American Geographical Society

The Growth of Indian Agriculture: A Regional Analysis Author(s): V. Nath Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 348-372 Published by: American Geographical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/213481 . Accessed: 04/05/2014 02:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE: A REGIONAL ANALYSIS
V. NATH

providing about 50 percentof the grossnationalproductandnearly70 percent of the employment, an adequateagriculturalgrowth rate is essentialfor sustainedeconomic progress. The growth rate of agricultural influenceon the overallgrowth rateof the economy outputhasa considerable and on the productivityof a large part of the work force. Moreover, a rapid increasein agricultural output is essentialto meet the increasingdemandfor food and other agricultural products,which resultsfrom the rapidpopulation estimatedat 2.5 percentper year) and from the rise in per growth (currently capita consumption. This is particularlyimportant, since India had a foodsupply deficit, even at extremelylow levels of per capitaconsumption,at the beginning of the economic-developmentprocess. The importanceof adequateagricultural growth to the successof India's if effortsat planned economic development was demonstrateddramatically, painfully, during the years 1965-1967, when the country experiencedwidespread drought and a steep drop in agriculturaloutput. Foodgrain production, for instance, declined from 89 million metric tons in 1964-1965 to 72 million tons in 1965-1966 and rose only slightly, to 78 million tons, in

1966-1967. The fall in productionled to scarcityand local famines,and large imports of 9 to 10 million tons of foodgrainsannuallywere necessary.But agricultural production in 1967-1968 and 1968-1969 has been high again,

with foodgrain production in both years estimated at around 95 million tons, mainly as a result of more favorable monsoons. But the drought experience has led to a reappraisalof development objectives and to the initiationin 1966 of an agricultural development program that concentrates seed varieties, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and on new high-yielding efficient water management in selected areas to increase output rapidly.' India'sthree Five Year Plans included large outlays for increasingagriamountedto 36,330million rupees,or 23.9 culturalproduction:expenditures
' R. Saran and H. L. Chawla: Food Production Policies and Programmes since Independence: A Historical Review, Indian Journ. of Public Administration, Vol. 13, 1967, pp. 461-483; reference on PP. 474-479. > DR. NATH, formerly on the staff of the National Planning Commission, New Delhi, is at presentwith the Kuwait Instituteof Economic and Social Planning in the Middle East.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

349

percent of the total spent. But it is noteworthy that, whereas in the First Plan, which had been drawn up against the backgroundof an acute food shortage, agriculturalexpenditure formed 36.9 percent of the total, the proportiondeclinedto 22.3 percentin the Second Plan and to 21.8 percentin the ThirdPlan.2The reducedemphasison agriculture followed improvement in the food-supply position during the FirstPlan. The reappraisal developof ment objectivesand priorities,which took place afterthe droughtyears,will probably result in agriculturereceiving a greater proportion of the total investment in the Fourth Plan (which begins this year) than it received in the earlierplans. The present study describesthe principalfeaturesof agricultural growth in the period 1952-1953 to 1964-1965, which covers thirteen of the fifteen in years of the first three Five Year Plans.3It brings out regional differences ratesand examinestheirrelationship with the availability moisture, of growth with such variablesas population growth, with levels of productivity per hectare and per worker, and with some indicatorsof modern technology. In this paper the entire analysis is by states because data on agricultural But growth ratesand other economic variablesare availableonly by states.4 the state is a ratherlarge unit for analysesof this type: severalof the states include within their borders areas with very differentphysical conditions, cropping patterns,and levels of economic development. It is recognizedthat contrastswithin statescan be as greatas the interstatedifferences. The district is thereforea more suitableunit for suchanalysis,and it is hoped that data on agriculturalgrowth rates and the relevant physical and economic variables will become availableby districtsbefore long. Then a more precisedelineation of patternsof agricultural growth and theircorrelationwith the relevant variableswill be possible.5
Ibid.,p. 480. A recent publicationby the Economic and StatisticalAdviser to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, gives linear and compound growth rates for two periods, 1949-1950 to 1964-1965 and 1952-1953to 1964-1965,and alsoindicatesthe relativecontributionsof expandedcropland and of increasedproductivity to the growth of output. However, data by statesare given only for the period 1952-1953 to 1964-1965 because "index numbers for the statesare availableon a uniform basis only from 1952-1953" ("Growth Ratesin Agriculture,"Ministry of Food and Agriculture,New Delhi, 1966 [mimeographed],p. 3). 4 The smallHimalayanstateofHimachal Pradeshhasbeen omitted from this paperbecausedatafor most of the economic variablesare not available.Its exclusion reduces the coverage, in terms of gross cropped area, from 99.1 to 98.8 percent. 5 Data on area,production,and yields of individual crops by districtsare found in Indian Agricultural Statistics 1962-63, Vol. 1, Directorateof Economics and Statistics,New Delhi, 1965. However, data on total agricultural output and growth ratesare not available,and growth rateswould have to be calculated specially becausethe boundariesof many districtshave changed during the 1950's and 196o's.
3 2

