Co-operative Farming

Transcription

1 THE Nagpur Resolution on co operative farming is being debated in a manner which is likely to inhibit a dispassionate consideration of several issues, both conceptual and operational, involved in it. An emotionally surcharged atmosphere will probably be required for the Implementation of a programme of agrarian reconstruction as radical as the one adumbrated in the Nagpur Resolu tlon. But that does not mean that persons on whom less the responsi bility for the implementation of the programme can afford to remain blissfully unconcerned about the knotty issues with which the problem bristles. People's Participation Incidentally, this raises the very first issue as to who exactly will be entrusted with the implementation of the programme. To say that such a programme cannot be implemented without "the active participation of the people" is not very enlightening and may even be a symptom of intellectual emptiness. It is obvious that a programme like this cannot be implemented exclusively by the departmental agencies of the Government. The experience of non-communist countries with a record of successful implementation of land reforms e g. Japan also indicates the crucial importance of regional and local organisations such as village committees. If, as is postulated in the Resolution, the Panchayats In India are to play this crucial role, the colossal task of equipping them with the requisite technical and organizational know-how would need to be tackled. Such radical measures have also been successfully' implemented in the communist countries. (All that is implied In calling them 'successful' is that the organizational change was effected.) In these countries, the main reliance was on Communist Party cadres. It is for our consideration whether we, in India, would like to use the instrument of party cadres for this purpose, taking into consideration all its Co-operative Farming Will It Augment Marketable Surplus? M L Dantwala political implications. As it is, even the party in power cannot claim to have in readiness such a well-trained cadre of political workers with the necessary ideo logical conviction and organizational discipline. 'Firm and Plant Approach' The second point to which I would like to refer is that of definition and concept of co-opera tive farming. The Nagpur Resolution definitely postulates "pooling of land for joint cultivation". Presumably, what is implied by 'pooling and joint cultivation' is the merging of all land to constitute one single farm. At a Seminar on Co-operative Farming, organised by the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, this question was very thoughtfully discussed. Professor D R Gadgll, with his usual incisive logic, contended that pooling of land and joint cultivation is a matter of secondary decision. He recommended what may be called, a 'Firm and Plant Approach'. This would imply that all important decisions would be taken by the firm, i e, the general body of the co-operative. This body would have the freedom and the authority to determine, among other things, the farm-size pattern. It may decide to pool all the land or may prefer to arrange it in separate blocks as Indicated by conditions. agronomic Whether the cultivation is joint or not, the important point is that co-operative farming would imply transfer of decision making authority (right) in regard to all important matters from the individual to the collective body of all cultivators. The degree of autonomy which is permitted by the co-operative (firm) to its constituent units (farms/ plants) is a question of pragmatic decision and need not be deter mined in advance on a priori ideological grounds. Pooling of land and joint cultivation need not, so to say, be written in the constitution of the co-operative. One significant advantage of such a modification would be to make the conflicting views about the economies of scale 319 February 28, 1959 Irrelevant in deciding on the merits Of co-operative farming. The cooperative would be free to adopt intensive farming, if such a pattern appeared to be advantageous. Small or Large Farms? The merit of an agrarian pattern can be judged only in terms of the objective it seeks to serve. Broadly, these objectives are stated to be economic efficiency and social justice. Which of these two, or how much of each, the co operative joint farming will serve, needs to be examined. The economic efficien cy of agriculture can be judged by productivity and marketable surplus. Since the Resolution suggests that land will be pooled for joint cultivation, it would appear that the expectation is that co-operative farming will help in securing the economies of scale. During the debate on the Resolution, several speakers had mentioned that Indian agriculture suffered from the exis tence of too many tiny and scat tered holdings and that one could not expect improvement in production under such circumstances. A point which needs emphasis here is the distinction between the peracre production and productivity in the input-output sense. In so far as production per acre is concerned, it is not at all proved that small farms are inferior. The data available from the farm management surveys, which were recently conducted under the RPC, indicate that for food crops, at any rate, the per acre yield on the small farm is larger than that on the bigger farms. This is the position under the present set up. It is well-known that small farmers suffer from many handicaps in the matter of supply of credit as well as supply of seeds, manure, etc. Some of these could be overcome through service co-operatives, without necessarily any change in the size of the unit. In comparing the relative merits of the small and the largesized farms, or individual and cooperative farming, It is but fair to assume the existence of the same favourable (or unfavourable) situa-

