions of success and the conditions of failure of cooperative farming.
1. Choice of members. At Chowgawan more than half of the members did not own any land, but were dependents of the owning members. However all the members held shares of the value of Rs 200 each. Three of the members had absolutely no interest in land and were not even permanent residents of the village. Seme of the members started giving trouble a few months after the formation of the Society.
Such members should not have been admitted. At Kapure all the members are landowners and the share capital is contributed at the rate of
Rs 25 per acre of land held by each member. There is a greater amount of cooperation and tolerance among the members of the Kapure farm. It was after four years that three of the members submitted their resignations, while at Chcwgawan two of the members separated after a 165 few months and as many as nine members left the Society during the first two years. Wrong choice of members has been partly responsible for the failure of the cooperative farm at Chowgawan.
2. System of wage payment. One of the greatest difficulties
of collective and cooperative farms is "correctly to compensate
individual members for work done," in view of the wide "differences
in skill and conscientiousness".^ The members of the Chowgawan Society were paid fixed monthly wages. This created difficulties as some of
the members did not complete the day's work. For about two months the practice of payment of wages to members on hourly basis was tried on the lines of the Kapure farm, but as the daily record of work was not properly maintained this system did not work. The Society then
reverted to the system of monthly vages; and after this only part-time member workers were paid by the hour. In October 1955 the American
cotton crop was not picked in time due to differences among the members about the number of women folk to be detailed by each family for picking of cotton. In the mean time, the floods came and destroyed the whole of the cotton crop before the Society could decide this minor point. In fact, the Society did not stick to any uniform system of payment of wages to the members and changes were made too frequently.
In the Kapure farm the system of wage payment to members has been more
satisfactory.
3 . Weed for strong leadership. The managing director of the
Chcwgawan farm was born and brought up in Malaya. He did not understand
^Rural Progress Through Cooperatives, op. cit., p. 81. the mentality of the farmers at Chowgawan and did not have any hold on the members of the farm. In Malaya he worked as a clerk with a lawyer arid during the World War II he worked as a clerk in the army in
India. He thus lacked knowledge and experience of farming. Since his release from the army he has been working as a typist at Moga.
He had no time to supervise the farm, as for most of the day he was at Moga. On the other hand the managing director of the Kapure farm who is a retired army officer was b o m and brought up in the village
Kapure and since his retirement from the army in 1952, has been living permanently In the Village. With his rural background and knowledge of farming, he has a strong hold on the members arid has been responsible in no small degree for the success of the Kapure farm.
k . The capacity of the members to work on the farm. All the owner members of the Chowgawan Society .except one who was a lawyer at Malaya were cultivators. They felt that they could better culti vate their respective plots independently and, therefore, left the
Society one by one. It is significant that this absentee member was the only person interested in the existence of the Society and late in
1957 he wrote to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Ferozepur that they wanted to revive the Society by dropping unwilling members and admitting new ones. At Kapure all the, members are non-working owners and if they leave the Society they will have to give their lands on batai, which they think is not safe in view of the government policy of reduction of share rents and giving the land to the tiller. 5. Changes in administration. Normally the same managing com mittee should continue for at lease one year. But in the Chowgawan
Society there were frequent changes in the membership of the managing committee. During the first year, the supervisor was changed thrice and the composition of the managing committee was changed twice. In July 195<5 the managing committee elected office bearers of the Society from amongst themselves. This was irregular as the members of the managing committee have to be elected by the
General Body. In December 195^ the General Body decided that no payment would be made for working as supervisor and that each member would perform these duties for one month by rotation as detailed by the management. The frequent changes in the administration did not permit the smooth running of the Chowgawan Society. At Kapure the same member was elected the supervisor year after year and there were very few changes in the membership of the managing committee. In both the Societies, however, the same person continued as managing director from the start of the Societies.
6 . Storage facilities. Neither of the Societies had any go-down or cattle shed. The seed and the produce were kept in the houses of the different members and the cattle were kept in the outer houses of some of the members. This arrangement was not satisfactory. In 1956 the Kapure Society got a go-down constructed with the help of a government subsidy. Chapter VII±
KOTLA COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
This study relates to the Kotla Cooperative Farming Society,
Ltd. Tillage Kotla, Post Office Kot Fatuhi, Tehsil Garh Shankar, district Hoshiarpur and five family farms in the area for the agricultural year 1953*5^• Kotla is situated at a distance of nine miles from the town of Mahilpur on the kacha road from Mahilpur to
Phagwara. The village was visited twice in the year 1953-5^ after the kharif and rahi crops had been harvested. Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm, the last of these being In 1-lay 1959*
The Society was registered on September 2k, 1950 with 12 members. For the year 1953-5U, the Society had 256 acres of land under its control.
Motives for Starting the Society
1. Five of the members (father and his four sons) owning U5 .5 acres of land each in village Kotla used to give land on batai, but they were not satisfied with their shares of the yield. Six other members had land in village Manam Hana about one mile from Kotla. They had land in other villages also and could not look after this land as some of them lived in village Amian Jatan four miles from Kotla and others lived in Rajasthan.
168 169
2 . A stronger motive was the fear of the government policy of giving land to the tiller. As they did not cultivate the land them selves and some of them were absentee owners, they thought that as members of the cooperative farm their ownership rights would be safe,
3* One of the members from Kotla was the vice president of the
Cooperative Union at Mahilpur. He had also worked as an honorary
Inspector of Cooperative Societies for six years from 19^3 to 19^9-
Another member with land in village Manam liana was the president of the
Cooperative Union at Posi. These two members took initiative in starting the Cooperative Farming Society. Most of the other members were already members of the Cooperative Credit Societies at Kotla or
Amian Jatan and understood the advantages of cooperatives.
1. The Society was started in the hope that the government would give liberal subsidies and loans.
5• The members thought that they would be able to raise pro duction with the help of tractors and tube-we11s, which the individual owners with their limited means would be unable to purchase.
Finances
The maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed at Rs 19,000 on November 18, 1950. The members have contributed to the share capital at the rate of Rs to per acre of land given to the Society for joint cultivation. The liability of the members is limited to ten times the value of the shares held by them. 170
TABLE 8.1
Balance Sheet as on June 30, 195^
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs
Share Central Shares 10,170 .00 Bank 50 .00 Loan C.B., Hoshiarpur 2,370 .61+ Machinery 33,379 .13 Deposit Credit and Loan to members 72 .00 Thrust Society, Loan to non-members 878 .50 Kotla 16,1+01+ .78 Furniture ll+9 .81 Deposit Credit Advance 2 .37 Society, Amian Jatan 1+,1+55..36 Loss 27,922 .62 Deposit members 20,01+3 .15 Cash in hand 32 .61+ Deposit non-members 8 ,1+1+3 .ill Fixed deposit of members 600 .00 Total 62,1+87 .07 Total 62,1+87 .07
About one-third of the working capital was provided by the deposits of the Cooperative Credit Societies of Kotla and Amian Jatan.
The Cooperative Farming Society paid interest at the rate of 3 per cent on these deposits, but if these credit Societies kept these deposits with the Central Cooperative Bank, they would be paid interest at the rate of one and a half per cent. On the other hand, the cooperative farm had to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent on loans from the
Central Cooperative Bank and found it economical to use the deposits of these Societies. This arrangement was thus found to be mutually beneficial by the credit Societies and the cooperative farm, although it was criticized as irregular by the officials of the Cooperative
Department in their inspection notes. The deposits of the non-members amounted to Rs 8,1+1+3. The non-members preferred to keep deposits with the Cooperative Farming Society as it paid interest at the rate of 171
3 per cent, while if they kept these deposits with the credit society they would get interest at the rate of one and a half per cent only.
On the assets side the amount of Rs 878.5 given as advance to employees is shown as loan to non-members. Early in 195^> it was recommended that the maximum credit limit be raised to Rs ^+0,000, but it took over two years before it could be raised to Rs 35>000.
Terms of Agreement
The whole of the land of the members in Kotla and the adjacent village of Manam Hana was given to the Society on 20 years* lease and pooled for joint cultivation. The rent fixed was nisaf batai and the members were to get half of the produce of the farm as rent. This was shared by the members in proportion to the area of land contributed by the individual members.
Equipment
The major equipment maintained by the Society in the year 1953-5^ consisted of two tractors along with accessories, four pumping sets, two trailers and six bullocks. Most of the machinery was purchased in the years 1950 and 1951 after the formation of the Society, while the bullocks belonging to the members were evaluated at the time of the formation of the Society and taken over by it. A mechanic was engaged for three years up to the end of the year 1953-5^> when his services were dispensed with as some of the members had by then understood the world.ng of the machinery. Bullocks were used for sawing with the help of plough, drawing the persian wheels, ploughing of moodha sugar cane 172
and plantation of rice. Most of the other operations were done with
tractors. The trailer drawn by the tractor was used for transporting
sugar cane to the mill at Phagwara and for carrying farm yard manure
to the fields for which the bullock cart was also used. For major
repairs the tractor was sent to Jullundur.
Labor
For the year 1953-54, the cooperative farm employed a mechanic
at Rs 125 per month, an accountant at Rs 48 per month, a tractor
driver at Rs 53 per month and five field laborers who were paid Rs 45
per month each. Besides these, there were four member workers who were
paid Rs 30 per month each. One of them was the general manager,
another was the farm manager and the remaining two worked as tractor drivers. With the exception of the general manager, they did very
little work on the farm after the first two years. These four brothers and their father, who was too old for work, were the only resident members. They did not bother to work hard as their remuneration was not based on the quality and quantity of work. Two member workers who were together responsible for driving one tractor did not put in as much work as one hired worker who handled the other tractor.
If non-member field laborers were absent, a proportionate de duction was made from their wages. No leave with pay was given to them.
However, no deduction was made from the wages of the tractor driver or the accountant for being absent for a day or two. Casual labor was engaged on contract basis for specific jobs. TABLE 8.2
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area owned in acres 36 13 k - - 53-0 256
Area taken on batai -- 7 5.5 k 16.5 -
Area taken on cash rent - 5 - 2.5 1 8.5 -
Total Area 36 18 11 8.0 5 78.0 256
Number of family workers 2 3 1 1 1 8 It
Number of hired workers 1 --- - 1 8
Total Number of workers 3 3 1 1 1 9 12
Number of Bullocks k k 2 2 2 lk 6 17^
Description of the Farms
Table 8.2 gives the particulars of the farms selected for study.
Two of the family farms had taken all their land on batai and cash rent while two others had taken some land on batai or cash rent to supplement the area owned.
TABLE 8.3
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm for family farm A B C D E farms
Food-grains 6k.O?o 59.7# 6 2 ,0)0 7k.Oja 100.0# 71.1# 68.0# Fodder Ik.3 25.8 26. k 20.5 - 15.8 21.7 Sugar cane 11.3 h .8 11.0 k.9 7.9 6.3 Cotton 8.8 6.5 - - - 2 .U Oil-seeds 1.3 3.2 - - 5.2 1.6 Miscellaneous 0.3 - - - - - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 8.3 gives the pattern of cropping. The crops raised on these farms have been classified into six categories of food-grains, fodder crops, sugar cane, cotton, oil-seeds and miscellaneous. Food-grains occupy the most important place in the cooperative farm as well as in the family farms, next in importance being fodder crops. The cooper ative farm had 6k .0 per cent of its cropped area under food-grains against an average of 68.0 per cent for all the family farms taken to gether. The percentage of cropped area -under food-grains on the family farms varies from 59*7 per cent on farm A to 100.0 per cent on farm D.
The smaller farms had a higher percentage of their cropped area under food-grains. It was not possible for these farms to meet even the family requirements of food-grains and there was not enough land for diversification of crops. Fanner D had the whole of his area under food-grains and grew wheat and rice only. All the family farms had a higjher percentage of their cropped area under fodder crops than the cooperative farm, the average for the family farms being 21.7 Pe^ cent against 1^*3 per cent for the cooperative farm. With its tractors and pumping sets, the cooperative farm maintained a smaller number of bullocks and, therefore, needed less area under fodder crops. Food- grains and fodder together account for an average of 89.7 per cent of the cropped area of the family farms and 78.3 pe*’ cent of the cropped area of the cooperative farm. The cooperative farm had 11.3 pcr cent of its cropped area under sugar cane, the average for the family farms being 6.3 per cent. The cooperative farm had 8.8 per cent of its cropped area under cotton while farm A with 6.5 per cent of its cropped area; under cotton was the only family farm to raise this crop. Besides the cooperative farm, two of the family farms A and E raised oil-seeds.
None of the family farms had any area under miscellaneous crops while the cooperative farm had one area under oranges. With a smaller percentage of cropped area under food and fodder crops and a higher percentage under sugar cane, cotton and miscellaneous crops, than the family farms, the cooperative farm had a better pattern of cropping. 176
TABLE Q.k
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm C D E farms A B i VO VO CO 1 1—1 OJ 0 — • 1
120.0 86.1 126.U 121.8 loh.i
Intensity of Cropping
Table 8.1* compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative
farm with that of the family farms. Against the average intensity of
cropping of 10l*.8 on the family farms, the cooperative farm had an
intensity of cropping of 120.0. This was higher than the intensity
of cropping of farm A and farm D. Besides the tractor, six bullocks were operating on the cooperative farm. Irrigation water was
supplied by four pumping sets. Four member workers and eight non
member workers were engaged on the farm. Farm A with two family workers, one hired worker, three bullocks and a he-buffalo and an
area of 36 acres had the lowest intensity of cropping of all the
farms. The head of the family was a very lazy and careless man. He
could not control the whole of the land, nor did he bother to give
on batai the land he could not control himself. Although the whole
of the area in this farm had facilities of well irrigation, the famer did not have enough of bullock power to irrigate all the fields with the persian wheels. Due to this, double cropping was not possible and part of the area could not be sown even once and had to be left fallow. The other family farm with a lower intensity of cropping than the cooperative farm was farm D with an area of eight acres out of ITT which 5.5 acres was taken on “batai and the remaining on caah rent. The tenant who had a pair of buffaloes of very poor quality did not raise any kharif crops except rice on a small plot of 0.3 acres, where he sowed wheat after harvesting rice. The whole of the area was sown with wheat. Of all the holdings, farms E and B had the highest intensity of cropping. On farm E, the tenant was working with a pair of he-buffaloes on an area of five acres only. On farm B, three family workers were engaged with two pair of bullocks on an area of
18 acres. Thus with half the area of farm A, it had the same number of workers and bullocks as farm A. The third farm with a higher intensity of cropping than the cooperative farm was farm C where the farmer was working with a pair of bullocks on an area of 11 acres partly owned and partly taken on batai.
TABLE 8.5
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds
C D E Average for Cooperative> Cash Cash family farm A B Batai Owned Batai Rent Batai. Rent farms
Wheat 10.1 12.3 15*0 8.0 20.0 2.2 16.0 8.T T.O 11.3 Maize 10.1 16.0 16.0 12.0 12.0 - - 12.0 - ll.O Rice 12.T 21.3 32.0 -- 6.0 - 16.0 - 2l.l Cotton (desi) 1.2 12.0 - _ . _ . 12.0 Sugar cane (cane) 186.9 Sugar cane (Gur) 2.0 16.0 3.6 12.0 - 20.0 U.3 Value of sugar cane (in rupees per acre)268.6 30.0 2U0.0 5I.0 180.0 - 300.0 169.5 Masur 2.2 h.o 0.0 -- - - - . 3-1 178
Yield of Crops
Table 8.5 compares per acre yield of crops of the cooperative farm and the family farms. With the exception of sugar cane, the yield per acre of all the crops on the cooperative farm is lover than the average yield of those crops on the family farms, or the average yield for farms A, B, or the owned/cash rent part of holdings C and
D. Cultivation of crops, it appears, received greater care and personal attention on the family farms than the cooperative farm. The family farmers prepared gur (jaggery) from their sugar cane, while the cooperative farm sent all its sugar cane to the sugar mill at
Phagwara. The value of the yield per acre of sugar cane on the cooperative farm was Rs 268.S which was higher than the value of the average yield per acre of the family farms (Rs 169.5) or the value of the yield per acre of any of the family farms except farm E. This crop needs plenty of irrigation water and manuring in respect of which the cooperative farm had an advantage over the family farms. Cotton was not sown by any of the family farmers except farmer A, as they did not have enough of land. The low yield of cotton on the cooper ative farm is explained by the fact that it was sown on weak land with the object of improving the fertility of the soil. This crop gives fertility to the soil as the dried leaves, the roots and the sainji crop which is inter-mixed with it make the land richer. There was neither an adequate preparation of the seed-bed nor was the crop irrigated regularly. 179 TABLE 8.6
Input, Output and Ret Income (On Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
Input 225.1 193.9 280.7 216.6 139.1 257.^ 215.6 Output 157.8 115.2 215.1 lo5.3 93.5 197*8 155.3 Ret Income -(67.3) -(78.7) -(35.6) -( 51.3) -(^5.6) -( 59*6) -(60.3 )
Ret Income
Table 8.6 gives the input, output and net income on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm with an area of 256 acres had a total output of the value of Rs h0,110 and an input of Rs 57*633* Against this, the five family farms with a total area of 78 acres had an output of the value of Rs 12,112 and an input of Rs l6,8ll. With a higher input per acre than the average for the family farms taken together, the cooperative farm had a lower out put per acre, with the result that the net income per acre was lower.
The net income per acre of the cooperative farm was also lower than that of any of the family farms except farm A, which had the lowest net income per acre and the lowest intensity of cropping of all the farms under study. The biggest of the family farms, holding A had the lowest income. This is accounted for by the same factors which explain its lowest intensity of cropping. Rent of land accounts for more than half of the input of this farm. The farmer did not have enough of human and bullock labor of good quality operating on the farm. As the area of this farm is only a little less than the total area of the remaining four family farms, its low net income per acre
affects the average net income of all the family farms taken together, which is lower than that of any of the remaining four family farms.
The low net income per acre of farms E, C and D is mostly accounted for by the fact that most of the land was taken on batai and the farmer who had to share the produce with the landlord did not put in his best. Farm B shows the best results of all the farms under study.
Three family workers were engaged on an area of 18 acres with two pair of bullocks. Manure droppings of five non-working cattle and four working cattle were applied on the land.
TABLE 8.7
Net Gain in Rupees from Batai Cultivation
C D E
Area on batai in acres 7.0 5.5 4.0 Income from batai in rupees 438.75 94.00 445.5 Rental value 700.00 467.5 4oo.o Net gain -(261.25) -(373.5) 45.5 Net gain per acre -( 37.32) -( 67.9) 11.4
Table 8.2 shows that in farms C, D and E an area of seven acres, 5.5 acres., and four acres was taken on nisaf batai respectively. The income of the owners of this land consisted of the value of half of the produce of their land, which they got as their shares. This income of the landowners from batai cultivation is compared in Table 8.7 above with the rental value of land at the prevailing rates. A comparison of the net gain per acre of these non-cultivating owners from batai cultivation with the net income per acre of the cooperative farm
(Table 8 .6 ) shows that the landowners of part of holdings C and E were better off than they would be if they joined the cooperative farm. But the batai rent charged by them was higher than that permissable under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. The owner of part of holding
E is a gainer as a result of giving his land on batai instead of cash rent. But his gain is the loss of the cultivating tenant.
TABLE 8.8
Net Income in Rupees Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
Basis B -(61.7 ) -(*8 .7) 54.4 -(2 .2 ) 21.9 48.4 1*.9 Basis A 45.7 52.2 13^-9 73.3 23-9 50.2 72.2
For working out the net income on basis C for Table 8 .6 , all the items of expenditure are included in the costs. This is necessary for a comparison of the net return on different farms. In order to see how these farmers are carrying on from year to year, net income per acre has been worked out in Table 8.8 on basis B by excluding the imputed value of family labor from expenditure. Besides the cooperative farm, two of the family farms, A and C show a net loss per acre even on basis B. On basis A, the net income on all the farms is positive.
TABLE 8.9
Net Income Per Worker in Rupees on Basis C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family farm ABODE farms
Basis C -(11*35.30 - W - 7 ) -(213-7) -(561*.5) -(364.5) -(298.0 ) -(522.4) Basis B -(1315.3 ) -(581*.7) 326.3 -( 24.5) 175-5 242.0 42.4 Basis A 97^-3 650.3 809.7 806.5 191.5 251.0 625.4 The net income on basis C, which gives the return for manage ment only, is negative for all the farms. The net incane per worker on basis B, which gives the return for management and manual labor together, is negative for the cooperative farm and holdings A and
C. In other cases it is positive but lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates. Evidently these farmers would be better off as field laborers. The average net income on basis A for all the family farms taken together is higher than the wages at the prevailing rates. Even on basis A, the net income per worker on two of the family farms D and E is lower than the wages at the prevailing rates. TABLE 8.10
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the Farm A B c D E family farms
1. Human Labor 13.5# 26.0# 35.3# 24.8# 48.5# 42.0# 31.3#
2. Bullock Labor 3.8 13.8 17.7 22.9 16.0 11.6 16.3
3, Rent 44.4 51.6 35.6 35.2 27-5 42.4 42.1
4. Machinery 32. 4 ------
Total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 94.1 91.4 88.6 82.9 92.0 96.0 89.7
5. Seed 5 2.7 3-9 6.5 6.6 1.8 3.8
6. Agr icultural implements 0.6 3.6 5.0 8.8 0.9 1.6 4.4
7. Fertilizers 0.3 ------
8 . Others 0.5 2.3 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.6 2.1
Total 100.0# 100.0# 100.0# 100.0# 100.0# 100.0# 100. a#
H CO CO Components of the Input
Table 8.10 gives the break-up of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Rent of land occupies the most important place in the input of the cooperative farm as well as that of all the family farms taken together, next in importance being machinery for the cooperative farm and labor for the family farms taken together.
Taking the family farms separately, rent again occupies the most important place in the input followed by labor except for farm D, where human labor occupies the first place and rent of land the second place. Rent of land is high because of the scarcity of land, there being a great demand for land in this region on the part of the tenants. In farm D, out of total area of eight acres, 5*5 acres was taken on nisaf batai. The farmer did not cultivate this area properly and the share of the produce which the owner got as batai rent was
Rs 9h only. This accounts for the lower percentage of rent in this farm. The use of machinery, which accounts for 32.^ per cent of the input of the cooperative farm results in the saving of human labor and bullock labor. Against an average of 31*3 per cent of the total input of all the family farms, human labor accounts for only 13*5 per cent of the input of the cooperative farm. The corresponding figure for bullock labor for the family farms and the cooperative farm are
16.3 per cent and 3.8 per cent respectively. The percentage of human labor in the inputs of the family farms varies from 2^.8 per cent to k8.5 per cent depending mostly on the strength of the family of the
Individual farmer. Human labor, bullock labor and rent of land 185
together account for 89*7 per cent of the input of all the family
farms, the percentage of these three items on the family farms varying
from 82.9 on farm C to 98.0 on farm E, while on the cooperative farm
these three items and machinery account for 9^ •! per cent of the
input. Chemical fertilizers of the value of Rs 1^7 were applied on
the cooperative farm, but none of the family farms used any chemical
fertilizers.
TABLE 8.11
Humber of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm ABCDE farms
^.7 8.3 16.7 9.1 12.5 20.0 11.5
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Tables 8.11 and 8.12 give the number of workers and bullocks
employed by the cooperative farm and the family farms per hundred acres
held. The cooperative farm maintained a smaller number of workers per
hundred acres of the area than any of the family farms, the average
being less than half that for the family farms. This economy in labor
was due to the use of machinery. In the case of the family farms, the
number of workers depends more upon the size of the farmer's family
than on the size or requirements of the farm. With the exception of farm A which had one hired worker, no permanent hired laborer was engaged by any of the family farms. 186
TABLE 8.12
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family f a r m ______A______B ______C______D______E______farms
2.3 11.1 22.2 18.2 25.0 1+0.0 17.9
All the family farms taken together with a total area of 78 acres maintained llf bullocks while the cooperative farm with an area of 256 acres maintained six bullocks only. This economy in the use of bullocks was possible as a result of the use of machinery by the cooperative farm. Otherwise, as three of family farms A, B and C were above the size of plough-unit, there was not much scope for economy in the number of bullocks maintained as a result of the pool ing of land.
TABLE 8.13
Investment Per Acre in Rupees on Improved Implements and Machinery
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C DE farms
86.5 6.1+ 21.7 10.9 - - 9.5
Table 8.13 gives the investment of the cooperative farm and the family farms in improved implements and machinery. Machinery was used on the cooperative farm only. Three of the family farms had chaff- cutters. Holding D and E did not keep even chaff-cutters. No other improved implement was used by any of the family farms. 187
Progress of the Cooperative Farm
Two of the members, father and son with 65 acres of land left the Society in 1952. Their expectations about the increase in yield did not materialize and their land was not levelled and developed by the Society to the same extent as the rest of the land. They felt that they did not have the same say in the management of the farm as the other resident members all of whom belonged to one family.