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE I-GROWTH

RATES IN AGRICULTURE AND RELATED DATA FOR INDIA AND MAHARASHTRA RAJASTHAN

INDIA

PUNJAB

GUJARAT MADRAS

MYSORE

BIHAR

ANDHR PRADES

Linear Growth Rates 1952/531964/65 (% per year)

All crops

1 Output 2 Area 3 Productivity

3.42 1.28 1.91 2.75 1.02 1.60
4.79
2.56 1.79

5.56 2.06 2.86 4.30 1.63 2.26
9.46
4.90 3.o8

5.12 0.46 4.52 2.09 -2.19 5.34 8.03 5.93 1.64 26.88 28.56

4.91 1.13 3.46 4.89 0.75 3.92 4.96 2.45 2.05 11.85 41-34 3 33 3.31 0.55

4.06 0.83 3.03 3.71 o.91 2.64 4.91 0.59 4.03 21.57 42.11

3.21 0.71 2.39 3.28 0.64 2.55 2.61 1.84 0.78 19.78 19.89

3.19 0.44 2.62 2.29 0.33 1.94 5.15 0.83 3.65 23.60 28.56

3.08 3.23 -0.08 2.68 3.03 -0.23 4.89 5.13 -0.09 26.20 29.04

3.06 0.27 2.72

Foodgrains
4 Output 5 Area 6 Productivity

3.65 0.84 2.63

crops Nonfoodgrain
7 8 9 10 Output Area Productivity Growth rate of population,

1.83 -1.59 3.93

11 Growth rate of male agricultural workers, 1951-1961 (%) Relative Growth Rates (% per year) 12 Of agricultural production relative to population 13 Of foodgrain production relative to population 14 Of agricultural production relative to number of male agricultural workers Linear Growth Rates 1952/531964/65 (% per year) Foodgrain crops

1951-1961(%)

21.50 26.38

25.84 12.00

15.65

31.90

1.05 0.49 0.62

2.36 1.36 3.89

1.92 -0.47 1.76

1.57 1.28 0.99

1.03 1.09 1.02

0.67 -o.o6 0.25

0.36 0.05 0.14

1.29

1.8 -o.10

Rice

15 Output 16 Area 17 Productivity (Percent)

Wheat

3.64 1.57 i.8o (1oo.o) 3.80 2.57
1.oo

12.31 9.21 1.8o (1.5) 6.79 3.92
2.09

5.98 1.13 4.61 3.59 0.15 3.22 (3.3)

6.04 3.19 2.19 (11.o)

5.96 1.97 3.33 (4.1) 4.88 0.98 3.46 (0.9)

3.63 0.23 3.36 (12.8) 2.35 0.98 1.18 (4.1)

3.38 1.75 1.41 (3.8) 4.17 2.10 1.85 (3-7)

5.56 6.48 -0.50 2.24 3.36 -o.85 (9.3)

5.15 3.19 1.56 (11.5)

18 Output 19 Area 20 Productivity (Percent)

(100.0)

(27.2)

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jowar 21 Output 22 Area 23 Productivity

1.99 0.40
1.57

0.66 0.42
0.15

1.28 -1.59
3.21

4.61 . 10
4.46

2.71 1.78
0.91

(Percent) Bajra 24 Output
25 Area 26 Productivity

(loo.o) 1.34
-0.20

(o.5) -2.32
-2.59

(4.5) -0.37
-4.04

(6.2) 3.60
-2.24

(14.6)

2.95 0.87 1.91 (34.4) 1.48 -1.12 3.10 (12.3)
-0.29

-0.59 0.59 -1.10 (3.8) 4-13 3.73 0.51 (25.2)
5.19

1.62 o.18 1.26 (13-9)

(Percent) Gram 27 Output
28 Area 29 Productivity

1.62 (100.0) 0.85
1.16

0.55 (8.0) 1.35
2.01

5.96 (16.1)

7.63 (7.7) -0.80 0.57 (4.8)

0.74 -o.89 1.8 (8.0)

6.12
-0.50 (12.9)

(Percent) Nonfoodgraincrops Cotton 30 Output
31 Area 32 Productivity

-0.24 (loo.o)

-0.66 (27.4)

(Percent) Groundnuts 33 Output
34 Area

3.81 1.27 2.25 (loo.o) 5.64 4.40 0.84 (100.0) 7.83 4.93 1.93 (loo.o)
5.20

9.35 5.78 2.89 (19.7)

6.48 2.65 3.08 (26.6) 11.04 15.04
-1.11

5.56 1.11 3.87 (7.6) 5.49 3.69
1.24

2.06 0.66 1.23 (7.2) 0.72 0.87
-o.10

2.45 0.63 1.70 (24.3) 6.o6
1.28

5.85 2.70 2.74 (3.2)