2 February 28, 1959 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY tion in regard to ancillary services. On the whole, it would therefore appear that in the matter of yield per acre, at any rate, the larger farms do not have any definite advantage. Here is one more reason why, as suggested earlier, it is not necessary to decide in advance that co-operative farming would necessarily imply pooling of land for purposes of Joint cultivation. A decision in this matter may be left to the panchayat or the co-operative which will decide in the light of the conditions in their own village. Man - Land Ratio As for productivity which would determine the return (income) to labour, this would depend mainly on the man-land ratio as it would emerge after pooling of all the resources. If, along with the pooling of land, all the existing cultivators and a few more of landless labourers are accommodated on the co-operative farm, there will be no improvement - and there may be even some deterioration - 'in the new man-land ratio, and this will have a depressing effect on the return which workers on the co-operative farm will receive. In this connection, it is argued that doing away with individual ownership and pooling of all resources would open up possibilities of undertaking developmental activity such as soil conservation, levelling, bunding, layout of field channels etc which has to contend against numerous obstacles under the existing situation, and thereby enlarge the scope for productive employment within the agricultural sector itself. Further, co-operative farming will facilitate the release of surplus labour of individual farmers who, under the existing conditions, are tied down to their small units; and though unemployed over considerable periods, are often not available for alternate employment. Thus, co-operative farming opens up, on the one hand, opportunities for developmental work in agriculture, and, on the other, also makes the disguised surplus labour available for alternate employment. It should however be clearly recognised that, even with the addition of developmental activities, if a large number of landless labourers are accommodated on the co-operative farm, the average Income of the members may be less, though more equal, than that of the individual farmers at present. If, on the other hand, the co-operative farm would insist, as it may, on taking up only an optimum quantum of labour force, it will be merely converting the disguised unemployment into open unemployment and transferring the responsibility of its gainful absorption on some one else. Mobilising the Surplus Another important objective which the planners would like to achieve through co-operative farming is mobilization of surplus both for the purposes of reinvestment (capital formation) and for maintaining an adequate supply for urban consumption. The importance of reasonably stable prices of foodgrains to the developmental efforts of the country is universally recognised, and success in this field will depend as much on the availability of marketable surplus as on production. It would therefore be pertinent to enquire whether co-operative farming as a form of production would be a more suitable instrument for mobilization of the surplus. Other things being equal, it is obvious that purely from the point of view of administrative arrangement, it will be easier to collect the surplus from the fewer, organised units of production such as a co-operative farm than it would be if it were to be collected from a large number of small and scattered farms. In fact, one of the main attractions of the co-operative (collective) farming structure in the communist countries was this facility for mobilization of the surplus which this type of organisation offers. The Machine Tractor Stations which were, so to say, the communist version of service co-operatives, performed this function. But it should be emphasised that this advantage could accrue mainly because (a) payments for services rendered by the MTS were prior charge on the produce, and (b) of the system of compulsory deliveries of produce of relatively low prices. In the absence of these two coercive devices, it is doubtful whether the co-operative farms in India would facilitate mobilization of surplus. Higher Retention Probable It is even probable that the outcome may be curtailment of the 330 surplus. The concern with social justice and the objective of improving the living standard of the cultivators, associated with the proposal, would imply higher rural consumption than at present and correspondingly smaller marketable surplus. This would be particularly so, if, by accommodating the landless labourers and other under-employed persons in the village on the cooperative farm, the state implicitly underwrites adequate subsistence to the entire farming population, irrespective of whether ' or not enough productive employment is available on the farm. At present, even a subsistence farm, to the extent of its +requirement for cash, has to release a portion of its produce for the market. The participants on the co-operative farm, however, would be fully justified in their claim to retain as much of the produce of the farm as would be needed for maintaining an improved standard of living. And unlike the communist state, the Government here will not, and must not, dare to collect any thing from the cooperative farms, for such an attempt would be made to appear as exploitative and responsible for maintaining a low level of living of the agriculturist, or preventing its continuing Improvement. Under the present system, taxes apart from rent and interest - are the first charge on the farmer's produce. Under state-sponsored cooperative farming, a decent level of living for the farmer would be the first charge. While such a change would be desirable, it would not augment the marketable surplus. Programmes for Special Area' FOR areas deserving special treatment and emphasis individual programmes of development are needed. No uniform pattern can he equally effective in the whole country. There are problems peculiar to different areas, e g, desert and dry areas, coastal areas, hilly areas, tribal areas, and areas around cities and big towns. To help formulation of such individual programmes the Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation has sent detailed suggestions to the State Governments. Different contents of the programme under various developmental heads suited to the various areas have been suggested.

3 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY February 28,

4

5

6

7

8 326