In July 1956, all the non-resident members withdrew their land from the Society. They also got their share of the value of the machinery at the time of the withdrawal of land. These members with drew their land thinking that they would give their land on batai and get better income. But for the year 1956-57* the tenants were unable to sow wheat as the land was flooded in September 1956 and did not dry up. In subsequent years they were unable to find any tenants will ing to cultivate their land on batai. At the same time, in July 1956 the five resident members gave 21 acres of land each on batai and left the remaining 2k.5 acres each with the Society. The land left with the Society is of poor quality and no tenants are available to culti vate this land. In July 1957* the general manager withdrew the remaining 2^.5 acres also. He has employed four bullocks and two laborers for the cultivation of his U5.5 acres of land. He says that his income from land now is about four times what it was when his land was pooled with the Society. One of his brothers is cultivating 21 acres of land himself with the help of two bullocks. The other three resident members have given the land that they have withdrawn from the control of the Society to tenants on batai. The Society has now only 97 acres of land under its control. One of the tractors was sold off in the year 1958 while two of the pumping sets were disposed of in the year 1957* The present major equipment of the Society consists of a tractor, a trailer, two pumping sets, three bullocks and one cart. Neither the manager nor any of the members gets any wages. Two non-member laborers are employed. In the year 1958-59* about 45.5 acres of land was sown with rice and sugar cane. The remaining 51*5 acres of land was left unsown, as it was at a high.level and was not suited for rice. It did not get dry enough for the sowing of wheat. It was not sown with sugar cane as the crop stands for three years and the members did not like to make the investment in planting sugar cane as they were not sure when the
Society might be wound up.
Difficulties of the Cooperative Farm
1. Water-logging. In August 1956, the bank of the Bist Doab
Canal which flows at a distance of about three miles from Kotla gave way, and flooded this area. In September 1956 there were late rains.
The flood water from Bayien streamlet which flows about three furlongs from Kotla and the Mahilpur Cho which flows at about two furlongs from
Kotla covered the land of this village, which did not dry up by
March 1957• Late rains are not followed by hot weather and the water table does not go down. Since then it has not been possible to sow any rabi crops. Only rice and sugar cane can be grown. The rice crop is particularly successful on this water-logged area. But if there is further water-logging, and the land does not dry up even in May, it 189 will not t>e possible to even grow rice. The Bayien is being dug up to prevent its over-flowing its banks, but as the stream dries up for a very short period, the progress of work is very slow.
2. Watch and ward. The general manager could not keep watch
over the whole of the farm. The other resident member workers did not help him in this work. Cattle belonging to other cultivators in the village and stray cattle caused considerable damage to the crops of the cooperative farm. The non-member employees of the Society did not cooperate in the work of watch and ward. They were themselves pilfering fodder, etc. and, therefore, could not stop others from doing this. The tenants who used to cultivate the land of the members on batai, tried to damage the crops and equipment of the farm as they did not want the Society to succeed. Parts of the pumping sets were removed four times between the years 1951 and 1955. Once a dismissed laborer stole some parts of the pumping set. He admitted that he did this on the inducement of some previous tenants. But for lack of interest on the part of some officials the case was not pursued. The
Society had also to face the criticism of other cultivators in the village who seemed to oppose this venture.
3. Payment of wages. All the member workers were paid fixed monthly wages at uniform rates. This system did not give them any incentive for hard work. The general manager used to take sugar cane to the mill at Phagwara without any extra payment. Once when the truck had been loaded, he fell ill. As the other members were unwilling to go with the truck without payment, one of them had to be paid Rs 10 for this work. The non-member employees were also not given any 190
incentives for work, and the efficiency seemed to settle down to the
level of the least efficient worker. One of them was required to
sleep at the Serai where the equipment of the Society was kept, hut very often he did not sleep there as he was not paid anything extra for this work.
4. Mis-use of equipment. Sometimes the equipment of the Society was used by individual members for personal use. Bullocks of the
Society were used at the khras for the milling of wheat and the laborers were used for private work of the members without the sanction of the manager. Even the tractor of the Society was once taken by two of the members from Ehagwara to Amritsar for seeing a cinema show. No record was maintained regarding the use of the tractor and other equipment of the Society for external work. Mis-use of equipment could be prevented, if the date, time, rate of payment, nature of work and the receipts for the amount collected in respect of such work were entered in a register.
5. Finances. The maximum credit limit of Rs 19,000 was too low for the needs of the Society. The Society purchased the second tractor with a loan from the National Trading Company. Financial resources did not match with the requirements of the area commanded by the Society. The Society was unable to increase agricultural production as it could not make adequate investment in the purchase of equipment and the development of land and its intensive cultivation, due to lack of finances. The Society did not have any go-down for the storage of the produce. Surplus produce had therefore to be sold just 191 after the harvest when the prices are generally depressed. When the maximum credit limit was raised to Rs 35,000 in 1956, the Society had already ceased functioning as a cooperative farm for all practical purposes.
6 . Management. The general manager had no control over other member workers. The resident members who were his brothers did not carry out his orders. A non-member whole-time trained manager might have been in a better position to attend to the day-to-day working of the farm under the guidance of the managing committee.
Results of the Investigation
In spite of all the difficulties examined above, the Society has continued to exist for the last nine years and has been function ing as a cooperative farm about six years. This is due to the presence of the spirit of cooperation among the members and their inability to cultivate the land themselves. All the members of the cooperative farm were members of the cooperative credit and thrift society Kotla or the cooperative credit Society at Amian Jatan. The credit and thrift society at Kotla has been functioning very success fully since 1935 with a membership of about 80. In the year 1936, a
Cooperative Consolidation of Holdings Society with all owners of land in Kotla as members was formed and consolidation of holdings was completed on a voluntary basis in about two years' time. All this gives evidence of the presence of the spirit of cooperation among the members of the Cooperative Farming Society. When any member withdrew his land from the Society, it was done in a spirit of compromise without any quarrel. Even after withdrawal of land, membership did not cease. 192
It was the water-logging of the area of the farm which gave a death
blow to the Society.
A comparison of the working and accounts of the cooperative
farm with the family farms in the same area for the year 1953-5^
has shown the superiority of the cooperative farm in respect of
pattern of cropping, intensity of cropping, use of machinery and
improved implements and economy in the use of human and bullock
labor. The yield per acre of major crops and the net income per
acre, however, are lowar on the cooperative farm than the family
farms. This is accounted for by the factors which have been examined above under the section on "Difficulties of the Cooperative Farm."
Unlike most other cooperative farms, this Society has failed not for lack of cooperative spirit among the members, but the natural
calamity of water-logging of its area and the ineffectiveness of the management. The members withdrew their land when their expectations about higher yields were not fulfilled. Due to present policy of the government to give all help to cooperative joint farms, the members are now thinking of the revival of the Society. Chapter IX
BAJWA, GHUMMAN, SAHDHU COOPERATIVE FARM SEAHABPURA
This study relates to the Bajwa, Ghumman, Sandhu Cooperative
Farm, Ltd. Shahahpura and six family farms in the same area. The village of Shahabpure is situated at a distance of about two miles from the Tehsil town of Batala. The area of operation of the cooperative farm extended over three villages; Shahahpura, Qila
Darshan Singh and Khatib. Qila Darshan Singh and Khatib are situated at a distance of five miles and four miles respectively from Shahahpura. The farm was visited a number of times in the year
1953-5^> twice in the year 195^-55 after the Kharif and rabi crops had been harvested and again in June 1959*
This study is of special interest for the following reasons:
1. In addition to the agricultural land of the village
Shahahpura, an area of 180 standard acres in village Qila Darshan
Singh and 29 standard acres in village Khatib was under the control of the Society.
2. The working of the Society for the year 195^-55 has been studied by the Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning
Commission, Government of India and the Board of Economic Enquiry,
Punjab and it is interesting to compare these studies with this study for which the data has been collected for the year 1953~5^ hut the
193 19^ progress of the farm has been examined upto the end of the year 1958-59*
3. The cooperative farm was fully mechanized and no bullocks were maintained.
U. Out of the family farms selected for comparison with the cooperative farm, the biggest two with an area of 100 acres and 75 acres respectively had a tractor and a pumping set each. The owner manager of farm A was an enlightened young man who had been to the
U.S.A. for a period of six months to see the system of farming there under the International Farm Youijh Exchange scheme, while the manager of farm B was an educated man interested in improved methods of cultivation. It is therefore profitable to compare the efficiency of these two farms with that of the cooperative farm. Two other family farms, C and E had pumping sets for irrigation purposes.
The Bajwa, Ghumman, Sandhu Cooperative Farming Society, Ltd. was registered in February 1951* All the members were displaced landowners from the Lyallpur district who were allotted land on a quasi-permanent basis in these three villages in the year 1950. The same year, three of these landholders who were real brothers started joint cultivation of their land with the help of a tractor. Next year all the land holders of village Shahabpura and the members frcm Khatib and Q,ila
Darshan Singh decided to start the cooperative farm. For the year
1953-5^> the Society had 23 members with 5^5 standard acres of land.
Motives for Starting the Society
All the landowners being displaced persons from West Pakistan, had no animals or equipment with them. The land allotted to them had not been well looked after by the temporary allottees and a large part 195 had become waste land infested with obnoxious weeds. Part of this land was not properly cultivated even when it was with the Muslim cultivators before 19^7 - The members realized that separately it would not be possible for them to break the land and cultivate it. They started the Cooperative Fanning Society in order to get sufficient finances for the purchase of tractors for breaking the land and pumping sets for irrigating it. They decided to mechanize the farm, as the initial expenditure would be about the same, whether they purchased bullocks or tractors.
All the members were absentee or non-working landowners. Some of them were in service while others were not used to manual work.
They had either to give land to tenants for cultivation or to join the cooperative farm. They preferred the second alternative in order to make their ownership rights safe from the possible adverse effects of land reform legislation.
Most of the members were educated persons who realized the benefits of cooperation. As members of the Cooperative Farming Society, they thought they would be able to get government aid and sufficient finances for running the farm.
The leader of the group who was an ex-army officer, had while in service, seen some successful cooperative farms in Palestine. He was very enthusiastic about starting a cooperative farm and persuaded his relatives to join the farm. 196
Terms of Agreement
Each landholding member pledged his land to the Society for a period of five years with the provision that when the basis of the allotment of land was changed from quasi-permanent to permanent, the members would sign a new pledge extending this period from five years to 20 years. Actually on the expiry of the period of five years in
1956, the members pledged their land for a further period of three years. The members could not withdraw their land from the. control of the Society, before the expiry of the period of lease without the approval of the General Body. According to the by-laws, the members were to get nisaf batai. Under this system half of the gross produce of the farm was to be divided among them as the ownership dividend in proportion to the number of standard acres owned by them. In actual practice the landowning members have not been getting nisaf batai, and the rate of rent per standard acre to be paid to the members was decided every year at the general meeting.
Finances
The share capital of the Society was Rs 22,100. Every member was permitted to buy upto a maximum of ten shares of the value of
Rs 100 each. Twenty-two members purchased ten shares each while one of the members purchased one share only. Liability of the members was limited to ten times the value of the shares held by them. The maximum credit limit which was fixed at Rs 30,000 in 1951 was raised to Rs 50,000 in February 1952. 197
TABLE 9.1
Balance Sheet as on June 30, 195**
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs
I.Cash (l) in hand 1*59 .61* Share capital (2 ) in bank 696 .75 (221 shares) 22,100 .00 (3 ) Cooperative Deposits of Commission shop 43 .99 members 22,962 .1*9 (4) M/s Mehr Singh Deposits of Jagat Singh 6 3 6 . .1*5 non-members (l) M/s Gurbaksh II.Advances: Ri Ram (l) Employees 235 .70 Parkash Petrol (2) Members 2,187 .53 Dealers 1,000 .16 (3) Sugar cane (2) Meera and Co. agency 3**6 .73 (Tractor Repair Workshop) 208 .56 III.Share Cooperative Loan Central Bank 100 .00 Cooperative Bank Share Cooperative Batala 1*2,083 .00 Commission shop 50 .00
IV.Stock (l) Stock miscel laneous 2,537 .22 (2) Machinery 1*5,851* .72 (3 ) Livestock (pigs) 650 .00 (1) Wheat stock 12,810 .00
V.Buildings 798 .13
VI.Loss upto 30—<5-53 1 0 ,79k .12 (l) Loss for the year ending 30-6-51* 10,151*.. 13 Total 88,351* .21 Total 88 ,35!* .21
The chief sources of the vorking capital are the share capital, deposits of members and loans from the Central Cooperative Bank Batala.
The Society pays interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum on the deposits of the members and non-members. The amount due to the petrol 198 dealers and tractor repair workshop is shown as non-members' deposits.
The Central Cooperative Bank Batala charged interest at the rate of
6 per cent on the loans given by it to the Society. On the assets side a sum of Rs 235*70 had been advanced to 18 employees on the condition that it would be recovered from their wages along with interest at the rate of ISg- per cent per annum. The stock of wheat was lying with the cooperative commission shop Batala.
Equipment
Four diesel oil pumping sets were installed for irrigation purposes in the year 1951 as electricity was not then available in these villages. As soon as they got the electric connection in the year 1952, these oil pumping sets were disposed of and eight electric pumping sets were installed. Five of these pimping sets were at
Shahabpura, two at Qila Darshan Singh and one at Khatib. For tilling the land, three Ferguson tractors along with the connected implements, tillers, mould-board ploughs and trailers were purchased by the Society in the year 1951* The farm was completely mechanized and no working livestock was maintained. Even the puddling operations for the preparation of the fields for growing paddy were carried out with the help of machinery. For the first two years a mechanic was employed for looking after the machinery. But later, when tractor mechanics were available in the neighbouring town of Batala, his services were dispensed with.
Labor
The managing director of the farm was the only member worker for the year 1953~5^* He was paid Rs 300 per month. The other permanent staff of the farm for the year consisted of one mechanic at Rs 120 per
month, three tractor drivers at Rs 80 per month each and 19 unskilled
laborers engaged on a yearly basis. Each unskilled laborer was given
32 maunds of vheat as his annual wages and 12 maunds of grain as
rations (8 maunds of wheat, 2 maunds of paddy and 2 maunds of maize).
Thrice every year, they were paid Rs 2 each at Diwali, Lohri and
Baisakhi festivals. They were also given free accomodation and fire wood for domestic consumption. They generally continued to draw cash
or kind in advance against their final due of 32 maunds of wheat. In order to discourage the permanent laborers from taking heavy advances, they were required to pay interest at the rate of 12^- per cent on advances taken by them during the first half of the agricultural year.
A bonus of upto a maximum of four maunds of wheat could be given to those laborers who did exceptionally well during a year. Every laborer was allowed 20 days' leave with pay during the year. But if a laborer absented himself for more than 20 days in the year except on medical grounds, his pay was deducted proportionately. The laborers preferred to work on the cooperative farm because of shorter and more regular hours of work.
Casual labor employed for the transplantation of paddy and hoe ing of various crops was paid in cash. For the harvesting of wheat and paddy and picking of cotton, the system prevalent in the locality was followed. For picking of cotton, the casual laborers got one-sixteenth of the quantity of cotton picked and for harvesting of wheat they got 1.5 maunds of wheat per acre. For winnowing they got
5 per cent of the winnowed grain. 200
Administration
According to the "by-laws, the administration of the Society is the responsibility of the General Body consisting of all the members and the managing committee elected by the General Body. In actual practice, however, the managing director has been running the farm.
He has been looking after the office work as well as the accounts of the farm. He has actually been giving guidance to the managing com mittee rather than getting guidance from it.
Facilities Given to the Members
The members were given food-grains, vegetables, firewood and other produce of the farm for household consumption in quantities required by them at prices fixed by the managing committee. The price fixed was generally market price minus the cost of transport and marketing. If the demand of the members for a particular produce was more than the quantity available with the farm, the produce was distri buted among the members in proportion to the number of standard acres owned by them. An individual account was maintained by the Society for each member and the price of all issues of agricultural produce was deducted from the rent of land payable to him.
Relations with the State
The Society has been supplying wheat seed to the Department of
Agriculture. The individual members have been getting taccavi loans
Tor the purchase of fertilizers used on the farm. The cost of the fertilizers was credited to the members' deposit account. The government gave the Society a subsidy of Rs 3*250 in the year 1956-57* 201
out of which Rs 1,000 was for the construction, of a go-down, Rs 1,200
for the pay of the management, Rs 1,000 for the purchase of machinery
and Rs 50 for the purchase of fertilizers. The farm is situated in
the Batala Community Project area. The extension workers have teen
giving advice and guidance to the Society.
Dairy Farm
Twelve partners, led by the managing director of the cooperative
farm, started a dairy farm in the year 195^. The managing director
and his wife had two shares each of the value of Rs 1,000, while the
other partners held one share each. Six of the partners were also members of the cooperative farm. The dairy farm was not run by the
cooperative farm as the majority of the members of the cooperative
farm did not approve of investment in this enterprise. Twenty buffaloes were purchased to start with and after six months another
10 were purchased. An amount of Rs ^,000 was spent on the building.
Four workers were engaged for looking after the cattle. Upto the year
195° fodder for the dairy cattle was purchased from the Society at the market prices. When the Society ceased functioning as a cooperative farm it became difficult to purchase fodder in required quantities from the individual farmers. In 1956 , therefore, the managing director purchased all the buffaloes of the dairy farm and the build ing at their present value. The other partners did not like to continue as share holders of the dairy farm. The managing director
of the cooperative farm is still running the dairy farm and supplying milk to the neighbouring town of Batala. TABLE 9.2
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E F farms farm
Area owned in acres 100 75 4o 26 - 8 2k9 500
Area taken on batai - -- - 20 - 20 -
Total area 100 75 40 26 20 8 269 500
Number of family workers 2 1 2 1 3 3 12 1
Number of hired workers 6 3.5 3 2 - - 14.5 24
Total Number of workers 8 4.5 5 3 3 3 26.5 25
Number of Bullocks 4 6 5 2 25 - Number of Camels - 1 - -- - 1 -
Number of Tractors 1 1 - - - - 2 3 Number of Punning sets 1 1 1 - 1 - 4 8 203
Description of the Farms
Table 9.2 gives the particulars of the farms selected for study.
Two of the family farms had a tractor each while four of them had
pumping sets. Farm A was selected after the other five family farms
had been selected, as it was one of the best run family farms in the
area.
TABLE 9.3
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B c D E F farms
Food-grains 68.6 66.7 58.6 73.1 51.2 62.8 57-6 6k.1 Fodder crops 4.8 21.2 13.1 7.5 29.0 12.8 12.2 16.7 Total of 1 and 2 87.9 71.7 80.6 80.2 7.5.6 69.8 80.8 Oil-seeds 10.0 2.4 16.1 11.9 11.1 19.8 20.9 9.7 Cotton 12.1 3.6 5.1 1.5 3.5 - 2.3 3.^ Sugar cane 0.9 6.1 4.0 6.0 3.5 4.6 7.0 5.3 Mi s ce llane ous 3*6 0.0 3-1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.8
Pattern of Cropping
Table 9.3 compares the pattern of cropping of the cooperative farm with that of the family farms. For a study of the pattern of
cropping, the crops raised on these farms have been classified into
six categories of food-grains, fodder crops, oil-seeds, cotton, sugar cane and miscellaneous. Food-grains occupy the most important place in the cooperative farm as well as the family farms, next in importance being fodder for the family farms and cotton for the cooperative farm.
The cooperative farm had 68.6 per cent of its cropped area under food-grains, against an average of 64.1 per cent of all the family farms taken together. The percentage of the cropped area under food- grains of the family farms varies from 51*2 of farm D to 73.1 of farm
C. Wheat and rice are the most important food crops hut they are also important cash crops. All the family farms had a higher percentage of their cropped area under fodder crops than the cooperative farm, the average flor the family farms "being 16.7 per cent against U.8 per cent for the cooperative farm. The cooperative farm did not maintain any working cattle and fodder was needed only for the milch cattle of the members. Food-grains and fodder together account for an average of 80.8 per cent of the cropped area of the family farms and 73*^ per cent of the cropped area of the cooperative farm. Farm D and farm A had 29.0 per cent and 21.2 per cent of their cropped area respectively under fodder crops. Farm D with an area of 26 acres maintained five working and six non-working cattle while farm A with an area of 100 acres maintained four working and 18 non-working cattle. All the family farms except farm A had a higher percentage of their area under oil-seeds than the cooperative farm. But as farm A which was the biggest of all the family farms with an area of 100 acres, it had only
2 ,b per cent of its cropped area under oil-seeds, all the family farms together had 9*7 per cent of their cropped area under oil-seeds, while the cooperative farm had 10 per cent of its cropped area under oil-seeds. The cooperative farm had 12.1 per cent of its cropped area under cotton while the average for the family farms was only per cent. It had only 0.9 per cent of its cropped area under sugar cane against an average of 5.3 per cent for the family farms. It had an 205
area of 15 acres under vegetables. Farm B and farm D with three acres
and 0.5 acres under vegetables respectively were the only family farms
which grew any miscellaneous crops. The percentage of the cropped
area of the cooperative farm under miscellaneous crops was 3*6
against 0.8 for the family farms taken together. Except for a
smaller percentage of the cropped area under sugar cane and a larger
percentage under food-grains, the cooperative farm had a better
pattern of cropping than the family farms in the same area.
TABLE 9.1
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E F farms
81.0 I6 5 .O 132.0 167.5 112.5 107.5 179.1 117.2
Intensity of Cropping
Table 9-1 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Against an average intensity of cropping
of II7.2 of the family farms, the cooperative farm with about twice the total area of all the family farms had an intensity of cropping of
81.0 only. The Society did not have any bullocks and three tractors were not enough for the whole of the area under the control of the
Society, which extended over three villages. The managing director was the only member worker and inspite of the best of his efforts he could not effectively supervise the hired laborers. An adequate amount of farm yard manure was not available as no cattle were maintained by the farm. Due to these reasons, double-cropping was not possible and part of the area could not be sown even once. Farm F, the smallest of
the family farms had the highest intensity of cropping. Three family
workers (twoacBK two minors) were engaged on the farm on an area of
eight acres only and they tried to get the maximum out of that small
plot of land. Farm C with five workers, six bullocks and a pumping
set for irrigation operating on an area of 40 acres had an intensity
of cropping of 187.5* while farm A with a tractor, a pumping set,
eight workers and four bullocks had an intensity of cropping of
165.O. Farm B with an area of 75 acres, a tractor, pumping set,
four bullocks, a camel and 4.5 workers had an intensity of cropping
of 132.0. The soil in these villages is fertile, irrigation facilities
are available and in addition to the farm yard manure, compost manure
and night-soil are obtained from the neighbouring town of Batala.
The family farms have, therefore, a fairly high intensity of cropping.
TABLE 9.5
Yield Per Acre of Different Crops (irrigated) in Maunds
Average Name of Cooperative for family crop farm A B C D EF farm:
Wheat 17.6 13.3 12.5 10.0 15.6 10.0 5.0 12.6 Gram 13.7 16.7 12.0 9.0 - 9.6 5.3 12.0 Paddy 23.0 30.0 21.2 20.0 20.0 22.0 10.0 26.5 Maize 18.1 - 5.7 4.0 10.7 4.0 6.4 5.7 Cotton (American) 10.2 15.0 7.2 9.0 _ 11.3 Cotton (Desi) 7.5 8.0 3.0 6.8 Sugar cane 10.4 30.0 32.5 10.0 - - 12.0 , 25.3 Toria 14.7 - 10.0 8.0 12.3 10.0 - 9.8 207
Yield of Crops
Table 9*5 compares the yield per acre of crops of the cooperative
farm and the family farms. With the exception of sugar cane, the
yields per acre of all the important crops grown on the cooperative
farm were higher than those of any of the family farms except farm A.
But the yields per acre of all the important crops except wheat of
the cooperative farm were lower than those of farm A. The standard
of cultivation of this farm was better than that of the cooperative
farm. The condition of both the farms was the same and both had
similar facilities in respect of equipment and irrigation, but these
were coupled with individual initiative on farm A which was lacking
in the case of the cooperative farm. On account of the higher yields
of farm A with its area of 100 acres, the average yield of paddy,
American cotton and sugar cane for all the family farms taken
together are higher than the yields of the cooperative farm. Of all
the farms under study, family farm A had the highest yield per acre
for paddy, American cotton and gram while the family farm B showed
the highest yield per acre for sugar cane. It may be of interest to
compare this finding with the statement made in the Studies in Cooper
ative Farming that, the average yield of the import crops cultivated
on a fairly large area of this cooperative farm "for the year 195V 55
is higher than what is obtained on the family farmers' land in this
tract under similar conditions.'*^ Out of the family farms under
^Studies in Cooperative Farming, Programme Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission, Government of India (December 1956), p . 112. study, farms A and B each with a tractor and a tube-well can be regarded as working under conditions similar to those of the cooperative farm and the yields of one of these are higher than those of the cooper ative farm.