0.74 -0.48 1.29 (2.9)
-2.00

35 Productivity (Percent) Sugarcane
36 Output 37 Area

(24.0)
9.28

(20.0) 10.50 10.56 0.04 (6.1)

(10.9) 14.58 7.60 4.02 (5.7) o.65 2.20 -1.21 (5.2) -1.83
2.29 -2.82

4.18 (14.1) 9.83 7.97 1.02 (10.4) 6.34 7.76 -0.53 (0.6)

-3.16 1.5 (14-3)

38 Productivity (Percent)
Jute

5.71 2.26 (8.9)

17.86 16.83 0.53 (1.4)

13.21 8.56

2.52

(9.5

39 Output
40 Area

Distribution of annual rainfall (%) 42 Abundant(more than 75")

41 Productivity (Percent) GrossCroppedArea

4.01 o.85 (100.0)

(17.7)

45 Low (lessthan 30") 46 Grossirrigatedarea/gross croppedarea(%) 47 Index of moistureavailability

44 Medium (30"-45")

43 Assured(45"-75")

4.32 26.80 33.49 35.40 18.88 214.62

2.58 3.19 25.73 68.50 42.22 179.25

32.63 67.37 7.79 140.32

24.85 54.25 20.90 45.21 249.16

4.05 9.30 18.55 68.10 9.24 154.49

81.43 18.57 19.89 301.33

3.14 9.73 39.56 47.57 6.74 172.04

4.50 95.50 12.53 117.03

-7343 26.57

29.48 202.91

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND DATAFOR RATES AGRICULTURE RELATED IN INDIA ANDFOU TABLE I-GROWTH
INDIA GUJARAT MADRAS MYSORE BIHAR MAHARASHTRA RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ANDHRA PRADESH

Index of Productivity(basedon averagesof years 1956-1957to 1958-1959;India = 1oo.oo) loo.oo 48 Per hectare loo.oo worker 49 Per agricultural Use of Modern Inputs 50 Consumptionof chemical fertilizers + P205 + K20), (N 1965-1966(kg per hectareof 5.30 gross croppedarea) 51 Cooperativecredit:loans advanced to cooperatives by agricultural membersin 1963-1964(rupees per hectareof gross cropped 19.52 area) 52 Use of mechanicalpower in in agriculture 1960-1961(units per thousandhectaresof gross 2.58 croppedarea) 53 Compositeindex of use of in agriculture moderninputs loo.oo (India = loo.oo) Development of Services 19.0 54 Ruralliteracyrate(%) 55 Number of doctorsper million of population 227 roads(in 56 Length of surfaced thousand kilometers)per 76.91 squarekilometers 57 Number of towns per million ruralpopulation 7.49 58 Compositeindex of development = loo.oo) 100.00 of services(India 59 Compositeindex of agricultural development (India = loo.oo)

131.71 215.99

64.58 105.90

176.21 111.24

64.91 88.71

119.53 62.83

65.08 88.94

51.65 88.24

118.85 103.68

5.22

4.70

14.49

4.63

3.31

4.60

0.82

9.74

19.22

33.78

56.31

14.34

4.73

30.24

3.56

21.25

3.36 109.06 18.4
382

5.65

18.86

2.31

0.73

3.88

o.66

4.61

160.24 24.1
230

430.96
24.7 192

83.45
20.0 209

38.32
16.1 157

130.69
21.5 316

19.89
10.9 133

157.13
16.8 196

93.62
11.65 135.60

70.22
11.82 119.32

259.40
13.73 183.80

194.40
12.61 154.61

64.04 3.60
71.29

83.38 9.37
121.47

44.89 8.59
72.26

99.17 7.50
100.96

1oo.oo

162.54

138.62

228.55

96.96

65.00

104.29

66.06

116.79

show percentagesof all-Indiaoutput producedin the statein the trienniumending 1964-19 Note: Numbers in parentheses Lines 1-9 and 15-41: "Growth Rates in Agriculture"[see text footnote 3]; Lines 10, 11, 54, and 57: Census of Sources: Statistics1962-63 [see text footnote 5]; Lines 48 and 49: J. G. Anand: Measuremento Agricultural 1962); Lines 42-46: Indian in Situation India:AnnualNumber1964, Directorateof Econom per Worker in the DifferentCrop Regions of India,in Agricultural tilizer Statistics 1965-66, FertilizerAssociationof India, New Delhi, 1967, p. 10o; Line 51: "StatisticalStatementsRelating to India); Line 52: "LivestockCensus of India, 1961" (Directorateof Economics and Statistics,New Delhi); Line 55: "Stock o Abstract the IndianUnion 19 Research PaperNo. 6, New Delhi, 1965 (mimeographed),pp. 17-18; Line 56: Statistical of Working

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE GROWTH-RATE COMPARISONS

353

The growth rateof agricultural in production Indiaduringthe period to was higherthanthe growth 1952-1953 1964-1965 (3.42percent year) per ratesof both totalpopulation and workers (2.15percent) maleagricultural a of for I, lines o-1 1).6Thisconstituted reversal a trend; (Table (2.64percent) severaldecades beforeindependence, agricultural growth had been much slowerthanpopulation increase. the forty-five-year In to period1900-1901 thepopulation undivided of India India 1944-1945 (present-day andPakistan) increased 38percent, whileagricultural increased only 12.6 by production by and remained As the percent, foodgrain production stagnant. a result indexof relative population to declined 27 points.7 Thisstagnafoodgrain output by tion madeIndiaa net importerof foodgrains the early 1920's, though in the countyhadbeena net exporter to thattime.It alsomeanta decline of up about25 percent per capita in of foodgrains.8 availability When the rateof population increase the period1952-1953 1964in to is compared with thegrowthrateoffoodgrains, latter foundto be the is 1965 thanthe population rate.But in the populous only slightlyhigher growth states UttarPradesh, of West Bengal,Maharashtra, Gujarat, and whichhad deficits marginal or of foodgrains evenin the early1950's, surpluses population has been increasing more rapidlythanfoodgrainoutput.Thesefour states accounted the average two-thirds the totalfoodgraindeficit on for of in Indiain the threeyears 1961-1963.9 the for Accordingly, explanation India's recentfood difficulties (apart lies from the drought 1965-1967) of in the relatively slow growthof foodgrain in the country and output generally, in a numberof the largeandpopulous states particularly.
EXPANSION OF CROPPED AREA AND INCREASESIN PRODUCTIVITY

The growthof totalagricultural from somecombination outputresults
6 workershave been consideredin this comparison,since dataon the number Only male agricultural of female agricultural workersare not comparablein the censusesof 1951 and 1961 becauseof changesin definition. Most femaleagricultural workersare women of cultivatinghouseholdswho help on the family farms; they are not wage earners.The change in definition of"worker" adoptedin 1961 resultedin a far largernumberof women being returnedas workersthan had been the casein 1951.The numberof female workers in all-Indiain 1961 was 52.2 percent higher than in 1951, and the increasesin some stateswere large (127.7 percent in Andhra Pradeshand 188 percent in Madras). 7 P. K. Mukherjeeand S. Sivasubramonian: AgriculturalOutput and National Income in India, in Studiesin Indian AgriculturalEconomics (edited by J. P. Bhattacharjee; Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Bombay, 1958), pp. 1-43; referenceon p. 24. and S. M. Roy: Trend of Consumption of Food and Foodgrainsin India, in 8J. P. Bhattacharjee Studies in Indian AgriculturalEconomics [see footnote 7 above], pp. 188-224; reference on p. 198. 9 From unpublisheddata supplied in 1968 by the office of the Economic and StatisticalAdviser, Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

354

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

of theexpansion cropped andtheincrease productivity cropland, of in of area but in the studyperiodproductivity more thanthe increased considerably area(TableI, lines 1-3). Analysis the annual of of indexnumbers cropped for allIndia and indicates area, productivity agricultural production, cropped thatthe rateof expansion croppedareawas relatively at firstand of rapid
TABLE II-LINEARGROWTH RATES (%per year)
FIRST PERIOD 1952/53-1959/60 SECOND PERIOD 1957/58-1964/65

Output Area Productivity

3.55 1.84 1.38

4.30
1.02 2.55

TABLE III-EXPANSION

OF CROPPED AND IRRIGATED AREAS

(In thousands hectares) of
INCREASE

1952-1953 Grosscropped area Area sown more than once Net sown area Area sown more than once as percentage of net sown area Grossirrigatedarea Area irrigatedmore than once Net irrigatedarea Grossirrigatedareaas percentageof gross cropped area 137,675 14,233 123,442 11.53 23,305 2,183
21,122

1962-1963 156,736 20,492 136,244 15.04 29,598 3,935 25,663 18.88

Area
19,061

Percent 13.84 43.97 10.37 27.00 80.26 21.50

6,259 12,802 6,293 1,752 4,541

16.93

Abstractof the Indian Union 1965 [see Table I, footnotes]; IndianAgricultural Sources: Statistical Statistics 1962-63 [see text footnote 5].

which was of slowed down later,while the rate of increase productivity, Thisis shownby thegrowth slowin theearlyyears, pickedup considerably. into the rates above,whichhavebeenderived dividing studyperiod by given two parts of eight years each, 1952-1953 to 1959-1960 and 1957-1958 to 1964-1965 (Table II).