TABLE 9.6
Input, Output and Net Income (Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E F farms
Input 201.3 307.6 190.9 23U.3 226.2 175.7 248.4 244.7 Output 219*3 361.7 195.9 213.8 241.5 139.6 129.6 258.4 Net Income 18.0 54.1 5.0 -(20.5) 15.3 -(36.1 )-(118.8 ) 13.7
Net Income
Table 9*6 gives the input, output and net income on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm with an area of 500 acres had a total output of the value of Rs 109,660 and an input of Rs 100,639* Against this, the six family farms with a total area of 269 acres had a total output of Rs 69,521 and an input of Rs 65,82 6 . Farm A, with about one and a half times the input and output per acre of the cooperative farm, had a net income per acre which was about three times that of the cooperative farm. Besides four bullocks and eight workers, a tractor was operating on this farm.
Chemical fertilizers of the value of Rs 700 and farm yard manure of the value of Rs 900 w;ere applied on this farm which was irrigated both by canal water and a tube-well. The average input and output per acre of all the family farms taken together were higher than those of the cooperative farm. But the average net income per acre of the family
farms was lower. With the exception of farm A, all the family farms
had a lower net income per acre than the cooperative farm. Farm F,
the smallest of all the farms, showed the greatest loss per acre.
For lack of alternative employment four family workers were working
on this farm. Their wages accounted for more than half of the total
input of this farm. The other family farms to show a net loss per
acre were farm E, where the whole of the land was taken on batai and
farm C with five workers and six bullocks operating on an area of
1+0 acres irrigated with a pumping set. The land in farm C was
allotted in 1952, and 1953-5k being the first year of cultivation,
there was a net loss per acre.
TABLE 9.7
Wet Income Per Acre on Basis B and A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B c D E F farms
Basis B 25*2 6k. l 13.0 9.5 30.8 29.9 23.8 3^.8 Basis A 100.6 171.0 93-7 68.1 116.5 31.0 85.5 ilk ,k
On basis C, three family farms C, E and F show a net loss. In
order to see how these farmers are carrying on from year to year, net
income per acre has been worked out in Table 9*7 on basis B by exclud ing the imputed value of family labor from expenditure. The net income on basis B is positive for all the farms. Although farm B had a higher net income on basis C than farm E and F, it had a lower net income on basis B as it had only one family worker while farms E and F had three 210
family workers each. Net return has also been calculated on basis A.
TABLE 9.8
Net Income Per Worker on Bases C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family farm A BCD E F farms
Basis c 360.8 676.il 83.3 -(163.8 ) 133.3 -(240.7) -(316.7) 139.^ Basis B 504.8 801. 4 216.7 76.2 266.7 199.3 63.3 353.0 Basis C 2,011.7 2,137.9 1,562.0 5^5.0 1,009.3 206.7 228.0 1 ,176.9
Net income per worker on basis C gives the annual return per
worker for management only. Net income on basis B gives the return
per worker for manual labor and management. Net income on basis A
gives the return per worker for management, manual labor and owner
ship of land. Net income on basis C is negative for three of the
family farms C, E and F. For all the family farms except farm A, .the
return per worker for management and manual labor together (basis B)
is lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates. Even on
basis A the return per worker for two of the farms, B and F is lower
than the wages per worker at prevailing rates. These farmers would be
better off if they would work as wage earners in the factories in the
industrial town of Batala. But those who own some land prefer to
cultivate it rather than work as factory laborers.
* TABLE 9.9
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the Farm A B c D E F family farms
1. Human Labor 19.1# 2 5 .6$ 1U.5# 3 6 .6$ 1 9 . ¥p 37.6$ 5 1 M 2h.3$
2. Bullock Labor 0.0 3.6 9*2 12.8 29.6 lh.9 9*h 9.3
3. Rent 3h.8 32.5 32.1 21.3 35. 26.3 2h.2 30.i+
U. Machinery 27 .I 25.8 28.9 13.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 20.5
Total of 1, 2 , 3 and h 81.0 87.5 8h .7 83.8 8h.il 07.1 91.0 8h.5
5. Agricultural implements 0.2 0.3 2.9 1.9 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.3
6 . Seed 3*3 7.8 3.2 6.7 2.9 h.5 3 ^ 5.9
7 . Fertilizers 2.7 2.3 U.9 2.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.7
8 . Others 12.8 2.1 h.3 5-5 8.5 6.9 5.0 5.6
Total 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 211 212
Components of the Input
Table 9*9 gives the break-up of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Rent of land occupies the most important place in the input of the cooperative farm and that of all the family farms taken together, next in importance being machinery for the cooper ative farm and human labor for all the family farms taken together.
The importance of rent is partly accounted for by the proximity of land to the team market of Batala and the fertility of the soil in this area. Human labor occupies the most important place and rent the second place in three of the family farms F, E and C. Farms F and E had each three family laborers while farm C had two family laborers and three hired workers. Human labor accounts for 19-1 per cent of the input of the cooperative farm and 2k. 2 per cent of the total input of all the family farms. Two of the family farms, A and
B had a tractor and a pumping set each while farms C and E had a pumping set each. Machinery accounts for about the same percentage of the input on farm A and B as the cooperative farm. Taking all the family farms together, machinery accounts for 20.5 per cent of the input against 27.1 per cent for the cooperative farm. The cooperative farm did not maintain any bullocks. On the family farms, bullock labor accounted for an average of 9»3-’Per cent of the total input, while for farm A which had a tractor it accounted for only 3*6 per cent of the input. Farm B, too, had a tractor, but as it was purchased only in
May, 1953, none of the bullocks or the camel which were maintained by the farm before the purchase of the tractor were disposed of during the 213 year under study and bullock labor, therefore, accounted for 9*2 per
cent of the input of this farm. All the family farms except farms
E and F used fertilizers which accounted for 2.7 per cent of the input of the cooperative farm as well as that of the total input of all the family farms taken together.
TABLE 9-10
Number of Permanent Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
5.0 6.0 12.5 11.5 15.0 37-5 9.9
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Table 9*10 and 9.11 compare the number of workers and bullocks per hundred acres of land held by the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm and family farms A and B had the smallest number of laborers per hundred acres of land as these farms had tractors. The average number of workers per hundred acres maintained by the cooperative farm was 5*0 against an average of 9*9 for the family farms taken together. But the average number of laborers per hundred acres of land of the family farms C, D, E and F which did not maintain tractors was lH.9 . The smallest of the farms had the largest number of workers per hundred acres of the area.
table 9.11
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held Average Cooperative for family farm A BC D E F farms
0.0 ^ .0 8.0 15.0 19.2 20.0 37.5 10.0 21b
The cooperative farm did not maintain any bullocks. Two of the
family farms, A arid B which had tractors maintained the smallest number
of bullocks per hundred acres of area held. The number of bullocks
maintained by the family farms per hundred acres of area rises with a
decrease in the area of A farm and the smallest of the farms had the
largest number of bullocks per hundred acres.
TABLE 9.12
Investment Per Acre in Rupees on Improved Implements and Machinery
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C DEF farms
65.0 63.3 I65.I 87.5 0.7 71.0 - 87.9
Investment in Machinery
Table 9*12 gives the investment per acre of the cooperative farm
and the family farms in machinery and implements. Two of the family
farms had a tractor and a pumping set each while farms C and E had a
pumping set each. Investment per acre of farms B, C and E on improved
implements and machinery was more than that of the cooperative farm, while that of farm A was about the same as that of the cooperative
farm.
Withdrawal of Members from the Society
One of the members owning 5k standard acres of land left the
Society in July 195k, along with his wife and son who were also members
of the Society. He felt that he would be getting a better income from
i artr) under individual cultivation. As a member of the Cooperative Farming Society, he could not meet his family expenditures nor could he borrow against the security of the crops standing on his land.
The inputs and outputs of this holding after its separation from the cooperative farm for the year 1954-55 have been examined for a comparison of the results with those of the cooperative farm for the year 1953-54. With 23.4 per cent of the cropped area under oil-seeds,
15.0 per cent under cotton and 5 0 .4 per cent under food-grains, this farm had a superior pattern of cropping to that of the cooperative farm, the corresponding figures for which were 10.0 per cent, 12.1 per cent and 68.6 per cent respectively. The intensity of cropping was 99*1 compared with 84.0 for the cooperative farm. The yield per acre of wheat, rice, cotton and toria of this farm were 11.5 , 1 2 .0 ,
8.0 and 16.0 maunds respectively while those of the cooperative farm were 17.6, 23 .1, 10.2 and 14.7 respectively. Except for toria, the yields per.acre of the cooperative farm were higher. While the output per acre of Rs 219.2 of this farm at 1953"54 prices was the same as that of the cooperative farm, the input per acre (167.9 Rs) was lower than that of the cooperative farm by Rs 33*4, with the result that the net income per acre was Rs 51*3 compared with Rs 18.0 per acre of the cooperative farm. The lower input per acre is partly accounted for by the fact that part of the land had already been ploughed by the
Society when this farmer separated his land. Ho bullocks were main tained for the year 1954-55. A tractor was hired for 260 hours in the year at the rate of Rs 6 per hour. Inspite of this the net income per acre of this farmer for the year 1954-55 was lower than the annual dividend for land ownership that he got as the member of a cooperative 216 farm. For the first two years the members of the cooperative farm got
Rs 60 per acre per year, while in 1953“5^ they got Rs 'JO per acre.
In July 1955} four members from Qila Darshan Singh with 120 standard acres of land left the Society. They held that their land was more fertile and they demanded that instead of a dividend on land at uniform rates for all the members they should be given half of the produce raised from their plots. For the year 195^“55> they were allowed to keep one acre each for growing vegetables and fodder for family use. They got this area ploughed with the tractor of the
Society at Rs 6 per acre or by paying double the cost of the oil used. Other members could also use the tractor of the Society on these terms. How, they demanded five to seven acres of land for individual cultivation. If this demand was acceeded to, they would select the best land for self cultivation and might use the permanent staff of the Society for work on the individual plots. It was also difficult to keep an accurate record of the time the tube-well was used for irrigating their individual plots. In view of these diffi culties, the General Body did not find it possible to accept the demand of these members who, therefore, withdrew from the Society and started individual cultivation.
In autumn 1955, there were heavy rains and part of the land in Shahabpura was flooded due to the over-flowing of the Hasli stream let. Most of the kharif crops, cotton and paddy, sown in Shahabpura were seriously damaged due to the floods. On the other hand, the land at Qila Darshan Singh being at a high level suffered very little and 217 produced bumper crops. This upset the remaining two members from Qila
Darshan Singh who demanded that the flooded area should be kept out of the control of the Society as it affected the dividends of all the members. When this was not agreed, they put forward the alternative demand that members should be given half of the produce of their respective plots. This was not acceptable to members from Khatib who felt that as they were in service and did not live in the village, their land would not be cultivated properly and they would not get an adequate return from it. Members from Shahabpura, too, having seen, the havoc of floods, were reluctant to accept this and anyway felt that this arrangement would be against the spirit of cooperative farm ing. Under these circumstances, the remaining two members from Qila
Darshan Singh with 60 standard acres of land left the Society in
July 1956 and started cultivating their plots separately.
Another member from Shahabpura with 52 standard acres of land left the Society in July 1956 on the plea that his land was not liable to floods and was of a better quality. In June 1958, he sold his land in Shahabpura for Rs 62,000 and shifted to U.P. where he has purchased an area of 60 acres for Rs 7,000 only.
When these members left the Society, their shares in the assets of the Society were adjusted against their shares of liabilities and the balance, if any, was paid to them or charged from them. As far as the pumping sets were concerned, the members had already paid for the boring and pipes of the pumps in their respective plots. At the time of withdrawal, they paid to the Society the price of the pumping machinery. 218
Thus it was the members who could cultivate the land themselves
and felt that they would be able to get better income under self-
cultivation as their plots were more fertile and less liable to
floods, or those who had extravagent habits and wanted to get sub
stantial loans against the security of their land that left the
Society first. Most of these members joined the Society when it was
started, as the land allotted to them had not been well looked after
since the partition of the country and it was difficult to break the
land with the help of tractors. By 1955 when these lands had been
brought tinder plough and well laid out, the members decided to start
individual cultivation.
The Break-up of the Society
For the year 1956-57 bhe Society was left with 12 members with
2k5 standard acres of land. Nine of these members belong to Shahabpura while the remaining three belong to Khatib. The pay of the managing
director was reduced to Rs 250 per month.
In February 1956, one-of the members planted eight acres of his
land with pears and mangoes. He got this land released from the
Society in September 1955t got it ploughed with the tractors of the
Society on payment and sowed wheat. After meeting all the costs he got a net income of Rs l,2hl from wheat cultivation on this area. This gave him an incentive for bringing all his area under self cultivation.
The managing director, too, got 3.5 acres of land released in 1956 for laying an orchard.
Kharif in 1957 was the last crop sown by the Society. There were 219
floods in August 1957 and the whole of the paddy crop was destroyed.
This gave a great set-back to the Society. The members decided to try
individual cultivation and the Society ceased functioning as a cooper
ative farm. It was also not possible for the Society with the remain
ing area of 2k5 acres only, to pay the managing director Rs 250 per
month. The rabi crop in 1957 vas sown by the members separately on
their respective plots of land. The three tractors were held in
common for the year 1957-58. The drivers were paid by the Society
but the oil was paid for by the individuals. In July 1958, the
remaining equipment of the Society with the exception of a tractor,
which was out of working order, was taken over by the individual
members. Now the Society exists on paper only in the records of the
Cooperative Department, with 12 members awning 236 acres of land.
Results of the Investigation
This study has revealed the superiority of the cooperative farm
over the family farms in the area in respect of pattern of cropping,
the economy of labor and bullock power. The yield per acre of important
crops, net income per acre and per worker of the cooperative farm were
also higher than those of any of the family farms except farm A which
showed better results than the cooperative farm in all these respects.
Farm A m s run.by an educated young man who was following modern
techniques of farming and had the incentive of private enterprise.
The cooperative farm had a very successful life of about six
years. The most notable achievements of the cooperative farm were:
1. Land which had been neglected by the temporary allottees was brought under cultivation with the help of tractors. 220
2. One-third of the area of the farm was without any irrigation
facilities and the remaining two-thirds had wells for irrigation. But
most of the wells were out of working order and without persian wheels.
The Society brought whole of the area under irrigation by repairing
eight of the wells and installing pumping sets in them.
3. The Society got electricity in 1953 much earlier than
other villages in the same area.
U. All the farming operations were mechanized and no bullocks
were maintained.
5. Modem techniques of farming were used and a high standard
of cultivation was maintained. Improved seeds, fertilizers and
compost manure were used. In this respect, this farm was one of the
best run cooperative farms in the Punjab.
6 . Two bridges on the approach road from the Grand Trunk Road
to the village Shahabpura have been constructed by the National
Extension Service.
7. Good-will in the market has been earned as the produce
sent was always of a good quality.
Most of these achievements have been of lasting benefits to the
members. Even after the break up of the Society, wheat, melons and
other produce of the farmers from Shahabpura have a good reputation in
the market, arid sell at higher prices than similar produce from else where. The standard of cultivation of some of the members continues
to be high even after their separation from the Society. The credit for most of these achievements goes to the initiative, enterprise, managerial capacity and leadership of the managing director of the farm who had been running it so efficiently. His knowledge of farming was up-to-date and he was very particular about sawing the crops at the proper time, using an adequate amount of seed of proper quality and applying compost manure and fertilizers in suitable dozes. He looked after the interests of the Society with a keen sense of duty and the members had full confidence in him. Huge capital investment was necessary for mechanized cultivation, but most of the members being substantial landowners, managed to arrange for this capital out of their share money, deposits and loans from the Central Cooperative
Bank.
The chief weakness of the Society was that none of the members except the managing director worked on the farm. All the farm work was done by the non-member wage earners. Most of the members were related to one another. In this respect, the enterprise was more of an estate farm than a genuine cooperative farm. Part of the success of the farm may be due to its short-comings as a cooperative enter prise. The absentee owners and those who could not cultivate the land themselves, were the last to withdraw from the cooperative farm. If all the members were working on the farm, there might have been frequent disputes among them over distribution of work and remuneration for it. Frequent floods played an important part in ending the joint farming operations. Chapter X
UKDATA FAZALPUR COOPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY
This case study relates to the Undata Fazalpur Cooperative
Farming Society, village Fazalpur, district Jullundur and five family farms in the adjacent villages.
Origin
The.Society m s registered in February 1950 with lU members.
All the seven landowning members who are real brothers and sisters were allotted this land in the year 1950, in lieu of the land owned by them in West Pakistan. All of them are absentee landowners engaged in business or service. They organized the cooperative farm in order to have a farm big enough for tube-well irrigation and use of tractors which m s necessary for the development of the land which was in very poor condition when they got itspossession in 1950, as it had been left uncultivated for about three years. As they could not farm the land themselves, they organized the Society with the object of saving their ownership rights. According to the terms of agreement the members have leased their land to the Society for a period of 20 years.
Finances
In the year 1953-5^ the Society had a share capital of Rs 27,500 divided into shares of the value of Rs 10 each. The maximum credit limit which was fixed at Rs 15,000 to start with in 1950, m s raised
222 223 to Rs 25,000 in September 1952. Besides the share capital, the working capital consisted of a Central Bank loan of Rs 13,000 and members' deposits of Rs lU,000. All the landowning members came from a rich family. The whole of the income from land was reinvested in the improvement of the farm and no ownership dividend was dis tributed among the members. In the year 1956-57* -fclle Society got from the government a subsidy of Rs 3*220 to be spent on the managerial staff (Rs 1 ,170); machinery (Rs 1,000); go-down (Rs 1,000) and fertilizers (Rs 50).
Equipment
The major equipment of the Society in the year 1953-5^ consisted of a tractor with implements, two tube-wells and a pump ing set and four bullocks, all purchased in the year 1950*
Management and Labor
Since its start the cooperative farm has been having a full time paid manager at Rs 75 per month and a tractor driver and mechanic at Rs 100 per month. Besides these, 12 field laborers were employed on the farm in the year 1953-5^. One of the landowning members who is the manager of a Tannery in Kapurthala about four miles from
Fazalpur visits the farm for a few hours daily and gives instructions to the manager. The other members seldom visit the farm. TABLE 10.1
Particulars of the Farms
Total of Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm family Cooperative A B C D E farms farm
Area irrigated (acres) 100 12 17 10 5 144 160
Area unirrigated (acres) 100 4a 32 20 243 76
Total Area 200 Go Go 42 25 387 236
Number of family workers 2 1 1 3 1 8 1
Number of hired workers 5 3-5 - - 1 9.5 14
Total Number of workers 7 4.5 1 3 2 17.5 15
Number of Bullocks 16 5 - 4 2 27 4
Number of Tractors - - l - - 1 1
Number of Pumping sets 2 -- - - 2 1 Number of Tube-wells - - 1 - - 1 2 225
Description of the Farms
Table 10*1 gives the particulars of the farms selected for
study. All the family farms are within a radius of one mile from the
cooperative farm. The owner of farm C did not maintain any bullocks.
He got on custom hire the tractor of the farm of his brothers about
1+0 miles from Fazalpur. For irrigation purposes he had a tube-well.
TABLE 10.2
Pattern of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A BCD E farms
Food-grains 68.1+ ^3-9 57.6 66.7 76.1 58.9 53.2 Fodder crops 12.2 31.^ 28.0 25.0 19.6 32.5 2 9 .I Oil-seeds 1^.5 10.5 9.6 - 8.6 8 .1+ Cotton 1.9 5.7 2 .k - - - 3.1* Sugar cane 3.0 8.5 2.k 8.3 — - 5.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 10.2 compares the pattern of cropping of the cooperative
farm with that of the family farms. The cooperative farm had a higher
percentage of its area under oil-seeds than any of the family farms
and a higher percentage under food-grains than any of the family farms
except farm D. The percentage of area under fodder crops was less
than half that of the family farms as with its tractor and tube-wells
it had to maintain a smaller number of bullocks. Farm C did not maintain any bullocks but raised forage crops for the milch cattle.
It had a smaller percentage of area under sugar cane and cotton than
the family farms which raised these crops. They could not increase 226
the area under sugar cane as they had difficulty in selling the sugar
cane to the sugar mill at Phagwara which gave preference to the growers
from Pepsu.
TABLE 10.3
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
111.4 76.4 104.2 60.0 54.8 92.4 76.8
Intensity of Cropping
Table 10.3 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative
farm with that of the family farms. The most important factor deter
mining intensity of cropping in this area is the availability of
irrigation facilities. The soil of the barani land here is sandy loam
which yields crops in alternate years only. The cooperative farm with
a higher percentage of its area under irrigation had a higher intensity
of cropping than any of the family farms.
TABLE 10.4
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds Average Name of Cooperative for family Crops farm A B CD E farms
American cotton (irrigated) 20.2 12.5 30.0 14.4 Sugar cane (irrigated) 408 331.2. 452. 266.7 341.8 Maize (irrigated) 13 20 15 30 4 4 18.2 Groundnuts (unirrigated) 4 .2 3.5 5 2 2 3.7 Moth (unirri gated) 2.5 3.2 2 - 2 0.5 1.4 227
Yield of Crops
Table 10.4 compares the yield per acre of crops of the cooper
ative farm with those of the family farms. With its better financial
resources and higher inputs, the cooperative farm had higher yields
per acre of sugar cane, groundnuts, moth and American cotton.
TABLE 10.5
Input, Output and Net Income Per Acre on Basis C
Average Cooperative for family farm AB C DE farms
Input 196.6 139.9 1^3.6 101.4 86.1 99.8 126.1 Output 151.6 129.5 109.0 116.9 32.2 44.0 108.3 Net Income -(45.0) - (10.4) -(3^.6) 15.5 -(53.9) -(55.8) -(1 7 .8 )
Net Income
Table 10.5 compares the net Income per acre on basis C of the
family farms with that of the cooperative farm. For the- year 1953-
54, the cooperative farm had a total input of the value of Rs 46,402.6
and an output of the value of Rs 35,786.5 . Against this, the family
farms had a total input of the value of Rs 48,795*8 and an output of
the value of Rs 41,910.5. The net loss per acre of the cooperative
farm was greater than the average for all the family farms. The only farm which showed a positive net income per acre was farm C which did not maintain any working cattle and got a tractor on custom hire and a tube-well for irrigation. 228
TABLE 10.6
Net Income Ber Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CDE farms
Basis B -(1*5.0) -(!*.!*) -(25.6 ) 25*5 -(1 5 .3 ) -(31+.2) -(6 .2 ) Basis A 30.7 6l.6 26.9 68 .1* 11.2 -( 7.3) 1*7.1*
Table 10.6 shows that all the farms except farm C showed a net
loss per acre on basis B. The net income on basis A is positive for
all the farms except farm E.
TABLE 10.7
Net Income Per Worker on Bases C, B and A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
Basis C -(707-7) -(297.6) -(1*61.3) 931 -(75^.3) -(696.9) -(393.1*) Basis B -(707.7) -(126.2) -(31*1 .3 ) 1,531 -(21I.3 ) -(1*26.9) -(136.3) Basis A 483.0 1,759.8 359.1 1*,103 157*0 -( 90.9) 1,01*7.2
Table 10.7 shows that the net loss per worker is greater for the
cooperative farm than the family farms. The net income per worker on basis C and B is negative for all the farms except farm C. All these farmers except farmer C would be better off as wage earners. On farms
B, D and E net income per worker on basis A which gives the return for labor, management and ownership of land and capital is lower than the prevailing rate of wages. TABLE 10.8
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (In Percentages)
Cooperative Average for the farm AB c D E family farms
1. Human Labor 18.235 13.955 3 0 .6$ 11.4$ 44.8$ 39.5$ 20.1$
2. Bulloch Labor 2.9 15.6 16.3 - 12.6 19.5 13.7
3. Rent 34.4 40.0 33.4 31.8 28.2 22.1 36.0
4. Machinery 28.8 13.7 - 47.0 - - 13.8
Total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 84.3 83.2 80.3 90.2 85.6 81.1 83.6
5. Seed 3.1 5.4 7.3 5.5 5.2 6.6 5.8
6 . Agricultural implements - 6.1 5.8 - 4.2 7.5 5.2
7» Fertilizers 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.7 t m m 0.6
8 . Others 9.9 4.8 5.3 3.6 5.0 4.8 4.8
Total 100.055 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.054 100.0$ 230
Components of the Input
Table 10.8 gives the break-up of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Rent of land occupies the most important place in the input of the cooperative farm as veil as the family farm$ next in importance being machinery for the cooperative farm and labor for the family farms taken together. Cost of human and bullock labor, rent of land and machinery together account for more than four-fifths of the total value of the input of the cooperative farm as veil as the family farms.