Expansionof cropped area resultsfrom extension of cultivation to new lands (that is, increase in "net area sown") and from increased multiple cropping (that is, an increasein the proportion of "area sown more than once" to "net areasown"). The gross cropped areaof Indiaincreasedby 19 million hectares between 1952-1953 and 1962-1963 (Table III), but only

two-thirds of this total, 12.8 million hectares,representedan increasein the net area sown; the balance came from multiple cropping of the existing cropped area. The growth of multiple cropping is closely linked with the extension of irrigationfacilities;irrigationis necessaryin most partsof India

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICUTLURE

355

the to produce second (postmonsoon) crop.It will be seenfromTableIIIthat in area in increase the grossirrigated hasbeennearly equalto theincrease the areasown morethanonce. also from two additional factors: Greater improveproductivity results of for mentin per-hectare yieldsandsubstitution moreproductive crop crops
TABLE IV-DISTRIBUTION OF CROPPED AREA AMONG SELECTED CROPS, 1962-1963

(In thousands hectares) of
CROP CROPPED AREA

% OF TOTAL AREA

Foodgrains Rice Wheat Jowar Bajra Gram All foodgrains Nonfoodgrain crops Cotton Jute Tea Groundnuts All oilseeds All nonfoodgrain crops TOTAL
Sugarcane

34,934 13,657 18,021 10,800 9,242 116,009 7,845 851 334
2,280

22.29 8.71 11.50 6.89 5.90 74.01 5.00 0.54
0.21 1.45

6,804 14,796 40,729 156,736

4.34 9.44 25.99 100oo.oo

Statistics Source: Indian 1962-63 [see text footnote 5]. Agricultural

for for lessproductive ones;forexample, sugarcane wheat,or groundnuts the In statessubstitution to millets appears be a major jowar and bajra. several of increased hasexperienced highest the rate productivity. Gujarat ingredient but increase of productivity (4.52percent), thehighrateis attributable partly of thelessproductive to extensive by replacement jowarandbajra the more and of groundnuts cotton.The rateof expansion the areaunder productive a hasaveraged percent year,whichis trulyphenomenal. is It 15.4 groundnuts that of has yieldper hectare) groundnuts (average noteworthy productivity whilethatofjowarandbajra increased has lines33-35and declined, I, (Table thatsomeof the substitution groundnuts jowar of for 21-26). Thisindicates has landsof low productivity hashad andbajra takenplaceon marginal and theeffectof loweringtheaverage yieldof theexpanding cropsandof raising of the contracting the average yields crops.
INCREASE IN FOODGRAIN AND NONFOODGRAIN CROPS

of Nearly three-quarters the croppedlandin Indiais underfoodgrains cereals-rice,wheat,bajra, (Table whichinclude IV), jowar,andmaize-and or beans. Indian consists The diet almostentirely cereals pulses. of and pulses

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

356

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

and cereals, together Rice,wheat,andjowararethe mostimportant occupy of the grosscropped the pulses,gramis the most area;among 42.5 percent The fibers cottonandjute), crops (especially important. nonfoodgrain include and so on), sugarcane, oilseeds(groundnuts, linseed, plantation crops(tea, and tobacco,chilies,fruitsandvegetables, a numberof coffee,andrubber), not others.Obviously, all the nonfoodgrain cropsarenonfoodcrops.But of calculations supply so diet sincetheIndian depends heavilyon foodgrains, in thoseterms.Moreover,most made for and demand food are generally are aregrownfor sale,while foodgrains grownto meet crops nonfoodgrain farmers. the food needsof subsistence twiceashighasthatof has Thegrowthofnonfoodgrain crops beennearly with 2.75percent as compared in foodgrains Indiaas a whole-4.79 percent higherin ten of the fourteen (TableI, lines 7 and4)-and hasbeen appreciably rates are similar, and in only three statesstates. In Madras,the growth Kerala,AndhraPradesh,and Bihar-is the growth rate of foodgrainshigher than that of the nonfoodgraincrops.The highergrowth rateof nonfoodgrain crops can be explained almost entirely by the more rapid expansion of the area devoted to them. Productivity has increasedat similar rates for both groups of crops; the figures for all India are 1.79 percent for nonfoodgrain crops and 1.60 percentfor foodgrains(TableI, lines 6 and 9). Within the foodgraingroup, the growth ratesof rice andwheat have been higher than those of the inferiorgrains.These two cropshave similargrowth ratesfor output-3.64 percent for rice and 3.80 percentfor wheat-but the contributions of expansion of area and increase in productivity differ. The

more thanthe area,but the reverseis true of productivityof ricehasincreased low growth ratesofjowar and bajrareflectthe small wheat. The relatively change in the areathey occupy; on the other hand, the comparativelyhigh rates of increase in productivity of these crops result mainly from withdrawal

of the crops from marginallands. The growth ratesare highest in statesin which contraction of area under these crops has been most pronounced: and jowar and bajrain Gujarat,bajrain Madrasand Maharashtra, jowar in Pradesh. Madhya Among the four selectednonfoodgraincrops, sugarcanehas the highest rateof growth of output, almost 8 percent,and the growth ratesfor groundnuts andjute arealso much higherthanthe ratefor any foodgraincrop. These high ratesof growth of output aredue primarilyto the rapidexpansionof the areaunderthe crop; the ratesof increaseof productivityarenot high. On the other hand, cotton, which has had only a modest expansionof area,has the highest rate of productivityincreaseof any crop-2.25 percent.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

357

An adequateexplanationof the differences ratesof increaseof output, in cropped area,and productivity of foodgrainsand nonfoodgraincrops, or of individualcrops, would take us far beyond the scope of this study. It would requireanalysisof resourceallocationamong competing crops,and therefore, in turn, analysisof crop prices and of inputs at regionaland farm levels. But two factsmust be mentionedin orderto place the observedtrendsin historical perspectiveand to relate them to the effects of overall economic growth. First,the fastergrowth of nonfoodgraincrops than of foodgrainsonly means extension into the postindependenceperiod of a trend that had existed for severaldecades.Second,the fastergrowth of nonfoodgraincrops and, among the foodgrains,the fastergrowth of wheat and rice than of other cereals,is in of accordwith the observedelasticities consumerdemand.Preferencefor the of superiorcereals,rice and wheat, and high elasticities demandfor sugar,oil, and othernongrainfoods areto be expectedin the earlystagesof economtea, ic development: they show the first effects of even small increasesin per capita income. This responseis welcome becauseit reduces the unhealthy of preponderance grainsin the Indiandiet. But faster growth of nonfoodgrain crops than of foodgrains also representsa shiftin resourceallocation;it meansthat some resources, which would have been allocatedto productionof foodgrainsif the growth ratesof output of the two groups were equal, are insteadgiven over to production of nonfoodgrain crops. The effect is marginal,however. It is roughly proportional to the differencein ratesof arealexpansionof the two groups of crops; their ratesof productivityincreaseare similar,and thereis no evidenceof a marked shift of resourcesto secure higher rates of productivity increasefor either group. But since nonfoodgrain crops occupy only a quarterof the gross croppedareaof India,a 3 percentincreasein the areaunderthem meansa loss of potential increaseof only 1 percent of the area under foodgrains. If the rates of increaseof area for both groups of crops had been identicalin this period, the areaunderfoodgrainswould have been higher thanit actuallywas in 1964-1965by only about 5 percent.Additionaloutput offoodgrains would have been of the same order, since the rates of increaseof productivity for both groups have been similar.
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN GROWTH RATES

The growth rate of agriculturaloutput ranges from 5.56 percent in Punjab'? to 1.25 percent in Assam. Only four states-Punjab, Gujarat,
IOPunjabrefersto

the state as it was before the creation of the new state of Haryanain 1966.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

358

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

FIG. 1

Madras, and Mysore-have experienced growth rates higher than the allIndia average of 3.42 percent (Table I, line 1). If the states are ranked according to the rate of growth of agricultural output and are divided into two groups, "high" and "low," with seven states in each, it is seen that six of the seven states in the high group are in the west and south of India, and five of the seven states in the low group are in the east and north-central parts of the country. Figure 1 shows a fairly clear west-east dichotomy in growth rates; most of the states with high rates form part of a belt that extends from

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH

OF INDIAN

AGRICULTURE

359

FIG. 2

Punjabin the extreme northwest to Madrasin the south. The exceptions toc this pattern are Keralaand Andhra Pradesh,southernstates that are in the low-rate group, and Bihar an eastern state that is in the high-rate group. In five states-Rajasthan,Punjab,Kerala,MadhyaPradesh,and Assamthe expansion rate of the cropped area has been higher than the all-India average(1.28 percent),but no geographicalimplicationscan be found in the pattern. On the other hand, the rate of increaseof productivity has been higher than the all-Indiaaverage(1.91percent)in seven states(Fig. 2), and the