TABLE 10.9
Lumber of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A ' B C DE farms
6.k 3.5 7.5 1.6 7.1 8
TABLE 10.10
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
1.6 8 8.3 9.5 8 7.0
Employment of Labor and Bullock Pover
Tables 10.9 and 10.10 compare the number of farm vorkers and bullocks per hundred acres held by the cooperative farm and the family farms. The cooperative farm maintained a larger number of farm vorkers 231 per hundred acres than farm A or farm C or the average for all the family farms. With its machinery it had a smaller number of bullocks than any of the family farms except farm C which did not maintain bullocks.
Conclusion
There have been no dissenting members as all of them are rich absentee landowners closely related to one another and there is no clash of interests. The membership continued at l^t til 1958 when the death of one of the members reduced it to 13 . Land has been reclaimed, irrigation facilities provided and farm buildings put up.
But the enterprise is more like a private limited concern than a cooperative Society. It would be hard to justify the giving of a subsidy out of public funds to such a concern organized mainly to evade the provisions of land reform legislation. Chapter XI
MODEL COOPERATIVE JOINT FARMING SOCIETY, KHAI PHEMEKI
The present investigation relates to the working of the Model
Cooperative Joint Farming Society Ltd., Khai Phemeki, Tehsil and
district Ferozepur and five family farms in the same area for the agricultural year 1953-5^• Khai Phemeki is situated on the Ferozepur
Fazilka Road at a distance of five miles from Ferozepur. The village was visited twice in 1953“5^ after the kharif and rahi crops had been collected. Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm, the last of these being in
April 1956.
The Society was registered on May 18, 1951 with Ik members owning 132 acres of land. Three members left the Society in the beginning. A few months after this, two tenants were admitted as members. For the year 1953-5^ the Society had 173 acres of land under its control. Most of the members are near relations. All the land belonging to members is pooled in the Society. One of the members has taken on lease 10 acres of land from the government and 30 acres from a widow. Two other members have taken 22.5 acres and eight acres of land respectively on lease for five years. The land thus leased is also pooled in the Society.
232 233
The Motives for Starting; the Society
1. Most of the land of the members was lying barren and
uncultivated since the partition of the country in 19^7 • It was
realized by the members, that it would not be possible to bring their
individual plots under the plough with animal power, particularly when
they did not like to work themselves on land. Until the land was
broken, it was not possible even to find tenants for cultivating
their plots.
2. The members being displaced persons from West Pakistan,
did not have any bullocks or other equipment with them for farming
operations. They wanted capital for the purchase of a tractor and pumping sets.
3. One of the leading members, who had retired from government
service, wanted to have a check on the possible extravagance of his
son. It would be necessary to maintain accounts if his land was pooled with the Cooperative Farming Society.
H. Most of the members being non-working absentee landowners, formed the Society to save their holding from the provisions of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.
Working Capital
The total share capital of the Society is Rs 5,000, divided
into 50 shares of Rs 100 each. A member can have a maximum of 10
shares. The liability of the members is limited to five times the value of the shares held by them. A 'taccavi' loan of Rs 8,000 was
sanctioned for the members for the purchase of a tractor by the 23^
Rehabilitation Department, even before the registration of the Society.
The maximum credit limit to start with was fixed at Rs 8,000, so as to
provide a cover for the government loan. After some time, the members
felt the need for some funds for recurring expenses and for this the
maximum credit limit was enhanced to Rs 9 #000.
Financial Difficulties
The Society had many hopes of a good yield from its first
harvest of kharif in 1951> but due to shortage of rain and irrigation
handicaps, the kharif crops fell short of the expectations. In view
of the grow-more-food campaign and the departmental instructions
regarding tube-well irrigation, the members were advised to install
a pumping set on their well for irrigation purposes. The Society
requested for enhancement of its maximum credit limit to Rs 20,000
and the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies sent up papers
for the enhancement of the maximum credit loan to Rs 15,000. The
* Registrar returned the papers with the remarks that the case should
be put up after the next harvest.
The members could not wait so long, as it was a question of life and death for the Society. They borrowed a sum of Rs 5,^00 from a private banker for the purchase of an engine and other equipment at a high rate of interest of 15 per cent per annum. This was an
opportune time for helping the Society. The fixation of the maximum
credit limit at Rs 15,000, which was well within the prescribed limit, would have enabled the Society to wipe off its liability to outsiders by borrowing from the Central Cooperative Bank. It would have saved 235
the Society from a high rate of interest and enabled it to set its
house in order. But it took over one year for the government to
raise the maximum credit limit to Rs 15,000. On loans from the
Central Cooperative Bank the Society pays interest at the rate of
6 per cent while on the 'taccavi1 loan for the purchase of a tractor,
it pays at the rate of kj? per cent to the government.
Equipment
The major equipment of the Society consists of a pumping set
installed in 1951 at a cost of Rs U,000 and a tractor with implements
purchased in 1952 at Rs 10,500. For repair, the tractor has to be
sent to Ferozepur. All the farm equipment is maintained by the
Society and not by the individual members.
Terms of Agreement
According to the by-laws, the members are required to give their
land on lease to the Society for a period of 20 years. But this
lease-deed has not been signed. The members think that this area would get canal irrigation, soon. The price of land and the batai rate would then go up. In view of this, every year the members give their land on rent to the Society on one-third batai. Thus, the
owner members get one-third of the produce of their individual plots and the remaining two-thirds is sold for the Society. At the time of crop-planning, the owner members are consulted about the crops to be
sown on their plots. Thus, the owner members have lien on their respective plots, and if the lands of some members are more favorably 236
situated for canal irrigation, they may separate out, when canal water
is supplied to this area.
Administration
The administration of the Society is in the hands of the General
Body and the managing committee. The accounts are maintained by the president who is a government pensioner and the honorary secretary.
Labor
Under the by-laws, it is not obligatory on the members to put
in a minimum amount of labor on the farm and in the year 1953"5^>
only one of the members worked on the farm as a tractor driver and engine mechanic. He was paid Rs 125 per month for this work. Three field laborers were employed on the farm at Rs h5 per month each.
Casual labor, which was engaged for the picking of cotton and harvest
ing of wheat was paid in kind.
Particulars of the Family Farms
Holding A was 27.5 acres in area, out of which an area of 25.5 acres was well irrigated and the remaining two acres was dry land.
The holding was self-cultivated by allottees from the Lahore district.
Five family workers and four bullocks were employed.
Holding B was 21 acres in area, out of which 15 acres were well irrigated and six acres barani. The holding was self-cultivated by owners who had been allotted this land in 1952. Three family workers and four buffaloes were employed.
Holding C was 18 acres in area, out of which five acres of chahi land were owned and 13 acres of barani land were taken on rent on 237
one-third batai. One family worker was employed. No bullocks were
maintained. Bullock power was borrowed from relations.
Holding D consisted of 16 acres of chahi land taken on rent by
the tenants at one-third batai. Five family workers and two bullocks
were employed.
Holding E consisted of one acre of chahi land, self-cultivated
by a military pensioner who was getting a pension of Rs 9 per month.
He was a displaced person from the Lahore district. He had no
children and lived alone on the farm. One family worker and two
buffaloes were employed.
TABLE 11.1
Pattern of Cropping
Name of Cooperative Crop farm A B c D E
Food-grains 56.2 73.2 81.1 95.^ 79-7 29.3 Cotton 23.8 19.5 --- Oil-seeds 11.9 -- - - Fodder crops 5-3 b.9 17.1 h.6 13-2 53.0 Miscellaneous 2.8 2.k 1.8 - 2.6 17.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pattern of Cropping
Table 11.1 compares the pattern of cropping of the cooperative
farm with the family farms. Food-grains, cotton, oil-seeds and fodder
crops are the main crops in this area. With the exception of holding
E, the individual farmers had a higher percentage of the cropped area under food-grains than the cooperative farm. All of them were sub
sistence farmers, who had recently migrated from West Pakistan and their main concern was to raise some food-grains for family use and fodder for the cattle. The cooperative farm had a higher percentage
of the cropped area under cotton and oil-seeds than holdings A and
D respectively. These were the only family farms which raised any commercial crops. The percentage of area under fodder crops on the cooperative farm was lower than any of the three family farms, B, D and E, as the farm did not maintain any bullocks and fodder was needed only for the milch cattle of the resident members. The cultivator of holding A raised 375 maunds of wheat-straw, which was used as a cattle feed and the cultivator of holding C did not maintain any draught cattle and hired these for the farm work. A study of "pattern of cropping shows the superiority of the cooperative farm over family farms, as the cooperative farm was able to raise commercial crops besides food crops inspite of financial difficulties.
TABLE 11.2
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
^3.7 7U.5 52.9 61.1 lUl.2 18^.0 80.2
Intensity of Cropping .
Table U . 2 gives the intensity of cropping of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The intensity of cropping was lower on the cooperative farm than any of the family farms. They had no bullocks and there was a shortage of labor. One tractor was not sufficient for the whole of the farm, nor could the whole of it be irrigated with one pumping set. The members were not working on the farm and if they had not started the cooperative farm, the position would have heen worse.
The intensity of cropping was highest in the case of holding E, where the farmer spent the whole of his time on his tiny farm of one acre,
r I and holding D where five family workers were busy on 16 acres of well irrigated land.
TABLE 11.3
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds
Name of Cooperative Crop farm A B c D E
Wheat 13.1 10.0 10.0 6.0 38.0 Gram 10.0 - 10.5 - -- Sugar cane (Gur) 6o.o 4o.o 10.0 Cotton (American) 10.7 8.8 •• Paddy 30.0 17.5 3 0 . 0 *■
Yield of Crops
Table 11.3 gives the yield per acre of crops raised by the cooperative farm and the family farms. The yield per acre of almost all the crops is higher on the cooperative farm than on the family farms. This is due to better preparation of the soil with the help of a tractor, use of fertilizers and compost manure besides cow-dung, and better irrigation facilities on the cooperative farm. Only in the case of holding D the yield per acre of paddy equals the yield on the cooperative farm. This is the result of the intensive efforts of five adult family laborers, on 10 acres of land where paddy was grown. The yield per acre of holding E, was about thrice that on the cooperative farm. The farmer raised 5*5 maunds of wheat from a tiny plot of land 2k0
28 mar las (700 square yards) in area. Chemical fertilizers were applied on the plot where wheat was grown.
TABLE 11.4
Input, Output and Net Income (on Basis C) Per Acre in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D E farms
Output 102.9 197.8 97*4 27.6 252.0 806.5 153.5 Input 101.7 170.9 151.0 58.3 282.5 910.0 171.4 Net Income 1.2 26.9 -(53.6)-(28.7) -(30.5)-(l03.5) -(17.9)
Net Income
Table 11.4 gives the input, output and net income per acre on basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The output per acre exceeds the input on the cooperative farm and holding A, giving a net income per acre of Rs 1.2 and Rs 26.9 respectively. Holding A gives the highest net income per acre of all the holdings including the cooperative farm. The whole of the area in this holding with the exception of two acres of barani land was well irrigated, there being three surface wells, in the holding. Unlike the cooperative farm, there was no labor shortage. On the other hand, for lack of alterna tive occupation, five adult family workers were engaged on the farm.
Actually it was felt that two of the family workers could be with drawn from the farm without any loss of productive efficiency of the farm. The farmers were displaced persons from the Lahore district, who are known for hard work on land. The land was also adequately manured, about 60 cart loads of farm yard manure having been used during the year, that is about three cart loads per cropped area. The low input of farm C is accounted for by the fact that the operator did not maintain any bullocks. Ho irrigation was available and no manure was used. The output as well as the input per acre was the lowest of all the farms. An area of ten acres was ploughed twice and sown with wheat. The net lose: ..per acre on holding D was Rs 30.5. The holding was cultivated on batai and the tenant did not have the incentive to put in his best. No manure was used. Five adult family workers were engaged on the farm, where two vould be sufficient. An important reason of the loss of Rs 53-6 per acre in the case of holding B was, that the cultivators were allotted this land in 1952 and about half of the land was left unclutivated in the year 1953-54. Although four working cattle were maintained on the farm, all of these were buffaloes of poor quality. The loss on basis C in the case of holding
E was due to its tiny size. On the whole, the cooperative farm gave a higher net income per acre than all the individual holdings except holding A, inspite of its handicaps of acute labor shortage and the lowest intensity of cropping, as part of the banjar land had not yet been broken in 1953-54.
TABLE 11.5
Net Income in Rupees Per Acre on Basis B and Basis A
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
Basis B 9*8 125.0 23.6 1.3 I38.3 ^36.5 79.1 Basis A 15.2 150.8 57.0 9.6 140.9 499.5 99.2 242
From Table 11.If, it can be seen that with the exception of hold
ing A, all the individual holdings show a net loss per acre, if all
the items are included in the expenditure. In order to get an idea
of the actual conditions prevplant on each farm, net income per acre
has been worked in Table 11.5 above, on basis B by excluding the
imputed value of family labor from expenditure. The net income per
acre has further been calculated on basis A by excluding interest
on owned capital invested in bullocks and implements and the rental
value of owned land. On basis A and basis B, the net income per acre
on all individual holdings is positive, and except for farm C, higher
than that of the cooperative farm
TABLE 11.6
Bet Income Per Worker On Bases C, B and A in Rupees
Average Cooperative for family farm A B c D E farms
Basis C 49.0 147.8 -(374.7) -(5 1 7 .0 ) -(97.6) -(103.5) -(99.6)
Basis B 424.0 688.2 165.3 23.0 t If 2 . if 436.5 440.4
Basis A 656.6 829.8 k02.7 173.0 450.8 499.5 552.1
The net incomerper worker on basis C gives the return per worker for management only. The net income per worker on basis B gives the return per worker for manual labor and management. Net income per worker on basis A gives the return per worker for manual labor, manage ment, ownership of land and capital. A comparison of the return per 21+3 worker on 'basis B and C shows that the farmers from all the individual holdings, except holding A, would be better off as field laborers.
But their sense of social prestige, prevented them from working on other people's farms as hired wage earners and they preferred to work on their own farms, although it meant a lower income.
4 TABLE 11.7
Distribution of the Total Value of the Input (in Percentages)
Cooperative farm AB c D E
1. Human Labor 18.0$ 57-4$ 51.1$ 55.4$ 59.7$ 62.2$
2. Bullock Labor 0.0 16.2 18.4 6.8 4.2 23.4
3. Fertilizers 3.3 3.2 -- - 1.5
4. Machinery 49.1 -- ---
5. Rent 24.6 13.4 19.9 18.1 29.8 4.4
6 . Agricultural implements 0 .1* 2.9 4.5 0.8 2.1 2.6
7. Seed 3.6 4.5 2.9 18.0 2.5 3.2
8 . Others 1.0 2.4 3.2 0.9 1.7 2.7
Total 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$ 100.0$
ro -p * •p- 2l»5
Components of the Input
Table 11.7 gives the break-up of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. Human labor accounts for more than half of the total value of the input on the family farms. Next in importance are rent on land arid bullock- labor. Cost of maintenance of machinery - interest, depreciation and fuel - accounts for about half of the input on the cooperative farm, which did not maintain any bullocks. Only the cooperative farm and holding A and E used v; fertilizers. The low- percentage of total input on bullock labor in the case of holding D, is due to the fact that one of the two bullocks had already outlived its normal working period and no depreciation or interest is allowed for it. The other bullocks had been purchased for a low price at Rsl50 and both of these bullocks were not properly fed. As no bullocks were maintained on holding C, and bullock labor was taken on hire, it forms a low percentage of the total input. On the other hand, seed forms such a high percentage on this holding, because out of the total input of only Rs 97^ on an area of 18 acres, an amount of Rs 175 was spent on seed.
TABLE 11.8
Number of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B C D farms
2.3 18.2 lb.3 5.6 31.3 100.0 18.0 2 46
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
Tabl® 11.8 and 11.9 gives the number of farm workers and bullocks
maintained by the cooperative farm and the family farms per hundred
acres of land held. The cooperative farm maintained the smallest
number of farm workers per hundred acres held. This was only partly
due to mechanization, as suitable laborers were not available for
work on the farm and an acute shortage of labor was felt. In the
case of family farms, the number of workers depends upon the size
of family and not on the size or requirements of the farm. Ho hired
labor was engaged on any of the family farms. The cooperative farm
extending over 173 acres, employed four adult workers, while farm A
(27.5 acres) and farm B (16 acres) maintained five family workers
each. Holding E (l acre) with one family worker had the largest
number of farm workers per hundred acres due to its small size.
TABLE 11.9
Humber of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm A B CD E farms
14.5 19 .O - 12.5 200.0 14.4
No bullocks were maintained by the cooperative farm. The
farmer of holding C worked with hired bullocks and did not maintain any. Farm E maintained the highest number of bullocks per 100 acres held as the farmer had two working buffaloes of a poor quality on one acre of land. Table 11.7 above, showing the break-up of the 2k 7 total value of the input, gives a better comparative picture of the expenditure on bullock labor on the family farms.
TABLE 11.10
Investment Per Acre in Rupees on Improved Implements and Machinery
Cooperative farm A B C D E
8^.1 1.8 3*8 - - -
Investment in Machinery
Table 11.10 gives the investment of the cooperative farm and the family farms in machinery and improved implements per acre.
Machinery is used only on the cooperative farm. In the holdings A and B, fodder cutter is the only improved implement used. No improved implements are used on the other holdings.
Results of the Investigation
This study has revealed the superiority of the cooperative farm over mbst of the family farms in the area, in respect of pattern of cropping, net return per acre and per man, and use of improved imple ments. But the farm studied lacks some of the essential features of a genuine cooperative farm. The members have not signed the lease- deed for transferring the land to the Society for a period of 20 years.
They give their land on batai on yearly basis and get one-third share of the crops raised on their particular plots. The members are free to leave the Society along with their land any time they like. In this respect, the relation of the Society with the members is that of a tenant-at-will with his landlord. Normally, if members of a cooperative 248 farm have lien on their respective plots of land, most of the members insist on more intensive agricultural operations and permanent improve ments on their respective plots, which sometime leads to disputes among the members. But in this case, this difficulty has not risen under the strong leadership of the president of the Society, most of the members being non-resident and related to one another.
Three of the members have taken land on lease from outside and given it on batai to the Society for cultivation. If the Society were not a family affair, and its membership were open, the parties which had thus given land on lease to the members, could themselves join the Society as members.
In fact, it appears that the cooperative farm owes its comparatively long life of about seven years to its shortcomings as a genuine cooperative enterprise. Giving the land on batai on yearly basis to the Society, satisfies the members' sense of attach ment to land and gives them a feeling of security about their owner ship rights. Cooperative Farming Societies with non-working absentee landowners who were related to one another as members are of much longer duration than the Societies with peasant proprietors, who work on the farm as members. But it..is actually for solving the problems of the peasant proprietors, with holdings below the basic size, that one looks to cooperative farming.
Breaking of land lying uncultivated since the partition and the installation of a pumping set for irrigation purposes, are the most important achievements of this cooperative farm. Actually, cooperative farming suited the displaced cultivators, who had migrated without 2k9
any animal power, equipment and financial resources and were allotted
lands, which had been lying Banjar for some years. Where the members
of cooperative farms, organised mainly with this object, were
non-working owners, they have in some cases separated out and given their lands on rent to tenants, but in other cases, as in Khai
Phemeki, they have continued to be the members of the cooperative farm. But in the case of cooperative farms organized among displaced peasant proprietors, joint farming operations have often ended soon after land was broken and the members have taken to family farming.
A comparison of the number of laborers employed on the farms has shown, that while on the one hand there is an acute shortage of labor on the cooperative farm, there are too many family laborers on the individual holdings in the same area. And these surplus laborers on the individual holdings would refuse to work as u wage earner on the cooperative farm, although this would be more remuner ative. The Jats and other landowning classes in the Punjab, generally regard it below their social prestige to work as wage earners on other people's farms, however small their own holdings. They are, however, keen on having land on rent in addition to their own holdings. But land is very often not available for rent in the same village, more particularly if the non-working landowners who used to give land on rent have started a cooperative farm. One way of getting over this difficulty, would be to admit some small farmers, with a good number of adult family workers or landless laborers as members of the cooperative farm, although this might mean loss of social cohesion and uniformity among the members of the Society. Or the by-laws should make it binding on the members, to make a minimum contribution of labor on the farm. Chapter XII
EX-SERVICEMEN COOPERATIVE TENANT FARMING SOCIETIES IN KARNAL
The object of this case study is to review the experience of cooperative farming in new settlements, where land is leased by the government on a long term basis, and to examine the suitability of cooperative farming for land reclamation and settlement of ex-servicemen on land.
Most of the Cooperative Farming Societies in the Karnal district owe their origin to the East Punjab Land Utilization Act of 19^9. According to this Act, if land is not sown for six successive harvests, it is declared banjar kadim and the collector gives one month’s notice to the owner to deposit an earnest money at the rate of Rs 5 per acre to reclaim half of the land within six months and the remaining half within two years of the date of the notice. If the earnest money is not deposited within a month, the land is taken possession of by the collector and leased out to parties for growing food and fodder crops, preference being given to cooperative Societies of small farmers, subject to their being really in a position to undertake the necessary reclamation and cultivation. If the owner deposits the security but fails to break the land within the agreed period, the security is forfeited and the land is taken over by the collector and leased out to parties who
251 252
undertake to reclaim the land depositing security at the rate of
Rs 5 per acre. As a rule, the land is leased to private parties or
Cooperative Farming Societies for a period of seven years to begin
with. The period of the lease is extended to 20 years if the lessees
make investments in tube-vells, etc. To the ex-servicemen, however,
land is leased for a period of 20 years in the very beginning. The
rent to be paid by the lessee is assessed by the collector and
compensation paid to the landowner out of the lease money after
deducting from it the expenditure incurred by the government on
staff, printing of forms and stationers'-. Where the tenant fails to
grow food or fodder crops on the land leased to him, he is bound
to pay the rent, besides a penalty not exceeding twice the rent.
Waste Land in Guhla Sub-Tehsil
The total area of this sub-tehsil is 2,63,195 acres. In 1953>
out of this, 1,86,269 acres was banjar and l,08,26l acres was culturable waste. Out of this large area, only 14,201 acres was leased under the Lahd Utilization Act, 1959* in respect of 12,211 acres, the landowners deposited security. An area of 16,000 acres was reserved for ex-servicemen and 4,000 acres for political sufferers.
Obviously a vast area is still under jungle and there is need for taking steps to have it reclaimed. If the entire culturable waste land in this tehsil is brought under cultivation, it is estimated that it would give an additional produce of 8 lakh maunds of wheat.
The villages in this area lie far apart from each other and culti vation is only in patches, there being a huge area of waste land under
7 253
scrub jungle. Besides increasing food production, the clearance of
the forests would help in improving the law and order situation as the jungles often serve as dens for dacoits.
Resettlement of Ex-servicemen on Land
This scheme is meant for ex-servicemen who have served in
World War II, are unemployed and are landless or do not cam more than five acres of land each. They may have retired from the army or may have been released or demobilized. Each such applicant must produce a certificate from the revenue authorities that he does not possess more than five acres of land. It is not necessary that he should be a displaced person from Pakistan.
In the beginning of 1952, 16,000 acres of waste culturable land
in the Karnal district was earmarked under the Land Utilization Act,
1959, for settling ex-servicemen. Out of this, 5,000 acres of land was taken up in the first scheme for settling 500 ex-servicemen.
Applications on prescribed forms were invited by the Resettlement
Section, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. About 5,000 applicants were called for interview by a Board appointed by the
Punjab Government, with the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab
Government as Chairman. Out of the 500 ex-servicemen selected by the
Board, k8l deposited earnest money of Rs 250 each in the Karnal treasury. The rest were selected in June 1953* For running the scheme, an Ex~servicemen Resettlement Board was constituted with the
Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, as Chairman. 251*
Allotment of Land
The ex-soldiers were allotted 10 acres of waste culturable land each. They were required to form themselves into groups of 10 or more
of their own choice. In most cases ex-soldiers belonging to the same district and having relationship or other ties formed themselves into groups. Later on these groups were registered as Tenant Farming Socie ties. Thirty Societies were thus organized. As far as was possible each group was given one contiguous block of land. It was decided that at the time of consolidation of holdings, the land of the Cooperative Ten ant Farming Societies will be maintained as one block, irrespective of the remaining land of the owner.
Provision of Fmids
An amount of Rs 8,75,000 contributed by the Central Government, the Punjab Government and the selected ex-servicemen, was placed at the disposal of the Ex-servicemen Resettlement Board for implementing the scheme. The contributions were as follows: Ministry of Defense, Gov ernment of India, for the grant of Rs 500 to each settler: Rs 2,50,000; the Punjab Government for a similar grant: Rs 2,50,000; the Punjab
Post-war Services Reconstruction Fund for similar grant: Rs 2,50,000; deposit of Rs 250 made by each ex-soldier to be settled: Rs 1,25,000.
Disbursement of the Government Grant
Out of these funds, an amount of Rs 25,000, at the rate of Rs 50 per 'soldier to be settled, was earmarked as administrative charges for payment of staff and meeting other expenses in running the scheme. The rest is to be utilized for providing a grant of Rs 1,700 to each ex soldier. 255
This sum, of Rs 1,700, meant for the reclamation and development
of 10 acres, is earmarked as follows:
1. Rs 200 at the rate of Rs 20 per acre for jungle clearance.
After the Society has cut the trees and removed the stumps, they submit
an application for the release of this amount. On this the Resettlement
Officer, along with the District Agricultural Officer and the Tehsildar
or the Haib-tehsildar, makes an on-the-spot inspection and recommends
the release of Rs 10 per acre for jungle cutting and another Rs 10 per acre for the removal of stumps. Actually, if this work is done with hired labor the cost varies from Rs 40 to Rs 50 per acre, depending upon the thickness of the juggle.
2. Rs hOO per settler at the rate of Rs Uo per acre for trac- torization - two operations, ploughing and harrowing. A firm was given a contract to do this work for the Societies which wanted to use its
services. Generally, the services of the firm were used on land which could not be broken with bullock power. If the Society breaks the land with bullock power, a sum of Rs 20 per acre is released after inspection by the above mentioned committee, in view of the fact that the bullocks plough about half as deep as a tractor. The balance of Rs 20 per acre is released later to the Society for other purposes, such as construc tion of houses.
3. Rs 500 per pair of bullocks per settler or Rs 250 per pair of buffaloes. This advance is given to the Society after they have broken the land. In case an ex-soldier gets an advance for the purchase of a pair of buffaloes, he can draw the balance of Rs 250 later for the con struction of house, etc. Buffaloes are less costly to feed, as they 256
live on grass and are more suitable for breaking the land on flooded
areas.
Rs 500 per settler for minor irrigation works.
5. Rs 100 per settler for purchase of implements and seeds.
The Society has to apply, according to its requirements, for this
grant for the purchase of cattle, seeds and implements and for arrange
ment of irrigation facilities. The application is considered by the sub
committee consisting of the Resettlement Officer, District Agricultural
Officer, and the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The sub
committee recommends to the Deputy Commissioner the grant. The latter
orders the amount to be transferred to the Central Cooperative Bank and
credited to the current account of the Society.
According to the provisions of the scheme, whenever the Societies
need withdrawal of any of the above sanctioned amounts, they pass a re
solution for the withdrawal of the amounts which they require for dif
ferent purposes. The application for withdrawal has to be recommended by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, and the Agricultural Inspector.
The application then goes to the Resettlement Officer who order the
Central Cooperative Bank to make the payment. If a Society makes a
saving from any of the above mentioned heads, it gets this amount for
housing etc., after full reclamation.
Living Arrangements
In the initial stages the members have built chappars (Kacha
huts). They have a common mess and live together and work together.
They do not bring their families with them. According to the by-laws,
it is binding on the members to live and work on the land allotted. A 257
register is maintained "by the Group Commander to record the daily
presence of the members. A member is permitted to get leave for two to three days a month during the busy season and a week to 10 days during the slack season. The release of the Government grant is made only to the members who are actually present on the land.
Family Farming
It was essential according to the original by-laws, that each
Society should do collective farming. But the actual working during the
first year showed that all the members were not putting in the same
amount of effort and the better educated members, especially the Junior
Commissioned Officers, tried to boss over and exploit the other ranks.
So in some Societies even ex-sepoys were made junior vice-presidents.
To facilitate smooth running of the Societies which were not doing well under collective farming, members were allowed to form groups of four or
more to work collectively. It was thought that there would be greater
cooperation among these smaller groups. But even this arrangement did not work well. In view of this, it was recommended to the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies by the Ex-servicemen Resettlement Board that the by-laws of the Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Societies be amended so as to permit family farming as well. In July 195^> the Res—
istrar sanctioned the amendment.
Before allowing family farming, a Society was required to hold a general meeting to decide about the division of its land in 10 acre- blocks as originally the land was allotted in the name of the Society and not in the name of individual settlers. The jungle portion of the allotted land, which the Society had not reclaimed due to the absence of 258 certain members was required to be left on one side in one compact block at the rate of 10 acres of waste land for each absentee member.
Even under the amended by-laws, irrigation for each Society is arranged collectively. Bullock :carts are also maintained collectively.
Out of the thirty Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming
Societies, three Societies, the Tanda Society, the Bakhle-Doaba
Society and the Prem Society - which, according to the Resettlement
Officer and the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karnal, were comparatively more successful than others - were selected for close study.
Tanda Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Society
This Society is situated at village Bakhle, Post Office Pehowa and has 19 members. When the.members first arrived in November 1952, the whole of the area of 190 acres was covered with dhak trees. They started clearing the jungle from one side. About half the work of cutting the trees and removing the stumps was done by members them selves and the other half by hired laborers. The members as well as the laborers were paid at the rate of three annas per tree. By the time of sowing of kharif in 1953, 30 acres had been prepared for crops and by the time of rabi sowing another 20 acres had been reclaimed.
By June 195^, 170 acres had been cleared of jungle and an area of 128 acres was ready for sowing. About the remaining 20 acres, the owners had represented that the area be released as it was not banjar kadim.
But for this dispute, this area too would have been reclaimed along with the rest. The whole of the area of the Society is not in one 259 block, as some of the plots under cultivation with the local earners are inter-mixed with the land of the Society.
An amount of Rs 3,020 was spent for the cutting of trees and removal of stumps from 128 acres of land. An amount of Rs 2,U80 was paid to the tractor company for tractorization of 62 acres at the rate of Rs 20 per acre. The remaining 66 acres were broken with the help of bullock power which cost Rs 1,320 at the rate of Rs 20 per acre. Thus the total cost of reclamation of 128 acres of land by
June 195^ was Rs 6,820, the average cost per acre being Rs 53*28.
Between December 1952 and June 195^> the Society purchased 17 bullocks at a total cost of Rs 3,789. Individual members were made responsible for feeding the bullocks and looking after them. At present every member has a pair of bullocks.
The Markanda Inundation Canal used to supply water to this area for about three months during the rainy season. For kharif 1953 this water was used by the Society. Since 1956, the Bhakra Minor Canal has been supplying water during the summer months. A tube-well was install ed in June 1957 at a cost of Rs 6,1+97*
All the members working jointly constructed kacha houses for themselves in April 1953* Separate rooms for cattle were added in
September 195^* Timber valued at Rs 100 has been used for each house which now has one living room, a kitchen and a separate room for the cattle.
With effect from October 195^, after the Registrar agreed to the amendment of the by-laws to permit individual cultivation, the members 260
took to family farming. Every member got 10 acres of land in three
fragments, two acres irrigated by the tube-well, half an acre by the
well and the remaining barani. Every member got a pair of bullocks.
Now only the tube-well and the well are owned and used jointly. A
mistri has been employed at Rs 30 per month to work the tube-well.
He accepts this lav; wage because he also looks after the land of one
of the members who lives at Mukerian. An account is kept of the
number of hours that the tube -ire 11 is worked for each member. The total working cost of the tube-well - the w a g e s of the mistri, the
fuel and depreciation - is divided among the members in proportion to the number of hours for which the tuberwell water is supplied to them.
As considerable havoc is done by the wild cows, pigs and deer in this area, five members, under the collective farming arrange ments, were on duty by rotation for keeping a watch on the crops at night. Since October 195^, however, all the members have to do this for their respective plots. This has resulted in a considerable waste of time and labor.
The Bakhle-Doaba Society
This Society hsd 16 members belonging to the Hoshiarpur district who were allotted 160 acres, out of which 70 acres was Kalar and unculturable. The Society has, therefore, applied for 70 acres of cultivable land in exchange for this. The members arrived in
December 1952. The cutting of trees and the removal of stumps was done by hired laborers who were paid at the rate of Rs 0.19 per tree. By
November 1953, 90 acres of landv.was cleared of jungle at a cost of 261
Rs 1,910. Tractorization of 43 acres by the tractor company cost Rs
1,720, while the breaking of 15 acres of land with bullock power cost the
Society a sum of Rs 300. Fifty-eight acres of land were thus reclaimed at a total cost of Rs 3*251, the average cost per acre being Rs 56.05.
The Society had purchased eight bullocks and two buffaloes by
November 1953* at a total cost of Rs 2,250 and a tube well was installed in February 1954, at a cost of Rs 5*338. Kacha houses were put up by
April 1954. Only ten of the members were present on the farm at the time. Notice had been given to the remaining six to come to Bakhle and work on the land, failing which their land would be resumed by the Gov ernment. In July 1954, members of the Society divided themselves into three groups, tiro of which had six members each and the third four members. In April 1955* the members took to family farming.
Prem Society
This Society had 24 members belonging to the Hoshiarpur district who were allotted 240 acres of land, out of which 110 acres was kalar.
They arrived in November, 1952. By February 1954 trees had been cut and stumps removed from an area of 90 acres at a cost of Rs 3*635* Trac torization of 31 acres cost Rs 1,240, while 29 acres were broken with bullock power at a cost of Rs 580. An area of 60 acres was thus re claimed at a total cost of Rs 4,243 giving an average cost of re clamation per acre of Rs 70.72. Fifteen members were present on the farm upto the year 1956. On canal irrigation in 1956, three of the ab sentee members returned, raising the number of members to 18. In
November 1957, three ex-servicemen out of the twenty-five on the waiting list were fitted into this Society, and a fourth one in March 1958. 262
Another ex-serviceman belonging to group No. 2 who had some quarrel with the members there was also transferred to the Prem Society which agreed to accept him. There are thus now 23 members and the Society maintains that the total area with the members is 230 acres by measurement and not
2^0 acres.
The members are living in kacha huts. They are non-displaced persons and have left their families in their old villages in the
Hoshiarpur district. Due to lack of rain, they did not raise any kharif crops in 1953-5^* Their first crop was rabi 195^> when they raised l6 maunds of wheat from 10 acres of land. They have one well which they have fitted with Persian wheels at a cost of Rs 353- They had lo bullocks.
The group leader of the Society who was an ex-havildar acted against the interests of the Society and other Ex-servicemen Cooperative
Tenant Farming Societies in this area. He took away two tractors supplied by the contractor for breaking the land allotted to the ex- servicemen in the area, to his own private land and that of his re lations in another village by paying Rs 10 per acre more than the fixed rate. Other members of the Society suffered on this account as they could not avail of the services of these tractors and sow their crops in time.
Table 12.1 gives a picture of the progress made in the development of lands alloted to Ex-servicemen Cooperative Farming Societies in
Karnal District up to December, 1956 . 263
Table 12.1 Progress of Land Reclamation
Number Number Total Area Name of of of area Area Under Society Ex-servicemen absentees allotted reclaimed cultivation
Tanda 19 Nil 190 170 170 Prem 2k 9 2k0 90 70 Bakhle- Doaha 16 k 160 120 100
Table 12.2 relates to the payment of Government Grant in rupees to the Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Societies.
Table 12.2 Distribution of Government Grant in Rupees
Jungle cut- Flou ting and Imple- ghing removal ments Bui- or Name of of and lock Bui- Tube Persian tractor- Society stumps seeds carts locks Wells wheels Wells ization Total
Tanda 2200 1550 300 9000 8l80 ^50 200 it030 25910 C »T .F .S. Bakhle- 1800 676 300 8000 5100 - ^00 1370 176^6 DO. aba Prem 1600 350 200 7500 2900 - 350 i860 1^700
Progress of the Scheme
Four hundred and seventy-five ex-servicemen were allotted *t,750 acres of waste cultivable land in the Karnal District during the year
1952. Out of this number, 86 allottees are reported absentees and 29 have not yet been allotted any land in replacement of the originally allotted land which was released in favor of the land owners or was found to be unculturable. Twenty-four ex-servicemen selected in June,
1953 are still to be settled on land after the above mentioned 29 oustees have been fitted into the vacancies created through the ejec tment of the absentees. The total number of Ex-servicemen Cooperative 2 6b
Tenant Farming Societies has continued to be thirty since 1953*
The Ex-servicemen Resettlement Board, Karnal, passed a resolu
tion on April 21, 1955 to the effect that allottees remaining absent from their colonies for more than one year calculated backwards from
April 1 1955 would be declared absentees, and their allotments cancelled.
But it has not been possible to implement this resolution, as the exact number of absentees has not been determined so far due to the following difficulties:
(1) Certain allottees are employed in service or are doing private business outside the colonies, but they have got their plots reclaimed and cultivated through their relations or tenants.
(2 ) Certain allottees have submitted medical certificates in re spect of their illness and unfitness to stay on the land and cultivate it by themselves. In such cases their plots are bing cultivated by their relations or tenants.
(3) Some absentees have applied for condonation and their appeals are still pending for decision.
Out of 1,750 acres of land originally allotted to the ex-service men, an area of 299 acres has been released to owners. An area of
3,^06 acres had been reclaimed by 1957 leaving 1,0^5 acres still to be reclaimed. This area is lying unreclaimed mainly on account of ab
sentees and the negligence of the Tractor Company. The contractor who had undertaken to supply at least five tractors for breaking the land, actually put only two tractors for work. He did not even deposit the required security in time. He was also breaking land belonging to out siders and charging exorbitant rates from them. This delayed the work 265
of the reclamation of land of the Ex-servicemen Societies and caused heavy losses to them.
No funds have been provided in the scheme for housing, nor has any separate area been allotted for housing purposes over and above the culturable waste land of 10 acres per settler. However, it is to the credit of the settlers that with their meagre resources they have built kacha huts numbering about 397 in their colonies with their own joint efforts. No common buildings like school or dispensary, however, have been built so far.
Due to the lean state of funds at the disposal of the Board, the post of Resettlement Officer was abolished towards the end of April,
1955 and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, was given charge of the office of the Ex-servicemen Resettlement Board as its honorary secretary. The latter*s heavy departmental duties do not permit him to give much attention to the problems of the ex-servicemen.
If the post of the Resettlement Officer had continued for another year most of the problems of the settlers could have been solved. But the incumbent got an appointment with a longer iherrure elsewhere and the
Board in agreeing to his release did not seem to realize that the saving of the salary of the Resettlement Officer for one year would mean the greatest setback to the scheme. At present there is one re-employed ex-havildar-clerk attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Karnal, to look after the correspondence of the
Board.
Up to the end of March 1955# an amount of Rs h,86,J2J had been disbursed among the ex-servicemen for land reclamation, irrigation 266 facilities and purchase of implements and seeds. Inspite of the fact that about half of the funds with the Resettlement Board to be spent for the settlement of 500 ex-servicemen are still unspent and the settlers are badly in need of financial aid, there has been no further disbursement for the last three years due to the following reasons:
(1) Compensation is paid to the Societies after work-certificates on the completion of the various stages of the reclamation, signed by the Agricultural Inspector and the Inspector of Cooperative Societies are issued after joint inspection on the spot. No joint inspection by the above-named officials has been carried out as either of the two is not available due to the exigencies of service. In the absence of joint inspection and the resultant non-availability of work-certificates, no compensation has been paid to the Societies for reclamation work done.
The Societies are badly suffering for lack of funds.
(2) Some of the Societies have not rendered accounts of the
Government grants already released to them as required under the rules.
(3) The Societies are required to mortgage land, equipment and houses to the Government against the Government grant received by them.
Only 17 Societies have executed these mortgage deeds so far.
(k) Some of the Societies have been drawing grants in respect of absentees. These amounts have now to be recovered from these Societies.
(5) Conflicting reports are received by the Board regarding the names of the absentees. There are also representations from some of the absentees for exemption from the condition of living and working on the land on various grounds. 2 6?
The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, as the honorary secretary of the Board, has moved the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, who is the Chairman of the Board, that a girdawar he attached for duty with the Board for a period of three months. The girdawar will survey the area to ascertain and report the details of reclamation work done on the allotted lands, so that the compensation may be paid to the ex-servicemen according to the schedule. He will also be able to report the correct number of absentees and the acreage of jungle land in possession of the
Societies. This land may be allotted to the ex-servicemen who have been ousted and others who are still on the waiting lists.
Results of the Study
1. The scheme of Resettlement of Ex-servicemen on land leased by the Government under the Land Utilization Act has not been much of a success. Sixteen thousand acres of waste culturable land was earmarked for settling ex-servicemen and it was decided that if the first ex-per- iment of settling 500 ex-servicemen on 5>000 acres of land was a success, another 1,000 ex-servicemen would be settled. But the results of the first experiment have not been very encouraging and no action has, there fore, been taken for settling any more ex-servicemen.
2. About one-fifth of the allottees have turned out to be ab sentees. This shows that most of these persons were not keen on settling on land but put in their applications in the hope that they would even tually get proprietary rights over the lands allotted to them.
3. It is generally believed that it is very difficult to or ganize and run Cooperative Farming Societies with cultivators who own the lands they cultivate as members. But such Societies can be organized and run successfully on newly reclaimed land or on Government land.
This study has shown that while it may be easier to organize Cooperative
Farming Societies on such lands, the successful working of these
Societies inspite of the absence of proprietary rights is not easily assured. Although the members were used to army discipline, all of them were not putting in their best into the common pool under collective farming. There was also not enough of the spirit of cooperation and mutual tolerance among them. After hardly one year's Joint farming, the
members took to family farming and the by-laws had to be amended to provide for this. Only tube wells are now maintained by the Cooperative
Societies.
4. As far as the resettlement of ex-soldiers on land is con cerned, the scheme could have been made to yield better results with a little more care on the part of authorities responsible for the execution of the scheme. But it is doubtful if the authorities with all their efforts could turn these groups of ex-servicemen into successful
Cooperative Farming Societies.
It mlglit have been better if reclamation of land had been done under closer Government supervision with the help of the labor of the ex-servicemen who were to be settled on the land. After reclamation of land, the ex-servicemen could be organized into multi-purpose coop erative Societies which would supply the cultivators with seed, manure, and household and farm requirements. The Society could irrigate the fields of the cultivator and prepare his land for the crops. It would be binding on the members to sell all their surplus produce through the
Society, and the cultivator would pay for all the services of the Society 269 out of the crops harvested from his land. This arrangement would get the cultivator most of the commercial and financial advantages of large- scale farming and at the same time give him incentive for hard work and full scope for his initiative and spirit of independence which are the most important advantages of family farming. Chapter XIII
COOPERATIVE FARMING AND LAND RECLAMATION
The object of this chapter is to study the suitability of
cooperative farming for land reclamation and cultivation of the
reclaimed area. A comparative study is made of the problems of
two cooperative farms, a farm owned by three partners, and two
family farms, when they were engaged in the task of land reclamation
and the cultivation of the reclaimed area. All of these farms are
located near Pehowa, district Karnal. Thefhrms were visited twice in
the year 1953-5^ after the kharif aiid rabi crops had been harvested
and again in August 1958*
Origin of the United Farms
Besides the Ex-servicemen Tenant Farming Societies there are
two Cooperative Farming Societies in the Pehowa area viz., The Karnal
Cooperative Farmers’ Society Ltd., Karnal and the Lyallpur Cooperative
Farmers' Society Ltd., Karnal. Both of these Societies were formed in
order to take advantage of the provisions of the East Punjab Land
Utilization Act 19**9> it being the declared policy to the Punjab
Government that preference would be given to Cooperative Farming Societies for the leasing of land under this Act. Most of the members of the
Lyallpur Society are engaged in road transport business. They felt they might eventually get rights of ownership or occupancy on land leased to the Society atid some of them might settle on land when road 270 271
transport is nationalized. The members of the Karnal Society are all
highly educated persons. Five of them are law graduates, four hold
the M.A. degree, while the rest are graduates. Some of them were
out of employment when the Society was registered. They organized
the Society with the hope that the land when reclaimed and properly
developed would be a good source of income to them. They would alsi
be able to take advantage of all the concessions given by the govern
ment to Cooperative Farming Societies.
At a meeting of the Karnal Cooperative Farmers' Society held on
November 1950, the following resolutions were passed:
1. Every member shall contribute Rs 1,000 in a lump sum on
joining the Society.
2. Further each member will deposit a sum of not less than
Rs 1,000 by°the time the lands are taken on lease or otherwise. This
deposit will not be subject to any demand or withdrawal unless all the
liability of the Society is paid in full.
3. The main object of the Society is to acquire agricultural land on lease or otherwise and cultivate the same with the help of machinery.
The Society was registered on December 13# 1950 with 1^ members.
At a meeting of the promoters of the Lyallpur Cooperative Farmers'
Society Ltd., held on February 10, 1951, exactly the same resolutions were passed as by the promoters of the Karnal Society two and a half months earlier. The Society was registered on March 29, 1951, with
12 members. Nine new members joined during the first three months and by December 1951, the number of members rose to ^0. 272
These two Societies Jointly secured 1,15H acres of land in two blocks in adjacent villages Pehowa and Murtzapur measuring 568 acres and 586 acres respectively. The share of the Karnal Society in the land was one-third, the remaining two-thirds being the share of the Lyallpur
Society. 'United Farms', as the -union of the two Societies was called, was formed with the idea-that the members of the Lyallpur
Society had the resources to provide adequate finances while the
Karnal Society could provide good workers.
Both the Societies entered into a verbal agreement to develop the land on a partnership basis according to their shares in land and pooled their funds a s in Table 1 3 .1 .
TABLE 13.I
Financial Resources of the United Farms
Karnal Lyallpur United ______Society______Society_____ Farms_____ Rs Rs Rs
Shares .. .. . • lit , 000 HO, 000 5^,000 Compulsory deposits .. 1 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 HO,000 Other deposits of members on both the Societies .. 2^,000
Total Rs.. 119,000
The United Farms took possession of the land in July, 1951* All investments and share in property, tools and machinery were in the ratio of 1 : 2. The United Farms were managed by a board of three members - one representative of each Society and one . common member. A joint account was maintained. The United Farms was not registered with the 273
Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, nor was there any written
agreement between the two Societies.
Condition of Land at the Time of Its Occupation
About the year 1900, a bund was constructed near the village
Murtzapur and the water of the Markanda and Saraswati rivulets was
stored and supplied for irrigation via Saraswati Canal. But this area was not served by the Canal. Before the construction of this bund,
the surplus water of these rivulets used to flood this area. After the rainy season, rabi crops were sown in the flooded area. The
stoppage of this water supply after the construction of this bund
led to the formation of jungle as no rabi crops could be sown if there was no rainfall in the month of September. When no crops were sown for a couple of years shrubs and jungle trees grew up. Thus the whole of the area of 1,15^ acres which the United Farms got on lease was waste land. Most of it was under jungle, each acre covered with hundreds of dhak trees. There was some unculturable rain cut land, ditches having been formed by rain water outlets. There was also some salt-land, mentioned in the revenue records as incapable of raising crops. The land was infested with jungle animals and surrounded by a very backward population.
Equipment and Labor
By September 1951, the United Farms had purchased two heavy tractors along with implements at a price of about Rs 60,000 and three tube-wells were installed at a total cost of Rs 12,000. They employed one of the members as general manager on Rs 300 per month, two munshies,
30 baildars and two tractor drivers. Six members were working full time 274 on the farm and three other members worked part-time as and when their services were required in the different branches of the scheme. Under the by-laws the members could be required to live and work on the farm any time.
Scheme of Development and Financial Difficulties
Excluding unculturable area and the area to fall under roads and buildings, out of a total area of 1,15^ acres, the actual area to be brought under the plough was about 1,000 acres. By December 1951, an area of 1+50 acres was cleared of jungle during the first four months of the operation of the farms. Out of this, an area of 150 acres was prepared for planting sugar cane and an area of 200 acres was broken for paddy for the next kharif season. By the end of 1952, the United
Farms planned to reclaim a total area of 750 acres, the remaining 250 acres to be reclaimed by July 1953*
In between 150 acres of sugar cane, they wanted to plant 10,000 citrus plants which would mature after four years for their virgin crop. By this time the ratoon sugar cane crop would be over. A sum of
Rs 20,000 was needed for this. For irrigation purposes, 10 tube-wells were required at the rate of one tube-well for every 100 acres. A sum of Rs ^0,000 was needed for this. A sum of about Rs 200,000 was required for land reclamation. In view of these requirements the United Farms applied to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for the fixation of the maximum credit limit of Rs 300,000. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies who visited the farm in December 1951, remarked that the total paid-up share-capital being Rs 5^+, 000, the maximum credit limit could be fixed at five times the amount, i.e., Rs 270,000. To be on the safe 275 side, however, he recommended that the maximum, credit limit be fixed at
Rs 100,000 (Rs 70,000 for the Lyallpur Society and Rs 30,000 for the
Karnal Society), In spite of all this, in March 1952, the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies fixed the maximum credit limit for the Lyallpur
Society at Rs 20,000 and the Karnal Society at Rs 10,000. Both the
Societies were required to hypothecate all their machinery, equipment, tube-wells, crops etc. with the Central Cooperative Bank, Karnal as security for loans. For lack of adequate funds this programme of development could not be completed.