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

360

THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

west-eastdichotomynoted in the caseof agricultural output is repeated.Most of the statesin the high productivitygroup also have a high growth ratefor agriculturaloutput. The only exceptions are Rajasthan,which has a high growth rate for agriculturaloutput but a low rate of productivity, and AndhraPradesh,which has a low growth rate for agricultural output but a rate of productivity. high Regional differencesin the growth rates of output of individual crops reflectthe conditionsunderwhich they are grown and also give evidence of the phenomenon of substitution.In the case of rice (Table I, lines 15-17), comparativelyhigh growth ratesof 5 percentor more have been experienced in four major producing states-Madras, Mysore, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh (Punjaband Gujaratare not major producers).The lowest growth rateshave been experiencedin Assamand West Bengal. The low rate in West Bengal is especiallyimportantbecausethis state,with one-seventhof the all-Indiarice output in the trienniumending 1964-1965,is the largestrice producer. The low growth rate is attributablemainly to the low rate of increasein area,though productivityalsohasimprovedlesshere thanin most other states.Stagnationof the areaunderrice and the rapidincrease(6 percent in a year) in the areaunderjute indicatediversionof resources favor of jute. statesof Indiamost In West Bengal and the othereasternandnorth-central rice is not irrigated, and yields are low in comparison with those in the southern states such as Madras,Mysore, and Andhra Pradesh,in which a large part of the crop is irrigated.It would appearthat the growth rate of that of productivityincrease,has been higher output, though not necessarily in the southern states. A similarphenomenon is noticeable, and in a more between the pronouncedform, in the case of sugarcane.Yield differentials northern and southern states are even greater in this instance because the southern states have, in addition to irrigation, the climatic advantage of freedom from frost. In the case of wheat, also, the majorproducingstatesshow differentrates of growth of output: Uttar Pradesh, the largest producer, has had slow growth, while Punjab, which comes next in production, has experienced rapid growth. In another important producing state, Madhya Pradesh,the total output of, and the area under, wheat have increased rapidly, but productivityhas declined.Here arealexpansionhasbeen partlyat the expense of jowar and on lands of lower productivity than those that were earlier underwheat. Production ofjowar, the third important cereal crop, is concentratedin the central and southern parts of the peninsula.Four states-Maharashtra,

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

361

Madhya Pradesh, Mysore, and Andhra Pradesh-account for nearly 80 percentof the total output. The output has grown at a lower ratethan that of rice and wheat, principallybecauseof the low rate of increase(or, in some states,a decrease)in the areaunder the crop. in Among the nonfoodgraincrops,regionaldifferences the growth rateof and sugarcanehave alreadybeen explained. The case of groundnutsis jute
TABLE V-COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES AND AGRICULTURAL GROWTH RATES COEFFICIENTOF CORRELATION

Growth rate of population and growth rate of agriculturaloutput Growth rate of population and growth rate of foodgrain output Growth rate of male agricultural workers and growth rate of agriculturaloutput Average productivity per hectareand rate of increaseof productivity Average productivity per agriculturalworker and growth rate of agriculturaloutput Proportion of cropped areairrigatedand rate of increaseof productivity Index of moisture availabilityand growth rate of agriculturaloutput Index of moisture availabilityand rate of increaseof productivity Proportion of cropped areairrigatedand level of use of chemical fertilizers Proportion of cropped areairrigatedand index of use of modern inputs Level of use of chemical fertilizersand rate of increaseof productivity Index of use of modern inputs and rate of increaseof productivity Index of development of servicesand growth rate of agriculturaloutput Index of urbanizationand growth rate of agriculturaloutput Index of development of servicesand index of use of modern inputs Index of development of servicesand index of agriculturaldevelopment Index of urbanizationand index of agriculturaldevelopment * Significantat the 5 percentlevel.

-0.28 - o.51
0.07

-0.18 0.33 o.o9 -0.58 -0.39 0.58* 0.55 0.27 o.52 0.48 0.85* 0.72* 0.52 0.71*

also interesting.Production of the crop is concentratedin the western and southernpartsof the peninsula.It has experiencedrapidgrowth of output in three of the five important producing states-Gujarat, Maharashtra, andc Madras-with areal expansion the principal growth factor. But in AndhraPradeshthe groundnut areahas contracted,and in Mysore it has expanded slowly, with correspondingeffects on output. Cotton output, similarly,has increased rapidly in most producing states, but not in Maharashtra and the differencesin output are due primarily to different rates of Mysore; which expansionof cropped area.The reasonsfor such growth differentials, are seen even in adjoiningstates,need more detailedanalysisthan is possible here.
AGRICULTURAL GROWTH RATES, AVAILABILITY OF MOISTURE, AND SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES

The relationshipof the agriculturalgrowth rate to the availability of moisture and to certain economic variables has been examined through

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

362

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

between the of The coefficients were calculated coefficients correlation. and and of outputandof productivity thevariables growthrates agricultural of coefficients correlation indiceslistedin TableV. In addition, composite the of certain thevariables example, proportion between werecalculated (for
TABLE VI-PERCENTAGE OF GROSS CROPPED AREA IN EACH RAINFALL ZONE RAINFALL ZONE WITH STATES GROSS CROPPED AREA