Separation of the Two Farms
The United Farms functioned for about one year only and the too
Societies ceased to work jointly with effect from August 1, 1952. Ac cording to the manager of the Karnal Society, the members of the
Lyallpur Society had verbally promised to make an investment of
Rs 80,000 free of interest when the two farms were united. But later they demanded interest at a rate of 12 per cent on their deposits. On the other hand, according to the manager of the Lyallpur Society, contrary to expectations, the members of the Karnal Society did not prove to be so good workers after all. The expectations of the members of the Karnal Society about financial contribution by the Lyallpur
Society and the expectations of the Lallpur Society about the contri bution of good workers by the Karnal Society thus did not seem to materialize and the two farms separated on account of these differences.
The land was so divided that the Karnal Society got 388 acres of land in village Pehowa and the rest of the land was taken over by the
Lyallpur Society. 276
The Karnal Cooperative Farmers
As a result of separation, the Karnal farmers got one Hanomag tractor valued at Rs 17,000, a cultivator of the value of Rs 2,100, a trolly valued at Rs 1,900 and one tube-well bore on which a stun of
Rs 2,1+00 had been spent. Out of the land that fell to the share of the Karnal Society, 150 acres had been cleared of jungle with trees cut and stumps removed at a cost of Rs 6,000. A 20 h.p. Zetor tractor was purchased by the Society early in 1953.
For the year 1953-5*+, the Society had lU members, two of whom were working on the farm. They were getting an honorarium of Rs 100 per month each. Six non-member workers were employed on the farm.
They were paid Rs 100 per month each. They had been given the under standing that they would be admitted as members of the Society after one year's service. There was a common mess for the member and non-member workers.
Out of the total area of 388 acres, an area of 175 acres was transferred to a non-member on the same terms as it had been gotten from the government. This was done as the Society did not have the resources to reclaim this land within the required period.
Between August 1952 and December 195*+, an area of 50 acres was reclaimed at a total cost of Rs 5,000. Cutting of trees and removal of stumps cost Rs 2,000 while ploughing and harrowing with the traqtor costs Rs 3,000 more. In the year 1953-5*+ an area of 100 acres was under crops. 277
TABLE 13.2
Balance Sheet of Karnal Society as on June 30, 1954
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs
1 . Central Bank Shares 600 1. Shares 14,000 2 . Rational Savings 2. Deposits of Certificates 200 members 21,751 3. Amount in Central 3. Deposits of Cooperative Bank non-members 7,057 Karnal $k 4. Government Stock 32,21k Taccavi 12,500 5. Sundry Debtors 8,870 5.Central Co 6 . Loss on Jungle operative Clearence 24,612 Bank loan 10,000 6 . Interest payable 1,282 Total 66,590 Total 66,590
In July.1954, three of the non-member vorkers were given the
reclaimed land of the Society for cultivation on nisaf batai. They
took over the Zetor tractor and plough and the responsibility to pay
off the taccavi loan, of Rs 5*000. The operational cost of the tractor
was the responsibility of this group and sesd and farm labor were also
provided by them. Only half of the seed of sugar cane and potatoes
was provided by the Society. The Society was also responsible for the
supply of water for irrigation from the tube-well.
This arrangement continued only for the year 1954-55 as the
tenants did not find it profitable. For lack of resources they did not
engage any hired labor although they were unable to cope with the work.
It was a bad year for crops. In September 1954, there were floods and wheat was sown late. The toria crop did not grow well as rain fell just after its sawing. After the end of the year, two of the tenants left, 2 7 8 while the third continued as a paid accountant for one year. None of
them liked to avail of the offer of the Society to admit them as members.
Since July 1955> about half of the total arable area of 200 acres with the Society is being cultivated by tenants on nisaf batai. Four tenant families are farming this land. Irrigation water is supplied by the three tube-wells of the Society. The tenants pay for electrici ty consumed by the tube-wells. The remaining half of the area is cultivated by the Society. Three field laborers are engaged on the farm, each at maunds of wheat per year. A deduction of 12 maunds each is made in the case of two of them who get meals from the common mess. Four of the members including the president, his wife and the secretary live on the farm. The president and the secretary supervise the work of the farm. A good part of their time is wasted on account of the dispute with the Lyallpur farm. The wife of the president looks after the common mess. The fourth resident member does some manual work. The remaining ten members have seldom visited the farm and do not seem to be interested in its working. The Honomag tractor was disposed of in 1956 for Rs 3,600. The Zetor tractor was sold next year for Rs ^,000. Two pairs of bullocks were purchased in 1956 and another pair in 1957* So cultivation is now done with the help of animal power and mechanized cultivation was given up after the reclamation of land for which the tractors were used.
The Lyallpur Cooperative Farmers Ltd.
On separation from the Karnal Society this Society got 769 acres of land out of which U50 acres including 120 acres under crops had been 2 7 9
cleared of jungle. Out of the equipment, the Society got three tube- wells and one boring representing an investment of about Rs 11,000 and one T.D. 9 International tractor valued at Rs 32,000 and implements - a plough, harrow and seed drill valued at about Rs 12,000. The Society gave 2hk acres of jungle land to one of the members on lease at the rate of Rs 2.5 per acre - lease money of Rs 1.5 to be paid to the government by the Society. Thus the Society got an income of one rupee per acre per year as an intermediary from this land. This member along with four partners cleared this area of jungle..
For the year 1953"5^ an area of 225 acres was under the plough.
An area of 100 acres was still under jungle while an area of 200 acres had been cleared of jungle but was not ready for crops. The major equipment of the Society consisted of the tractor and implements, four tube-wells and two bullocks. Only two of the members, husband and wife lived on the farm, the remaining 38 being absentee members. Six non-member field workers at Rs 60 per month each, and one mechanic at Rs 100 per month, were employed on the farm.
TABLE I3.3
Balance Sheet of Lyallpur Society as on June 30, 1956
Assets Liabilities Rs Rs 1. Cash in hand 2^0 1.Deposit of members 61,683 2. Central Bank Share 100 2. Deposit of non-members 828 3 . Amount with Central 3. Central Cooperative Bank 79 Bank Loan 19,116 4. Stock 61, k. Shares if 0,000 5. Sundry Debtors 23,068 5. Interest payable 100 6 . Security with government 5,770 7 . Losses 31,066 Total 121,727__ Total ' ' 121,727 280
Since July 195h, the reclaimed area has been given to tenants for
cultivation on nisaf batai. The tenants live on the farm. Material for their kacha houses which they have constructed themselves has been
supplied ‘by the Society. Irrigation water and sugar cane crushers are supplied by the Society. Seed of sugar cane and potatoes and chemical fertilizers are contributed half and half while the farm yard manure is provided by the tenants.
Out of Uo members, seven never signed the membership register.
Eight members resigned in the year 1956. They have sold their shares and complusory deposits of Rs 2,000 each for Rs 1,000 to other members.
With the exception of the president and his wife who have always been living on the farm, all of them are absentee shareholders and do not seem to be interested in the working of the Society. The members of the Society have not so far received any dividend and the whole of the income is being spent on the development and improvement of land. The accounts and records of the Society are not being maintained properly.
There are now five tube-wells for supply of irrigation water.
Besides some of the land of the Society is irrigated by canal water.
Fertilizers and improved seeds are used on the farm.
The Doaba Model Farm Village Baluchpura, Post Office Pehowa
This farm belongs to three partners from Jullundur district who jointly purchased 280 acres of land for Rs 39>200 at Rs 1^0 per acre in October 1951* The whole of this area was under jungle. On receiving notice under the Land Utilization Act, the owners sold the land and deposited the security with the government. The purchasers thus got this land on the condition that they would reclaim the area within two 281 years. The three partners hold shares in a Transport Company at
Jullundur.
By July 1952, they had reclaimed 70 acres. By January 1953> 187 acres of land had been reclaimed. The whole of the area was reclaim ed within three years of the purchase of land.
For the year 1953“5^ the farm had 187 acres of land under the plough. Three family workers, one tractor driver at Rs 80 per month, and four workers at Rs 50 per month, were employed on the farm. The major equipment of the farm consisted of one tractor, W-6 International
32 horse power, along with implements purchased for Rs 19,000 and two tube-wells installed at a cost of Rs 10,500.
One of the partners disposed of his land in 1957 at Rs h^O to
Rs 500 per acre. The other two partners have divided the land between themselves but they have joint cultivation. The son of one of the partners lives on the farm, while the other is represented by his munshi. The latter member is keen to sell his land, but is waiting for higher prices. The whole of the land is cultivated with hired labor.
Family Farm A
The owner of this farm is a displaced person from Tehsil Chunian,,
Lahore district. He was allotted 92 acres of land all covered with jungle. He, along with other three allottees arrived at the farm in
January 1951* The four families started reclamation of the land jointly. Together they purchased one Tractor Farmer L with implements at a cost of Rs 15,000 and installed a tube-we11 at a cost of Rs 8,000.
They were able to reclaim 60 acres of land by January 1952 at a total cost of Rs 7,000. This was equally divided among the four families and 282 the owner of holding A got 15 acres out of this. After this they start ed reclaiming their lands separately and the owner of holding A cleared another 45 acres hy December 1954 at a cost of Rs 4,000. He sold 17 acres in 1955 and 25 acres in 1956* as he was unable to reclaim this area. At present, half of his land (25 acres) is under self-culti vation while the remaining half is cultivated by a tenant on nisaf batai. Family Farm B
The area of this farm is 80 acres. The owners are two army officers (real brothers) who purchased land in November 1951* at the rate of Rs 80 per acre. The whole of the area was covered with thick jungle. They started jungle clearing operations in January 1952. An area of 47 acres had been cleared of jungle and tractorized by October
1954. Out of this, 12 acres had been claimed by October 1952 and another 15 acres by October 1953• Hired tractors were used for first ploughing and harrowing. Levelling and bunding was done with the help of three he-buffaloes. The average cost of reclamation was Rs 289 per acre. TABLE 13.4 Pattern of Cropping Bakhle Tanda Doaba Lyall. Karnal Ex. S. Ex. S. Doaba Family Family Name of Co-op. Co-op. T.F. T.F. Model Farm Farm Crop Farm Farm Society Society Farm A B Wheat 37.6 19.3 26.7 3.2 29.2 39.6 44.5 Gram 23.5 58.0 4o.o 48.4 39-0 39.6 14.8 Oil-seeds 7.4 13.5 -- 3.9 -- Paddy 23.5 1.5 33-3 48.4 6.5 11.9 - Sugar cane 8.0 - - - - - 7.4 Cotton - 2.9 - - 5.2 - 25.9 Fodder - 4.8 -- 16.2 4.0 7.4 Miscellaneous - - --- 4.9 - 283
Pattern of Cropping
Table 13.it gives the pattern of cropping on the reclaimed area of
the farms in Pehov/a area. Important crops sown in the reclaimed area
of these farms are wheat, gram and paddy. With the exception of the
Lyallpur Cooperative Far nr and family holding B where wheat occupies the
highest percentage of the cropped area, gram is the most important crop
in these farms. The newly reclaimed area is suited for growing gram,
there being insufficient irrigation facilities. Moreover, the crop
does not require much of human labor. The reclaimed area where plenty
of irrigation water from the tube-well is available is suited for rice
cultivation. Rice, therefore, occupies quite an important place in all
the farms except the Karnal cooperative farm. With the exception of the Karnal farm, none of the cooperative farms had any area under cotton
or fodder crops. Doaba Model Farm and family farm B which had the highest percentage of area under fodder crops maintained working cattle
on the farm. The Karnal farm had five acres of land under Bajra which was sold as fodder. Family farmer A had one acre of land under chari which he needed for his milch cattle. The Ex-servicemen Cooperative
Tenant Farms maintained working cattle but could not raise any fodder crops during 1953-5^• The family farm B had the highest percentage of its area under cotton. The only other farms which raised this crop were the Doaba Model Farm and Karnal cooperative farm. On the whole, the cooperative farms do not show any superiority over the other farms in respect of pattern of cropping. 28k
TABLE 13-5
Yield Per Acre of Different Crops (irrigated)
Bakhle Tanda Doaba Lyall. Karnal Ex. S. Ex. S. Doaba Family Family Name of Co-op. Co-op. T.F. T.F. Model Farm Farm Crop Farm Farm Society Society Farm A B
Wheat 10.9 12.5 6.9 10.0 15.6 10.0 25.0 Gram 12.5 8.1 0.6 2.7 10.7 3-o 12.5 Paddy 37.5 16.0 20.0 26.7 10.0 20.0 - Cotton - 3.3 - - 3.8 - 5.1 Sugar cane 22.2 - - - -- 80.0
Toria 10.0 6.9 - - . 6.7 - -
Table 13*5 gives the per acre yields of crops on these farms. The
yield per acre of all the crops on the smallest of all the farms, family farm B is the highest. The yield per acre of wheat on this farm is more than double the yield on the cooperative farms and the yield of
sugar cane (gur) is more than three times the yield on the Lyallpur
cooperative farm, the only other farm which raised this crop. The yield of cotton per acre on this farm was about one and a half times that on the Karnal cooperative farm and the Doaba Model Farm. The yield per acre of gram is the same as that of the Lyallpur cooperative farm, but it is higher than that of any other farm. The land in this farm had been purchased and not taken on lease and therefore greater efforts were made to develop the land than was the case with farms where land had been taken on 20 years' lease. The owner's son, a graduate well-versed in the technique of farming, helped by another family worker and five hired workers, was managing the farm. Three he -buff aloes, one bullock and a camel were employed on the farm.
The yield per acre of wheat on the Doaba Model Farm is higher . 285 than on any of the cooperative farms and the yield per acre of gram on this farm is higher than that on any of the cooperative farms except the Lyallpur cooperative farm. Fertilizers of the value of Rs 360 were applied on this farm. The newly reclaimed area does not need manuring and no other farm used any fertilizers or manure in the year
1953-5^• The yield per acre of paddy on the Lyallpur cooperative farm and the Bakhle Doaha Ex. S.T.F. Cooperative Society is higher than the yield on the family and partnership farms. This crop needs plenty of water and the cooperative farms had better supply of water from their tube-wells. On the whole, the cooperative farms do not show any superiority over the family farms in respect of the yield per acre of important crops grown.
TABLE 13.6
Input, Output and Net Income In Rupees Per Acre
Bakhle Tanda Doaba Lyall. Karnal Ex. S. Ex. S. Doaba Family Family Co-op. Co-op. T.F. T.F. Model Farm Farm Item______Farm Farm Society Society Farm A______B______
Input 167.6 238.6 159.3 83.O 128.7 150.3 423.9 Output 159.if 124.6 124.8 68.3 111.2 88.3 306.3 Net Income -( 8.2)-(ll4.0) -(34.5) -(14.7) -(17-5) -(62.0)-(ll7.3)
Net Income
Table 13.6 gives the input, output and net income per acre of the different farms. The value of the input per acre exceeds the output per acre of the reclaimed area on all the farms under study. The farms got occupation of land in the years 1951 and 1952 on the condition that land would be reclaimed with a period of two years. Their main con cern during the year under study (1953"5^+) was the reclamation of land 286
to fulfil the condition of lease or sale of land to them. They could
not give full attention to the raising of crops on the area reclaimed.
In subsequent years some of these farms have according to the managers,
been giving a net incane. Wo account was kept for the year 1953-5^ of
the number of hours that the tractors were used for reclamation and
raising of crops. In the records of the cooperative farms half of yearly depreciation and working costs of the tractor and implements are debited to land reclamation and the remaining half to cultivation of the reclaimed area. The same practice is followed for all the farms for working out the inputs for the purpose of the above table. This
is not an accurate method. But in the absence of record of the work ing hours of the tractors etc. separately for reclamation and raising of crops, no better method is possible. However, according to this method the depreciation and working costs for cultivation of crops seem to be over estimated and may account partly for the loss on the cultivation of crops on the reclaimed area. In view of this fact, a comparison of the net income per acre of these farms may not be very meaningful.
TABUS 13.7
Average Cost Per Acre of Land Reclamation in Rupees
Bakhle Tanda Doaba Lyall. Karnal Ex. S. Ex. S. Doaba Family Family Co-op. Co-op, T.F. T.F. Model Farm Farm Farm Farm Society Society Farm A B
180 250 53 56 200 200 289 287
Cost of Land Reclamation
Table 13-7 gives the cost per acre of land reclamation for the different farms. The cost of land reclamation was the lowest in the case of the Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Societies, partly because their land did not need any levelling. Part of the jungle clearance and first ploughing was done by the ex-servicemen themselves and the hired labor which was engaged had to work under their close supervision. For jungle clearance and removal of stumps they were paid only Rs 20 per acre. On the other farms the cost of these two operations varied from Rs 50 to Rs 100 per acre. Part of the land was broken with ploughs for which the ex-servicemen were paid Rs 20 per acre. When'the tractor of the contractor was used, the cost was Rs Uo per acre. The most important factors determining the variation in the cost of land reclamation on the different farms are thickness of the jungle and the amount of levelling needed.
Dispute Between the Lyallpur Cooperative Farm and the Karnal Cooperative Farm
At the time of their separation in August 1952, the Karnal
Society demanded that half of the reclaimed land should be given to them, but actually they did not get even one-third of it. The Lyallpur
Society demanded that the Karnal Society should bear one-third of the cost of development of the total land reclaimed till the time of separation, but the Karnal Society maintained that they would bear only the cost of development of the land which they got as their share. But the major dispute between the two Societies, which has not yet been finally settled, is over the sharing of the taccavi loan of Rs 20,000 which the United Farms got on March 31* 1952. There are four entries in the book of joint accounts about the receipt of this loan in four installments in April, May, June and Ju£y 1952, credited to the Karnal
Society by the general manager of the United Farms, who was a common member of both the Societies. Actually the general manager, it is said, had this amount with him and spent it for day-to-day expenditure on the farm. It is alleged by the members of the Karnal Society that the accountant of the United Farms, who was also the secretary of the
Lyallpur Society, manipulated these entries. In September 195^* the arbitrators decided that each of the Societies should bear half of the loan. But the Lyallpur Society did not accept this decision. This award could not be turned into a decision of the court as the arbi trators did not give the statement in a civil court and the decision lapsed. Again, the dispute was referred for arbitration to a committee consisting of the Inspector of Cooperative Societies and two non-official members. This committee gave the same decision that 50 per cent of the loan should be borne by each Society. The Lyallpur Society appealed against this decision and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies has recently decided that the Karnal Society should bear the whole of this loan.
Conclusion
Both the Lyallpore Society and the Karnal Society were organized about the same time with a view to make capital out of the provisions of the Punjab Land Utilization Act 19^9* According to the manager of the United Farms, some of the promoters of these Societies played an important part in the amendment of the Act so as to raise the period of the lease from two years to 20 years. The too Societies joined hands with the hope that they would he able to reclaim the area within the required period by pooling their men and financial resources. But a year’s experience showed that there was not enough of mutual confidence and even the United Farms would not be able to reclaim the whole area within the required period. On separation both of the Societies kept with them only that part of the area which they could reclaim within the required period and gave the rest of the area on lease to members or non-members. When most of the area which they kept with them had been reclaimed by the end of June 195^> both the Societies gave the land on nisaf batai to tenants. Thus at no stage did the members of the Societies want to cultivate these lands, but they made investments in land in order to get an independent income from land as intermedi aries.
The Cooperative Farming Societies have got the land on lease for a period of seven years which may be extended upto 20 years. Already some of the local owners have represented for the restoration of their lands to them. But the partnership farm and the family farms are owners of their land and have taken greater interest in the development and cultivation of their farms.
For land reclamation the cooperative farms with their financial resources and equipment have an advantage over family farms, but not necessarily over farms owned by partners with adequate resources. But for the cultivation of the reclaimed area, the cooperative farms do not show any superiority over family farms. Chapter XIV
COOPERATIVE FARMING IK GARDEN COLONIES
This case study relates to the Khankot Progressive Cooperative
Farming Society and three family farms in the Garden Colony of Khankot, district Amritsar. Khankot is situated at a distance of about five miles from the district town of Amritsar. The Garden Colony vras visited twice in the year 1953-5^ after the rabi and Khairf crops had been collected. Subsequent visits were made to study the progress of the cooperative farm, the last of these visits being in November 1959*
Garden Colonies
As a result of the partition of the country in 19^7> India lost the citrus orchards in the canal colonies in West Pakistan and Punjab
(India) became deficit in citrus fruit. To meet this problem, twenty- seven Garden Colonies covering an area of over 22,000 acres were started in 11 districts in the Punjab. Land was allotted in units of 20 or half units of 10 acres to 1,122 persons interested in growing fruit trees.
These garden colonists were selected out of 6,000 applicants. Most of them are educated persons with some experience of gardening.
In each Garden Colony a Cooperative Society has been organized for the general management of the colony. Every colonist is required to put at least 75 per cent of his holding under fruit trees. The members are required to carry out all the horticultural operations like production of nursery plants, irrigation, spraying, grading, packaging, preservation
290 291 and marketing of fruit and such other works as may be decided upon by the Society. Some of the more important objects of the Garden Colony
Societies are to secure or raise nursery plants and seeds of approved quality; to arrange for the control and eradication of plant diseases, insect pests and obnoxious weeds; to arrange for loans and receive deposits for financial assistance of the members; and to arrange for grading, processing, packaging and marketing of fruit and fruit products. In all colonies some area has been reserved for raising nurseries. The working capital of the Societies has been raised by share contributions and admission fees. Randhawa describes the scope of the Garden Colony Cooperative Societies in the following words:
While the members of the Garden Colonies will enjoy the benefit of cooperation in agricultural operations where cooperative effort is remunerative such as irrigation, nursery raising, tractor cultivation, cold storing and market ing of produce and general management, full scope has also been provided for individual initiative. Each allottee will own and manage the fields allotted to him. If a member is lazy he will have, .himself to suffer and he 1/111 not be a mill stone round the neck of the Cooperative Society. In this respect these Garden Colonies resemble the small-holders1, cooperative village 'The Moshav Ovdim* of the Zionists in Israel.l
The Khankot Garden Colony
The total area of this Garden Colony is Jl6 acres. Allotment of land was made in 1951* In order to raise money for the share capital of the Garden Colony Cooperative Society which all the allottees were required to form, the total area of the Garden Colony was given on lease for one year to a contractor. A share capital of Rs 17,950 was
Hi.S. Randhawa, National Extension and Community Projects in Punjab, Community Projects Administration, Punjab Government, (Chandigarh: 1955) P* 205. 292
thus raised, the contribution of each member being at the rate of Rs 25
per standard acre owned by him. The maximum credit limit of the Society
was fixed at Rs 30>000. According to an inspection note of the
Inspector of Cooperative Societies of September 9> 3-959> out of 40
allottees only 1^ were living in the Garden Colony, others were
non-resident members. There was no stock with the Society. An area of
seven acres was reserved for the nursery, but the nursery has not been
started by the Society and the land is given on lease every year. An
area of 26 acres was reserved for a residential site for the houses.
Twenty-one members have built their houses in this area. In the year
1951> boring and tubes for one pumping set were put up for the supply
of drinking water to the colonists but the scheme was not completed due to lack of interest on the part of the colonists, many of whom were not living in the Garden Colony.
Khankot Cooperative Farming Society
Origin
The Khankot Progressive Cooperative Fanning Society was registered on May 5, 1953 with 16 members, four of whom were plot holders owning 76 acres of land, the others being their family members. The total land with the Society in the year 1953-5^ was 82 acres out of which six acres had been taken on cash rent of Rs 85 per acre. Three of the plot holders do not live in Khankot. They could not farm the land them selves and started the Society in view of the tenancy laws restricting absentee landowners. 293
Finance
The total share capital of the cooperative farm was Rs 10,000, each of the landholding members having contributed Rs 2,500. The maximum credit limit of the Society was fixed at Rs.10,000 in August 1953 and the Society got a loan of Rs 5 >000 from the Central Cooperative Bank
Amritsar. Besides the share capital and the Central Bank loan, the working capital of the Society consisted of members' deposits of
Rs 6,100. In the year 1956-57* the Society got a government subsidy of
Rs 2,200 out of which an amount of Rs 1,200 was to be used towards the salary of the management staff andRs 1,000 towards the cost of building a go-dcwn.
Equipment
Soon after registration the Society purchased a tractor along with implements. For the year 1953-5^ two of the landholding members had a tube-well in each of their plots. Hie cost of the installation had been met by the members themselves. They were used for irrigation purposes by the Society which was responsible for the running expenses.
Later in the year the other two plot holders got tube-wells in their plots.
Term of Agreement
The members gave the land to the Cooperative Farming Society for a period of ten years. The Society was required to pay the landholding members rent at the rate of Rs 75 per acre. The lease-deed of the members with the Society has not been registered. 294
Labor
The son. .-of one of the plot holders who is a graduate in agronomy worked as the managing director and secretary of the cooperative farm.
He was the only resident member. He was paid Rs 150 per month. For the year 1953 the farm had four laborers who worked under the super vision of the managing director and were paid Rs 45 each per month.
TABLE 14.1
Description of the Farms'
Total Farm Farm Farm of family Cooperative A B C farms farm
Owned land 20 acres 12.5 32.5 76.0 Land taken on batai 40 acres 4o.o 6.0 Land taken on cash rent 6.0 6.0 _ Total Area 46 acres 20 acres 18.5 78.5 82.0 Family workers 3 1 1 5 . Hired workers - 2 0.5 2.5 4 Total Number of workers 3 1.5 7.5 5 Number of Bullocks ~"'~g 4 2 i4.o 0
Description of the Farms
Table 14.1 gives the particulars of the cooperative farm and the family farms selected for study regarding acreage, labor and animal power..
TABLE 14.2
Pattern of Cropping Average Name of Cooperative of family crop farm A B C farms Food-grains 69.9$ 59.0$ 62.3$ 73.956 63.3$ Fodder crops 15.4 4 l.o . 37.7 26.1 36.7 Oil-seeds 10.5 - . -- - Miscellaneous 4.2 - -- - Total 100.0$ 100~.0$~ 100.0$ 100 . 6$ 100.0$ The family farms raised only food and fodder crops, while the
cooperative farm had 10.5 per cent and 4.2 per cent of its cropped area
under oil-seeds and vegetables respectively. The cooperative farm had
a higher percentage of its area under food-grains than the family farms
A or B. The percentage of cropped area of the cooperative farm under
fodder crops was lower than that of any of the family farms. The
cooperative farm did not maintain any bullock and sold most of this
fodder in the Amritsar market.
TABLE 14.3
Intensity of Cropping
Average Cooperative Farm Farm Farm for family farm AB C farms
92.9 106.9 152.5 109.7 119.2
Table 14.3 compares the intensity of cropping of the cooperative
farm with that of the family farms. The cooperative farm had the
lowest intensity of cropping of all the farms as 1953“54 was the first year of the agricultural operations for the farm and part of the area could not be scum during the year. Out of the family farms, farm B with three workers and four bullock operating on an area of 20 acres of owned land and a tube-well for irrigation shewed the highest intensity
of cropping of all the farms. 296
TABLE 14.4
Yield Per Acre of Crops in Maunds
Average Name of Cooperative for family Crop______farm__ A______B______C______farms
Wheat 17.6 7.0 15.5 - U.4 Paddy 21.3 - 20.0 - 20.0 Maize 2.7 - - 4.5 4.5 Gram • 11.2 5.0 15.0 - 5*7
Yield of Crops
Table 14.4 gives the per acre yield of crops of the family farms and the cooperative farm. With the minor exception of maize which was damaged due to untimely excessive rains, the yield per acre of all the crops of the cooperative farm was higher than that of the family farms.
This was due to the better preparation of the soil with the tractor, adequate supply of irrigation water from the tube-wells and the use of fertilizers of the total value of Rs 692.5. Out of the family farms, farm B had the highest yields per acre of all crops. This farm had an adequate supply of irrigation water from the tube-we 11. Chemical fertilizers of the value of Rs 275 were used during the year. No fertilizers were applied on farms C or A. The operator of farm A who had taken the land on batai did not use even farm yard manure.
TABLE 14.5
Input, Output and Net Income (Basis C) Per Acre
Average Cooperative of family farm . A B c farms
Input 244.5 123.1 299.7 161.9 177.2 Output 186.9 100.4 341.3 101.9 162.1 Net Income -(57.6) -(22.7 ) 41.6 -(60.0 ) -( 15.1) 297
Net Income
Table 14.5 gives the input, output and net income per acre on
basis C of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The value of the
input of the cooperative farm was Rs 20,054 while that of its output
was Rs 15,329. Against this the three family farms with an area of
about the same as the cooperative farm had an input of the value of
Rs 13,913.5 and an output of Rs 12,726. The input, output and net
loss per acre of the cooperative farm is higher than the corresponding
average for the family farms taken together. The net income per acre
of the cooperative farm is lower than that of any of the family farms
except farm C. This is partly accounted for by the fact 1953-54 was
the first year of the working of the cooperative farm. Farm B with
an area of 20 acres of owned land irrigated by a tube-well was the only
farm to show net profits per acre. TABLE 14.6
Net Income Per Acres on Basis B and Basis A Cooperative Average of farm A B C family farms
Basis B -(35.7) 17.8 71.6 -31.4 20.0 Basis A 34.0 21.1 91.7 7.6 35.9
Table l4.6 shows that farm C showed a net loss per acre on basis
B. The net income on basis A Is positive for all the farms.
TABLE 14.7
Net Income Per Worker in Rupees on Bases C, B and A Cooperative Average of farm A B c family farms Basis C -(945.0) -(302.8 ) 277.3 -(5.55.5 ) -(148.4) Basis B -(585.O) 237.2 477.3 -(285.5 ) 196.6 Basis A 557.8 281.2 .A ll- 3 70.3 352.3 298
The net income per worker on basis C which gives the return for management only is negative on all the farms except farm B. Hie net income per worker on basis B which gives the return for management and manual labor together is positive on two of family farms, but it is lower than the wages per worker at the prevailing rates. These farmers would be better off as wage earners. The average net income per worker on basis A for all the family farms taken together and the farms A and C is lower than the wages at the prevailing rates.
TABLE 14.8
Distribution of the Total Value of Input (in Percentages) — — -— Average Cooperative for family farm A B C farms
1. Human Labor 2 6 .7$ 32. % 25.1# 28.0# 28 .8# 2. Bullock Labor - 20.5 24.0 22.0 22.3 3 . Rent 24.3 31-3 25.0 37.6 30.0 4. Machinery 35.3 - 12.9 - 5.5 Total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 86.3 84.7 87.6 87.6 86.6 5 . Agricultural implements 1.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.6 6. Seed 4.7 7.4 4.7 6.9 6.1 7. Fertilizers 3.4 - 4.6 - 2.0 8 . Others 4.6 7-5 2.8 4.0 4.7 Total 100 . o# 100.0$ 100.0# 100.0# 100.0#
Components of the Input
Table 14.8 gives the distribution of value of the input of the cooperative farm and the family farms. The most important inputs of the cooperative farm, which did not maintain any bullocks a® machinery, labor and rent of land. These three items account for 86.3 per cent of the input of the cooperative farm. Rent of land, human labor and bullock labor are the most important inputs of the family farm and account for
84.7 per cent and 87.6 per cent of the inputs of farm A and farm C respectively. Farm B which shared a tube-well with another landowner was the only family farm to use machinery. Fertilizers were used only by the cooperative farm and one of the family farms.
TABLE 14.9
Number of Farm Workers Per Hundred Acres Held
Average Cooperative for family farm ABC farms
6.1 7.5 15.0 10.8 10.2
Saving of Human and Bullock Labor
The cooperative farm maintained the smallest number of farm work ers per hundred acres of land held. It did not maintain any bullocks.
This saving of human and bullock labor was the result of the use of machinery. TABLE 14.10
Number of Bullocks Per Hundred Acres Held Average Cooperative for family farm ABC farms
- 20 20 10.8 17.8
TABLE 14.11 Investment Per Acre in Rupees in Improved Implements and Machinery Cooperative Average for farm ABC family farms
206.3 1.3 102.8 2.7 27.5 300
Investment in Machinery
Table 14.11 gives the investment of the cooperative farm and the
family farms in machinery and improved implements. The cooperative
farm had a tractor and tube-we 11s. Farm B shared a tube-well with
another landowner and had a chaff-cutter. The only improved implement
that the other family farm had was the chaff-cutter.
Progress of the Cooperative Farm
Early in 1956 , one:of the land holding members indicated his
desire to leave the cooperative farm. At a meeting of the managing
committee held on March 28, 1958 it was decided to permit this member
to leave the Society. This member has been giving his land on lease
since then. Six acres of his land was planted with fruit trees when
he left the Society. There has been no further plantation of fruit
trees on his land. At another meeting of the managing committee held
on June 3, 1956 it was resolved that the Cooperative Farming Society
may be wound up. It was decided that the person who was the managing
director would not be getting any monthly salary. He will pay Rs 660
as the rent of the land to each of the other two plot holders. He will meet all the expenses including the land revenue, water rates and
electric charges. He will be responsible for planting and maintaining
the fruit trees. By September 1959, out of the total area of 60 acres
of the three plot holders, 31 acres had been planted with pears, 18
acres with citrus and two acres with mangoes.
Conclusion
The cooperative farm showed a better performance than the family farms in respect of pattern of cropping, per acre yield of crops, use of fertilizers and machinery and saving of human and "bullock labor.
But on the other hand it had a lower net income per acre and a lower intensity of cropping. But in so far as only one of the members worked on the farm, it was not a genuine cooperative farm. It was only an arrangement of the absentee landowners to give their land on lease to the managing director. The same person continued to get the land on rent after the end of the cooperative farming in June 1956 . Chapter XV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Nature of the Study
The objective of this study was to examine the experience of cooperative farming tinder different settings in the Punjab and to identify and examine the problems of cooperative farms and family farms of different types. Table 15.1 gives the general position of all registered Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab in the year 1953“5^« Fifteen cooperative farms representing different types were selected for intensive study. Only farms where land was pooled for joint management were selected. Case studies of three ex-service- men cooperative tenant farming societies and two cooperative farms for land reclamation have been presented in Chapters XII and XIII. In
Chapters III to Chapter XI and Chapter XIV, accounts and working of ten cooperative farms for the year 1953“5^ have been compared with family farms which were located in the same village as the cooperative farm. The cooperative farm and the family farms selected in each of these villages were homogeneous with respect to: soil types and weather conditions. Net income was calculated on three bases. Net income on basis C was computed by subtracting the total value of all the inputs owned or purchased from the total value of the output. Net income on basis B was computed by excluding the imputed value of family labor
302 TABLE 15.1 Cooperative Fanning Societies in the Punjab (1953-5*0* Percentage Total Number of owned fund Amount of Area Produce of to working Loan in of the Total Total District Societies Members capital Out standing Acre s____ Year Profit_____ Loss Rs Rs Rs 1. Hissar 12 169 39.** 9,71** 5,500 67,30** — 17,731
2 . Rohtak 7 10b k2.0 25,529 23l.<. 25,81*1* — 11,012
3. Gurgaon 8 107 79.3 • ’ — 2,779 21,1*07 — 1,536
1*. Karnal 60 909 20.1 87,027 12,1*39 211,11*9 — 15**, 191
5 . Ambala 11 l*+0 1+5-9 32,77** 1,950. 21*, 785 — 9,*+28
6 . Kangra 1 12 100 - 3 795 . — 31
7 .Hoshiarpur 13 169 30.5 100,033 1,1*63 52,847 — 1*6,871* 8 . Jullundur 6 82 b2.9 53,2*12 2,158 90,051* — 8,111
9* Ludhiana 1+ 55 33.8 52,901 81*0 5,307 — 13,031 9 0 c— (—i 0 10. Ferozepur 59 836 31.3 211,300 2**,1**3 1, — 35**,9**9 11. Amritsar 22 297 32.1 152,803 3,1*00 11,656 — 9,783
12. Gurdarpur 13 180 29.6 125,19** 2,131 5**,138 — 1**,**57 Total 21o 3,080 30.1 650,517 57,03(7-L,7**5,357 .... ~ 641,13*+ *The Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab, A Study of Cooperative Fanning Societies in the Punjab, Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punjab (Chandigarh, 1958), Appendix ill. 3$
from the costs. Net income on basis A was computed by excluding imput
ed value of family labor, interest on owned capital invested in
bullocks and implements and the rental value of owned land from the
costs. Table 15.2 gives a summary of the particulars of the cooper
ative farms and family farms and the results of'the comparison of the
two.
Cooperative Farms of Displaced Peasant Proprietors
Sewa ITagar Cooperative Society. This Cooperative Fanning Society
had a membership of heads of families and an area of ^h2 acres in
1953-5^. The land was allotted in the name of Society and not in the name of the individual members. In the beginning there was a common mess for all the member families for about 15 months. It was abolished as there was lack of variety in the menu and the members found it diffi
cult to keep to regular timings for their meals. The Society received
government subsidies amounting to Rs 28,867 between the years 1950-51 and 195^-55. The members worked in one group for the first two years, in two groups in the third year and four groups in the year 1953-5^*
In 195^-55 some of the members started individual cultivation while in
1955 all of them started individual cultivation. The Society owes its relatively successful life of five years to the strong leadership of the president, liberal financial help of the government, and the allotment of land in the name of the Society. The chief difficulties of the farm were the problems of supervision of the member workers, lack of incentive and the unwillingness of the members to take orders from the manager who was one of them. The area of the family farms in this case study varied from 10 to ^0 acres. The biggest family farm ef th* IwUy Itnw
3* $ ii 1 Lmtlatf wuef ttifBi fctfitatto h
tllllCMM Uim m w to $ 33 1 5 1 3 8,5 t 18 1 1 •(30*! *• • * totolrt li« Mir IP 220 13 38 4 3 12 •2,o 128 8,5 3*815 7,2 44,7 104.3 f ■ j .4 • 4 *' • 4 JlUJHlHiKlipf (iitriit Mktar ®}W 1^23 fi 7 2 1 2 8,3) 24? 3 10 14 1 1 .(15,! M * (*•) i,
OiUOMpu itrtriit t a w Wt 125 17 12 2 3118 -(72,3)118,5 14,5 2 23 -(15,2)27,2 53,8 ... •-; f f . .. ,4 ,
0,
t a W January 1953 144 12 8 5 0 1 2 4 -($7,0) 108, 17 1 25 (71,0) 31,0 75,4 * "f • •f Koib ditrlct '■f tataor SipWbirlS50 258 12 4 8 8 2 4 8 •§!) 7® 8 1 14 1*3) 4,f n,2 ... 4 j, f
SWtaw flitrlit 2iW1351 500 23 1 24 H 8- 265 12 14,5 27 2 4 13,7 34,0 114,4, + .f 4 * + ' ‘ 4 ■ taiptiitrlet W a k Fitomy 1950 23814 1 14 0 1 3 9,5 27 II 3 -W)-(l8,2) 47,4 • .f f f 4 • f OHIbMkl fylftl iiiWitftroapcri 173 18 1 3 0 1 1 1,2 83,5 15 12 -(17,9) 79,1 99*2 + ■+ -f • f • * -j • Q M ilitU et u» ■ 1 -Mat u ■ ,j • * • • ,-f vi n * M i r ' i - t ta « nplt • Zm sr infwior 0 Contlowi 306
had a tractor with implements and a pumping set for irrigation.
Gagra Cooperative Farming Society. This Society was registered
in December 1950. In the year 1953-5**- it had 13 members with 220 acres
of land. The leader of the group was an Inspector of Cooperative
Societies. Eight members worked on the farm. The area of the family
farms in this case study varied from 53 to 9*5 acres. The cooperative
farm had a net income (basis C) of Rs *4-2.6 against an average of
Rs 7*2 for the family farms. On basis B the family farms had an
average net income of Rs kk»7. The Society had a successful life of
three years after which the members started farming their land
separately as they liked to work independently.
Jallowal and Kingra Cooperative Farming Society. This Society was registered in July 1951 with 23 members belonging to nine families
of displaced landowners. An area of 195 acres of weed-infested land
was reclaimed by the Society during two years of operation as a cooper
ative farm, after which it was divided into four family farms. The
accounts and working of the cooperative farm for the year 1952-53
compared with those of the four constituent family farms for the year
1953-5*4- • The cooperative farm had a lower net income (basis C) than
the family farms. It had a lower intensity of cropping, lower per acre
yield of crops and employed less of human and bullock labor. Inadequate finances, unwillingness of the members to invest in the common enter prise and the desire of the working members to manage their farms
independently were some of the causes which resulted in the division
of the farm after two years of joint farming. 307
Cooperative Farm of Hon-Displaced Feasant Proprietors
Gill Chowgawan Cooperative Farming Society. This Society was registered in December 1952. It had 17 members and 125 acres of land in the year 1953-5*+ • The experiment of paying the member workers on an hourly basis which was tried for about two months did not succeed as the records of work were not maintained properly. As a result of consolidation of holdings in the village, the land of the Society, which was scattered in 11 fragments, was consolidated in two blocks.
The area of the family farms in this case study varied from kO to 8.5 acres. The cooperative farm had a lower net income (basis C) per acre than the average for the family farms. Joint farming operations continued for a period of three years only. Differences among the members, defective system of wage payment, absence of strong leader ship and the desire of the members to farm their land independently are some of the factors which account for the short life of the cooperative farm.
Cooperative Farms of Hon-Displaced Absentee or Non-Working Landowners
Sanjiwal Kapure Cooperative Farming Society. This Society was registered in January 1953* It had 12 members and an area of lkk acres in the year 1953-5*+* The system of paying the member workers on an hourly basis worked very well as the record of work was maintained properly. The area of the family farms in this case study varied from
25 to 12 acres. The net income per acre of the cooperative farm
(basis C) was lower than the average for the family farms. The Society owed its relatively long life to the strong leadership of the managing 308 director and the fact that the members are non-working owners who do not like to give the land on rent to tenants.
Kotla Cooperative Farming Society. This Society was registered in September 1950. For the year 1953-5^ the Society had 12 members and
256 acres of land. The area of the family farms in this case study varied from 38 to five acres.. The cooperative farm had a lower net income (basis C) per acre than the average for the family farms. The
Society had a life of six years. All the resident members belonged to one family. One of the major difficulties of the Society was the unvillingness of the member workers to carry out the instructions of the manager who was their brother. Water-logging, inadequate super vision of the farm resulting in the damage to crops and mis-use of equipment were some of the other causes due to which joint farming was given up.
Displaced Absentee or Non-working Landowners
B.G.S. Cooperative Farm Shahabpure. This farm was registered in February 1951* In the year 1953-5^ it had 23 members and 500 acres of land. The cooperative farm had a net income (basis C) of Rs 18.0 against the average of Rs 13.7 for the family farms. The net income per acre of the family farms on basis B which excludes the imputed value of family labor from the costs is Rs 3^*8. The area of the family farms varied from 100 to eight acres. Two of the family farms had a tractor each while four of them had pumping sets for irrigation.
The cooperative farm owed its successful life of six years to the leadership of the managing director who was the only member worker on the farm. 309 Undata Fazalpur Cooperative Farming Society. This farm was regis
tered in February 1950. For the year 1953-5^ the Society had lU members
and 236 acres of land. All the landowning members are real brothers
and sisters. The area of the family farms in this case study varied
from 200 to 25 acres. The cooperative farm had a lower net income
(basis C) than the average for the family farms. The cooperative
farm is more like a family firm than a cooperative enterprise.
Model Cooperative Joint Farming Society Khai Fhemeke. This
Society was registered in May 1951* For the year 1953“5J+> the Society
had 16 members and 173 acres of land. The area of the family farms in
this case study varied from 27.5 acres to one acre. Only one member
worked on the farm. The cooperative farm had a net income (basis C)
of Rs 1.2 against the average net loss per acre of Rs 17*9 for 'the
family farms. The average net income per acre of the family farms on
basis B was Rs 79*1*
Cooperative Farming in Garden Colonies
Progressive Cooperative Farming Society Khankot. Twenty-seven
garden colonies were started in the Punjab after the partition of the
country for the development of fruit orchards. The allottees were
required to plant 75 per cent of their land with fruit trees. The
Progressive Cooperative Farming Society, Khankot was registered in
May 1953. The membership consisted of four landholders and their relations. For the year 1953“5^ the Society had an area of 82.5 acres.
The area-of the three family farms in this case study was 1*0 acres, 20
acres and 12.5 acres. Neither the cooperative farm nor any of the 310
family farms had any land under fruit trees in 1953-5^ • The whole land was used for raising agricultural crops. The net income (basis C) per acre of the cooperative farm was lower than the average for the family farms. Only one of the members worked on the farm. In 1956 one of the landholders left the Society while the other two started giving their land on rent to the working member.
Cooperative Farming and Land Reclamation
Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Societies. Five hundred ex-servicemen were allotted 10 acres of culturable waste land each in
Pehowa area in Karnal district in the year 1952-53* They were required to form groups of ten or more which were registered as Cooperative
Tenant. Farming Societies. They were given grants for land reclamation, purchase of bullocks, and installation of minor irrigation works. Joint farming operations continued for one year only after which members started individual farming. The by-laws had to be amended to permit this. Members were not working at their best under joint farming arrangements. About one-fifth of the allottees have turned out to be absentees.
Cooperative Farming Societies for Land Reclamation. Karnal
Cooperative Farmers' Society and Lyallpur Cooperative Farmers' Society got land on lease in July 1951 under the Punjab Land Utilization Act of 19^9. They worked together for one year after which they separated.
After reclamation they gave land to tenants on share rent. 311
Conclusions
The following conclusions emerge from the study:
1. Net income per acre on hasis C for seven cooperative farms
out of ten is lower than the average net income per acre on basis C
for the family farms. The net income on basis C of each of the remain
ing three cooperative farms is lower than the net income per acre on
basis B of the family farms. It is meaningful to compare the net
income on basis B of the family farms by excluding the imputed value
of family labor from the costs, with the net income per acre of the
cooperative farm on basis C as the opportunity cost of family labor
used on the family farms is zero, there being few opportunities for
alternative employment. Two of the cooperative farms (Shahabpura and
Khai Phemeki) with higher net income on basis C than that of the family
farms had only one member working on the farm and were more like
private enterprise than cooperative farms. This shows that cooper
ative farming in the Punjab has not helped to raise the Incomes of the
farmers.
2. The cooperative farms had a smaller percentage of their
cropped area under fodder crops than the family farms. This was
possible as they had tractors and maintained fewer bullocks per hundred
acres of land held than the family farms. They had a higher percentage
of area under commercial crops. There was also greater diversity of
cropping. In these respects the cooperative farms had a better pattern of cropping than the family farms.
3. Six of the cooperative farms had higher yields per acre of 312
important crops than family farms. Four of them had lower yields.While
the cooperative farm had better resources for application of fertilizers
and use of better seeds, the crops received greater personal attention
on the family farms. Five cut of six cooperative farms with higher
per acre yields were farms of absentee or non-working landowners. Only
one of four cooperative farms of peasant proprietors had higher per
acre yields than family farms.
The intensity of cropping of seven cooperative farms was
lower than that of the family farms. Only in three of them was it
higher than that of the family farms. Two of the cooperative farms
with higher intensity of cropping (Kotla and Fazalpur) are more of the
nature of incorporated family farms than cooperative farms.
5. In nine cooperative farms out of ten the number of workers
per hundred acres was smaller than the corresponding number for the
family farms. This economy in labor was the result of the use of
machinery. Most of the family farms maintained one or more milch cattle
and raised their own working cattle. Hone of the cooperative farms
maintained any milch cattle or raised any working cattle. All of them were engaged in crop production. None of them had organized any
subsidiary industries. Evidently cooperative farming has not resulted
in increased employment.
6. In seven cooperative farms out of ten the net incane per worker on basis C is lower than the net income per worker on basis C
of the family farms. In the remaining three, the net income per worker
of the cooperative farm on basis C is lower than the net income on basis
B by excluding the imputed value of the family labor from costs. Out 313 of three cooperative farms with higher net income per worker on basis
C than that of the family farms, two (Shahabpura and Khai Phene lei) had
only one member each working on the farm.
7 . In all the cooperative farms the number of bullocks main tained per hundred acres of land was smaller than the number main tained by the family farms. Three of the cooperative farms did not maintain any bullocks. All of them had tractors.
8 . Seven cooperative farms had a higher investment in machinery per hundred acres of land than the average for the family farms. Out of the remaining three, Jallowal and Kingra Cooperative Parm had the secme investment in machinery as the constituent family farms. The investment in machinery per hundred acres of the Shahabpura farm is lower than the average for the family farms, as two of the family farms had a tractor and an irrigation pumping set each, while two others had irrigation pumping sets. The investment in machinery per hundred acres of the cooperative farm at Pan/a is higher than that of any of four of the family farms. But one of the family farms had a tractor and a tube-well for Uo acres of land only, and its investment in machinery makes the average investment in machinery per hundred acres of all the five family farms higher than that of the cooperative farm.
9. On the basis of the limited sample of the family farms in this study it is not possible to say whether economies of size are possible in farming in the Punjab. There seems to be no consistent relationship between the size of the family farms in this study and the net income per acre. 10. Cooperative farms with peasant proprietors as members had a
shorter life than those with non-working or absentee landowners. Out
of the cooperative farms of peasant proprietors, the Sewa Ilagar
Society at Parwa had the longest life of five years as the land was
allotted in the name of the Society and not the member families.
Other cooperative farms of peasant proprietors had a life of two to
three years. In the case of the displaced peasant proprietors, as
soon as the land was brought under the plough, the members started
cultivation of their lands separately. Out of the six cooperative farms of absentee or non-working landowners, the cooperative farm at
Khankot had a life of three years, while each of the remaining five had a life of six years or more.
11. Sociological factors are as important as economic factors in the problem of cooperative farming. A veryimportant consideration in cooperative farms of peasant proprietors for giving up joint farming operations was the change in the social status of the owner cultivators when they joined a cooperative farm. The members of the cooperative farm at Gagra realized that they had higher incomes as members of the cooperative farm. Knowing this, they started individual cultivation after three years of joint farming. Among the agricultural population in the Punjab village, the landowners have the highest social status in the village followed by the tenants. The landless workers are at the bottom of the social strata. On joining a cooperative farm the earner operator finds his social status as a landowner reduced to that of a wage earner. He has to take orders from the manager where previously he was his own master. The family farm is not merely a source of income 315
for the farmer, it is the whole life of the farm family. The family
gets its daily requirements of vegetables, corn, sugar cane, forage and
pasturing for the cattle and fuel for the household from the farm.
The irrigation well in the farm is the source of drinking water for
the cattle and is used for bathing and washing clothes. Only persons
who have lived in the Punjab villages can imagine what the family
farm means for the farm family. With these considerations the owner
operators like to be their own masters and independent decision-makers
on their small farms.
12. If family farms are members of well organized service
cooperatives for the supply of credit and farm requirements and for marketing of produce, they can get economies of size without the pool
ing of land. Service cooperatives are being organized in Third Five
Year Plan under the Intensive Agricultural District Programme. Studies
of these service cooperatives would show what economies of size the family farms can get the members of these cooperatives.
13. Studies of Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farming Societies and Land Reclamation Cooperative Farming Societies in Karnal district indicate that cooperative farms with their financial resources and equipment have an advantage over family farms for reclamation of land.
But they do not show any advantage for land reclamation over partner ship farms with adequate resources.
14. For cultivation of the reclaimed area which is newly settled the cooperative farms do not show any superiority over family farms.
As soon as the Karnal Cooperative Farmers' Society and the Lyallpur
Cooperative Farmers' Society had reclaimed some land it was given to 316 tenants on share rent. Study of Ex-servicemen Cooperative Tenant Farm
ing Societies in Karnal shows that the absence of proprietory rights in newly settled land is not an assurance of the success of Cooperative
Farming Societies on such land. Most of the members join such
Societies in the hope of getting proprietory or occupancy rights over lands allotted to them as members of the Society. Joint farm ing arrangements worked for hardly one year in the Ex-servicemen
Societies in Karnal.
15. Important motives for the organization of Cooperative Farm ing Societies in the Punjab were: (a) expectation of financial assistance in the form of loans and subsidies from the government; (b) reclamation of land which had been neglected for a number of years before it was allotted to the displaced farmers who had migrated from West Punjab without bringing any working animals or equipment with them; (c) evasion of land reform measures by absentee and non-working landowners who were afraid of government policy of giving land to the tiller of the soil; (d) purchase of tractors and installation of tube-wells; (e) desire to take advantage of the provision of the East Punjab Land Utilization
Act which gave preference to Cooperative Farming Societies for leasing of land. '
lb. The leadership in organization and management of the cooper ative farms . was provided by retired army officers or persons who were connected with the- cooperative movement and who had general education and some influence. These leading members tried to improve their social status in the village community as they had a bigger area under their 317
control as managing directors of the cooperative farm than their own
land. It was the ordinary members who did not like to lose their status
as landowners and work like wage earners on the cooperative farm.
17. Four cooperative farms of peasant proprietors had 59 member workers including dependents of the members who worked on the farm
and 14 hired workers. The remaining six cooperative farms of absentee
or non-working landowners with a total membership of 93 had 16 member workers and 58 hired workers. Out of these six farms, four had only
one member worker each who managed the farms. The member workers in
general did not work so hard as the hired workers. In most cases the member workers were paid equal wages for all types of work. The efficiency of the member workers seemed to settle down to the level of the slowest of them. A system of work norms was not tried by any of the farms as it was felt it would be difficult to keep a record of the amount and quality of work done by each member. The members felt that if renumeration varied according to nature of work and some members were paid more than others there would be dissentions among the members.
18. The area of the cooperative farms under cultivation for the year 1953-5^ varied from 82 acres to 5U2 acres. Hie membership varied from 12 to 3^. To make the minimum membership of ten required for registration as a Cooperative Society, the adult dependents of the landowning members were taken as members. Most of the landowning member families were related to one another.
19. One of the cooperative farms had three tractors, another had two tractors, the remaining eight had one tractor each. Three of the cooperative farms did not maintain any working animals. One of 318
the first acts of a cooperative farm after its registration is to
purchase a tractor. Very few working animals are maintained hy the
cooperative farm as animals need personal care which is not avail able on a cooperative farm. If cooperative farming is adopted as a general pattern, millions of tractors will he needed. Resources used for importing or manufacturing tractors and for fuel can he better used for the development of industry. At our present stage of economic development when we have surplus labor and working animals, we should adopt labor intensive capital saving methods of farming. The Punjab farmer generally raises his own working animals and does not purchase them. The time for labor saving techniques will come when there are signs of shortage of labor in agriculture as a result of the develop ment of industry.
20. According to the terms of agreement, the members of the
Cooperative Farming'Societies had leased their land to the cooperative farm for a period of five to twenty years. A study of the membership relations shows that in actual practice it was not possible to enforce this provision and the land of the dissenting members had to be released when they left the Society. The cooperative farms at Kapure and Gill
Chowgawan tried to retain the land of the dissenting member without any success. The best time to evaluate the performance of a cooperative farm is after it has been in operation for three to four years.
21. According to the by-laws the administration of a cooperative farm is the responsibility of the General Body consisting of all the members and the managing committee elected by the General Body. In actual practice the managing director in consultation with some of the 319 members of the managing committee made all important decisions. With
the exception of the manager of the cooperative farm at Khankot, who was a graduate of a college of agriculture, none of the managers had received any formal training in farm management. It was found difficult to assign tasks among the member workers equitably and to see to it that these were carried out properly. The members of cooperative farms of peasant proprietors felt that a full-time non member paid manager might be able to run the farm better than an elected manager. For the year 1952-53 the cooperative farm at Gagra had a full time paid manager while the cooperative farm at Jallowal and Kingra had a full time paid accountant. Both of these officials had experience of working with cooperatives and worked efficiently for the period they served the cooperative farms.
22. Human labor, bullock labor and rent of land are the most important components of the inputs of the family farms. In?;the case of the cooperative farm, machinery takes the place of bullock and human labor in the inputs.
23. The operators of some of the family farms had taken the whole or part of the land on share rent at nisaf batai. They were paying half of the gross produce to the landowner as rent. These landowners were getting more than they would get as members of the cooperative farm. In many cases the value of the produce the landlord received as his share under this arrangement was more than the cash rent at the prevailing rates.
2k. The factors working towards the success of cooperative farms have been the presence of a strong leadership among the group, 320 adequate finances, inability of the members to farm their lands sepa rately, and the common objective of the non-working and absentee land owners to safeguard their ownership rights from the impact of land reform measures. Factors responsible for the failure of cooperative farming are the desire of the owner operator to maintain his social status in the village as a landowner, inefficient management, unwillingness of the member workers to work under the orders of the management, defective system of wage payment to the member workers, lack of incentives for the member workers, inadequate finances and lack of the cooperative spirit. The factors working towards failure have been stronger than those working towards success.
Recommendations
There is no short-cut to agricultural development 6fh India.
There is no panacea for all the ills of Indian agriculture. Ultimately it is the problem of over-all economic development of the country and the education of the farmer. The following recommendations are made on the basis of the findings and conclusions presented in this study and the opinions of the writer. A programme of service cooperatives, an effective extension service helping the farmer introduce improved techniques on the family farms and education of adult and young farmers resulting in improvement of management skills can go a'.long way in promoting agricultural development of the Punjab.
Service Cooperatives
This study has shown the importance of individual incentives in farming. Host of the difficulties of cooperative farms of owner operators arise from the pooling of land, lack of personal interest and incentives for working, unwillingness of the members to work under the orders of
the elected manager and change in the social status of the members when
they join the cooperative farm. It is very difficult to convince the farmer that his ownership rights are safe when his land is pooled in a cooperative farm and he has no lien on his particular plot. These difficulties can be avoided, while most of the possible advantages of size which can be expected from a cooperative farm can be secured for the family farm through a programme of service cooperatives.
The village cooperative has a very important place along with the Panchayat in the community development programme during the Third
Five Year Plan. Multipurpose service cooperatives should be organized throughout the Punjab. One cooperative could serve a population of two to three thousand. Agricultural credit should be linked with marketing of the produce through the agency of the village cooperatives.
The maximum credit limit of each member should be fixed on the basis of his farm plan which will indicate his capacity to repay the loan out of the produce of his farm. To prevent xais-use of loans these should be given in kind rather than cash. The members should be given advances of seed, fertilizers, agricultural implements and other farm requirements. Every member family will have a pass-book where the price of the articles advanced would be entered. It would be binding on the members to sell all their surplus produce through the village cooperative. The advances given to the members will be adjusted against the price of their surplus produce marketed by the cooperative.
The village cooperative can also serve as a consumers' store. At present the cultivators purchase their household requirements from the village ^ 322
shopkeeper in exchange for food-grains and cotton. This barter system always works to the disadvantage of the cultivator as his produce is valued very arbitrarily by the shopkeeper, often without weighing it.
But the system under which the provision of farm and household require ments is linked with the marketing of the surplus produce of the member cultivators is likely to be popular with the cultivators as they are already used to direct exchange without the use of cash.
The village cooperative can organize some small-scale industries for the processing of agricultural produce and thus provide employment for the surplus village labor. It can maintain a tractor for tilling the land of the members on payment. It can provide for tube-well irrigation. It can arrange for the loan of bullock power to the cultivators whose holdings are smaller than plough-units. Under this arrangement it would not be necessary for such cultivators to maintain bullocks. The members who have surplus bullock power or human labor which they are willing to hire out will keep the cooperative informed.
The village cooperative may not take up all these functions to start with. The number of functions taken up will depend upon the local circumstances. The village cooperative must have a whole time trained manager to attend to the day-to-day working of the Society. For this purpose a large-scale training programme is necessary to match the requirements of the scheme for trained personnel.
The area of operation of a service cooperative according to the
Third Five Year Plan should be determined on the basis of its capacity to fulfil the essential conditions of "bringing into the cooperative all rural families, effective implementation of the village production 323
plan, linking credit vith production and with marketing, supervision of
the use of credit, undertaking the functions of distribution and supply
and attracting local savings to the maximum possible extent as share
capital and as deposits."1 She programme of service cooperatives
which has been introduced in the Ludhiana district under the Intensive
Agricultural District Programme should be extended all over the Punjab.
When the village cooperative furnishes credit and farm and household
supplies, arranges for the marketing of produce, ploughs the land of
the members with holdings below the plough-unit, most of the commercial
and financial economies and some technological economies of large-
scale farming will be available. With its love of secure possession
of land satisfied, the farm family will work hard on its farm and will
be in a position to pay for all the services of the cooperative out of
the price of the surplus produce marketed by the cooperative.
Education
Education of the farmer is more important than anything else for
a lasting improvement of our agriculture. The programme of social
education needs special emphasis in the rural areas. The village
school teachers should be given special allowances for conducting
evening classes for adults. They should keep in touch with the farmers
after they have attended the classes for some years to see that they do
not revert to the ranks of the illiterate. There is a prevailing belief
in the Punjab villages that no formal training is needed in farming and the trade is passed on from father to son. In fact, it is believed by
■'‘Third Five Year Plan, op. cit., p. 209- 32U some, not without reason, that a farmer's son who goes to school will not he a farmer after he gets schooling. This, way of thinking stands in the way of development of agriculture, as technology is now being increasingly used in farming. It is for the extension worker to try to bring about a change of attitudes. Provision for teaching of vocational agriculture should be made in all schools in rural areas.
Young and adult farmers* programmes should be introduced along with programmes ; for the school boys. Training farms should be attached to these schools. Individual farming programmes should also be developed on the home farm of the students.
Agricultural Extension
The need for an effective agricultural extension service for the improvement of agriculture cannot be over emphasized. According to the Ford Foundation Team, it is important that agricultural extension workers at all levels develop more of the skills for conducting an effective educational programme.
To achieve this they must have a better -understanding of human relations generally and of: (a) the social psychological make-up of the cultivator, (b) the mental processes of the cultivator in learning and acting, and (c) the cultivator in his social setting in the village.
A beginning in the right direction has already been made in the
Ludhiana district under- the Intensive Agricultural District Programme where extension workers are helping the individual farm families in preparing the farm plans. All the resources of the farm family and
2 Report on India's Food Crisis and Steps to Meet It, prepared by the Agricultural Production Team, sponsored by the Ford Foundation; Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation, Government of India (April, 1959) P- 325 the availability of credit and farm supplies are taken into account in designing these plans •which use the farm management approach. The extension worker also makes arrangement for timely supply of farm requirements through the service cooperative. They help the families in the implementation of the plans. It is necessary to find resources to extend this system to the rest of the Punjab.
Farming Units
Research is needed to establish what area of land of various types would be a plough-unit providing sufficient work for a pair of bullocks in different regions. Farmers with holdir^gs below a plough- unit should be advised by the extension worker to get some land on rent to increase the size of his farm. If this is not possible he may join hands with another farmer with a holding below the plough-unit.
Each of them may maintain One bullock. They can work independently on their farms and use each other's bullock to make a team. If the village cooperative has a tractor, the farmer need not maintain bullocks but get his land ploughed with the tractor of the cooperative on pay ment. It may be possible to get a tractor or bullocks on custom hire.
Some arrangement should be made which will save the farmer the burden of maintaining a pair of bullocks for which there is not enough work on the farm. The farmer can use the forage previously consumed by the bullocks for feeding milch cattle, or he can use the land for growing food or commercial crops.
Farm Family and the Farm
A remarkable achievement in the Punjab is the progress in consolidation of holdings. The farmer can get the full benefit of consolidation if his family lives on the farm and some steps like 326
declaring a floor on cultivated holding are taken to prevent future
fragmentation. The extension worker should encourage the fanner to move
the family to the farm. The government should give loans to the
farmers who want to "build farm houses to live on the farm. Living on
the farm will save the time of human and "bullock labor in daily move
ment from the village to the farm, permit the use of the urine of the
cattle on the farm, increase the supply of farm yard manure, result in
better sanitation in the village and permit better care of crops and
animals. It will result in a better pattern of cropping as the farmer will be able to grow vegetables and fruit which need greater personal attention. Greater diversity of farming will be possible as the farmer will be able to raise poultry and give better attention to milk cattle. The village cooperative can arrange for the marketing of milk, eggs and vegetables. The farmer will have a more balanced diet with diversification of agriculture. With adequate irrigation facilities and the climate and soil we have in the Punjab it should be possible to raise two crops a year on all land raising the intensity of cropping to 200. If the farmer is educated and remains usefully employed on the farm, there will be fewer factional splits in the village society.
Research
We need basic research studies at the fawn level with the problem solving approach, the results of which will enable the extension worker to help the farmer in decision-making in problems like choice of enter prises, crop planning, how many milch cattle' to maintain, how many members of the family should look for outside employment, what will be 327
the result of the application of specific doses of fertilizers and
irrigation water.
It is necessary to collect data on the size and distribution of
agricultural holdings in the Punjab. The Census of Land Holdings in
195^-55 was restricted to holdings of ten acres or above in the
Punjab, Research studies in the problems of farm size should be
undertaken.
During the Third Five Year Plan it is proposed to set up 3200
Cooperative Farming Societies as pilot projects in 320 districts.
Each of these Societies will receive financial assistance- of Rs 12,200.
For each Cooperative Farming Society the writer recommends that a
service cooperative with different farmers as members should be
organized. Both types of Societies should be given equal facilities
by the government by way of help in management and finance of the
Societies, and extension work with the members. Bench-mark surveys of
the farms of the prospective members of both type of Societies and some
other farms in the village should be undertaken before the Societies
start functioning. Data about inputs and outputs of the family farms who are members of the service cooperative and the inputs and outputs
of the cooperative farm should be collected for a period of five years by the cost accounting method. A comparative study of the progress of two types of Societies and the condition of their members for five years should be made. It may be of advantage to have these research projects in the districts with the Intensive Agricultural District
Programme. APPENDIX I
Glossary anna one-sixteenth of a rupee baildar gardener or agricultural laborer baisakhi festival on the 13th of April 4 bajra bulrush or spiked millet banjar kadim waste land since long barani unirrigated batai share rent chahi well-irrigated land chakota dividend for the ownership of land chapatties baked pieces prepared from wheat and maize flour round in shape generally used in the Punjab in place of bread chari great millet, andropogan sorghum cho monsoon streamlet caused by soil erosion chowkidar watchman crore ten million desi indigenous diwali festival of lights in October or November girdawar a revenue official who surveys land gur jaggery havildar non-commissioned officer in the army hazri meal unit jats agricultural class 320 329 kacha made of mud kalar salt land kharif summer crops khras a stone mill for grinding wheat and maize drawn by a pair of bullocks lakh one hundred thousand lohri winter festival on the 12th of January mandi market mash black gram, phaseolus radiatus maund about 82 lbs. mistri mechanic. moodha sugar cane crop that sprouts after the previous year's crop has been cut. naib- tehsildar assistant tehsildar nisaf hatai share rent with half of the gross produce as the landlord's share pacca made of bricks panchayat village council
Pepsu Patiala and East Punjab States Union, which was merged with the Punjab State on November 1, 1956 rabi winter crops
Re . Rupee about 22 cents
Rs . Rupees seer about 2 lbs. sainji Indian clover serai inn for travellers 330
standard acre for this concept besides area the quality of land as determined by factors like soil, irrigation and productivity is taken into consideration e.g. one standard acre is equal to one acre of 16 annas land or two acres of eight annas land, which is half as productive as the former taccavi loan granted by government to farmer for agricultural purposes tehsil sub-division of a district tehsilder executive officer in charge of a tehsil toria Indian rape seed BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Heady, Earl 0., Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use. Eagle-wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952.
Singh, Charan, Joint Farming X-Rayed - The Problem and Its Solution. Bombay: Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, 1959*
Reports
Darling, Malcolm. Report on Certain Aspects of Cooperative Movement in India, Planning Commission, Government of India. New Delhi: 1957.
First Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India. New Delhi: 195*5.
Report of the CoEagress Agrarian Reforms Committee, All India Congress Committee . New Delhi: 19^9* ""
Report of the Cooperative Planning Committee, Government of India, 19K.
Report of the German Agricultural Delegation to India on Cooperative Farming, Farm Machinery, Fertilizer, Land Consolidation and Dairy Processing, Ministry of Food and Cooperation, i960.
Report of the Indian Delegation to China on Agrarian Cooperatives, Planning Commission, Government of India. Hew Delhi: 1957*
Report of the Indian Delegation on Cooperative Farming in Palestine, Department of Agriculture, Government of India, 19^6 .
Report on India's Food Crisis and Steps to Meet It. Prepared by the Agricultural Production Team Sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation (April, 1959).
Report of the Working Group on Cooperative Farming, Department of Cooperation, Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation, Government of India. New Delhi: 1959*
331 332
Second Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India. New Delhi: 1955.
Studies in Economics of Farm Management in Punjab, Report for the Year 1954-55* Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punjab. Chandigarh: 1957*
Third Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India. New Delhi: 1961.
Other Published Material
Agarwal, G. D., Experiments in Cooperative Farming, Darauna and Nainwara Farms in Uttar Pradesh'(Allahabad: Superintendent Printing and Stationary, U.P., India, 1954.)
The Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab. Farm Accounts in the Punjab 1953-54, Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punj ab. Chandigarh: 195 7•
The Board of Economic Enquiry, Punjab. A Study Cooperative Farming Societies in the Punjab, Economic and Statistical Organization, Government, Punjab. Chandigarh: 1958*
Cooperative Farming in Gujrat, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. Bombay: 1959*
Cooperative Farming, Reserve Bank of India (Bombay: December, 1949).
Digby, Margaret. Cooperatives and Land Use, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome: 1957*
Donde, W. B., Cooperative Farming in Maharashtra (Bombay: Provincial C ooperative Inst itute, 1948j^
The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. Seminar on Cooperative Farming. Bombay: 1959*
Krishna, Raj, Jain, B.C., and Krishan, Gopi. Cooperative Farming - Some Critical Reflections. New Delhi: Indian Cooperative Union, 195^”
Menon, M. S., Cooperative Farming, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (New Delhi: October, 1949).
Ranga, N.G., and Parachuri, P.R., The Peasant and Cooperative Farming - A Socio Economic Study. Nidulerolu: The Indian institute, 1950 • 333
Rural Progress Through Cooperatives, United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs (New York: 195*0 •
Schiller, Otto. Cooperative Farming and Individual Farming on Cooperative Lines. New Delhi: All India Cooperative Union, 1957-
Singh, Baljit. Next Step in Village India. New York: Asia Publishing House, I96H
Studies in Cooperative Farming, Programme Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission, Government of India (December, 1956).
Talpade, R. M., Cooperative Farming With Special Reference to Bombay State (Bombay: Provincial Cooperative Institute, 195”l)"*
Periodicals
Dantwala, M.L., "Problem of Cooperative Farming in India," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XVI, No. b (October - De cember, 1961).
Driver, P.N., "Some Implications of Cooperative Farming in India," The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. XXXIV, No. 132 (July, 1953).
Ferris, J. Edwin. "Economies of Scale in Crop Production," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XVIII, No. 5 (December, 1961).
The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Conference Number, Vol. XIII," No. 1 (January - March, 1950).
Singh, Baljit. "The Ordinary Villager Has Hardly Benefi-tPd:d by Increased Rural Income," Kurukshetra, Vol. IX, No. 5 (New Delhi: January 26, 1961).
Unpublished Material
Schickele, Rainer. "Land Economics Research for World Agricultural Development." Rome, 1961. (Mimeographed) AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, Harbans Singh Mann, was born in Batala, district Gurdaspur,
Punjab, India, March 19, 1917* I received my high school education at
A Lady of England High School Batala (1922-32) and my undergraduate training at the Khalsa College Amritsar (1932-36) where I received the
Bachelor of Arts degree of the Punjab University in 1936. I attended the Government College, Lahore, in 1936-38 and received the degree of
Master of Arts in English Literature of the Punjab University in 1938.
I attended the Forman Christian College Lahore in 19^0-kl and received the degree of Master of Arts in Economics of the Punjab University in
19U1 .
In I9IJP-U3, I was employed as Lecturer in Economics at the
Government College Campbellpore and in 19^3"^6 I served in the Indian
Army Ordnance Corps as Civilian Gazetted Officer. I joined the
Government College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, in 19^6 and served as the
Head of the Department of Economics in I9U8-59. I offered courses in
Agricultural Economics and Income, Output and Employment to M.A.
classes in Economics in 1955-59•
Since January i960, I have been engaged in graduate study at the
Ohio State University with a fellowship of the Council on Economic and
Cultural Affairs Inc., New York. From June 1961 to March 1962, I worked
for the degree of Master of Education in Agricultural Extension
33^ concurrently -with my work toward the Doctor of Philosophy degree in
Agricultural Economics.
I plan to return to my position at the Government College, Ludhiana,
India, in July I962. 305
M i 15,2
sm swuwt * ,IW W tel
Loatla rf M il of tliih n JUsHtntlm i« mmtnBiAK
■ * QiMiiitrlet M i l Dioasbir 1950 220 13 38 4 3 1 2 5 42,5 12c 3.5 3.315 7.2 44,7 104,3 + < + . 1 . x .. . j. , J iUowlul^ llrtfUrt A U abr July 1551 W 23 3 7 2 1 2 4 $ , j ) 245 9 10 H 1 1 .(15.?) - ...... (w ) . ( * ) i. I-MflFIISffil o i U t a p u Uitriit to w p m M u r 1552 125 17 12 2 J 1 1 8 -(72,3) 116,5 14.5 2 23 -(15,2) 27,2 53.3 . ■ f + • >+ ■ )
C, COOPSIAJX ?AB£ T KK-DISIU® AB3WIE *
K q m litrlet 1mm Janairy 1953 14412 6 5 C 1 2 I -(57,0) MO, 17 1 25 . (71,0) 31,0 ft* . ■■ ■+ • + ■ • "f c Kotli ilitrlet M t a p r S f l M s . W 253 12 4 8 5 2 4 367 , .3 () 78 8 1 14 . (60,3) 4,8 72.2 . -f f ■ • f ' 1. cooi®Arivz ^disfui ® ABearas * ^-yG pnn
! Cootlnwi