Abundant 1.65 7.62 1.69 7.42

Assured 15.58 40.69 15.96 39.52

Medium 26.73 41.86 38.42 27.69

Low 56.04 9.82 43.93 25.37

IRRIGATED 1962-1963 17.64 19.98 20.45 16.83

High Low High Low

rate of growth of output rate of growth of output rate of increase of productivity rate of increase of productivity

in and of cropped irrigated theuseof chemical area fertilizers) orderto study the relationships among the variables.
AVAILABILITYOF MOISTURE

rainof is indexof availability moisture basedon annual The composite to was land.All cropland assigned one of of fallandtheproportion irrigated land of zones(Table lines42-46), andtheproportion cultivated fourrainfall I, to in each zone was then multipliedby the weight assigned the zone." land was addedto the total. TableVI of the proportion irrigated Finally that indicates the stateswith high growthratesfor agricultural outputand with low rates. are productivity drierthanthe states for In Gujarat, high Mysore,andMaharashtra, growthrates agricultural moisture in have andproductivity beenachieved spiteof unfavorable output of low rainfall, area mostof the cropped is in the zone supply.In thesestates do and of andlessthanlo percent it is irrigated. Onlyin Bihar Madras favorin hand.On the otherhand, and able rainfall high growth ratesgo hand for with low growthrates agricultural states several outputandproductiviAssam-have favorablemoisture ty-Orissa, Kerala,West Bengal, and is area The conditions. entirecropped of thesestates in thezonesof abundant Pradesh In of it is irrigated. Madhya and or assured rainfall, 16 to 23 percent of withlow rates agricultural two andUttarPradesh, otherstates growth,the the moisturesupply is only slightlyless favorable.In MadhyaPradesh, of proportionof irrigatedland is low, 5.63 percent,but almostthree-quarters the stateis in the zones of assuredor abundantrainfall.Most of the cropped
" The rainfallzones with more than 45 inches were given a weight of 3; the zone with 30 to 45 inches, 2; and the zone with less than 30 inches, 1. An additionalweight of 1 was given for irrigationin all rainfallzones.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

363

is of landin UttarPradesh in thezoneof medium but rainfall, 26.62 percent it is irrigated.

of of with The coefficients correlation the indexof moisture availability the growth rate of agricultural output and with the rate of increaseof are both negative,-o.58 and -o.39 respectively (TableV). productivity betweenthe proportion croppedareairrigated the of and The correlation of is rateof increase productivity extremely o.og,andit is not significant. low, that confirmthe lackof relationship hasalready Thesecoefficients emerged of and rates. betweenavailability moisture agricultural growth to The lack of relationship come as a surprise thosewho areconmay in India,since an assured cernedwith agricultural moisture development supply has always been regardedas the prime requisiteof agricultural of Development planshave emphasized expansion irrigation development. of efforts with assured and concentration agricultural-development in areas More than40 percentof the total expenditure agrimoisture on supplies. in cultural-development programs the threeFive YearPlanswas for irrigation.12

areasand areaswith an assured moisturesupplyhave been Irrigated on selectedfor intensiveagricultural-development programs, the ground will adoptmodern, thatfarmers more capital-intensive production techniques of because greater of return investment. on Districts with an readily security assured moisture District supplywere chosenfor the Intensive Agricultural which startedwith seven districts 1959 and now in (IADP), Programme coverssixteen SinceIndia districts. the adopted "New Agricultural Strategy" in 1966,development efforts have emphasized efficient watermanagement, use of chemical and fertilizers, high yieldingseedvarieties, pest controlon areaquick-growing varieties riceandothercereals to be substituted of are for that varieties takelongerto mature, thata second so canbe obtained.13 crop Long-term programs of agriculturaldevelopment also emphasize maximum of facilities theconcentration developand of expansion irrigation ment resources, moder inputs, in the irrigatedareas.'4 This especially has been outlinedin detailand occupiesthe centralplacein the strategy in programof increasing agricultural outputrecommended the reportof India'spopulationand food problemssubmitted recentlyby the [United
12 Saran and Chawla, op. cit. [see footnote 1 above], p. 480. 13Ibid., p. 475. '4 B. Sivaraman: The Strategy of Food Production, Indian Journ. of Public Administration, Vol. 13, 1967, pp. 433-447; reference on p. 441.

about 25 million hectaresof land with adequatemoisture.On about half the

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

364

THE GEOGRAPHIICAL REVIEW

States]President'sScience Advisory Committee, Panel on the World Food Supply.'s The Panel recommended heavy concentration of resources in intensive-cultivationareas, which could be completely irrigated, holding other areaslightly. The Panel'sprojectionsanticipatethat intensive-cultivation areaswill increasefrom 2 million hectaresin 1967 to 42 million hectares in 1986, when they will constitute about 33 percent of the cropland under foodgrains, but will produce almost 60 percent of the foodgrains, and will use more than 60 percent of the chemical fertilizersapplied to foodgrains. Average yields in intensive-cultivationareaswill be about three times the yields in the rest of the area under foodgrains.'6This strategyis backed by considerableexperimentalevidence which shows that per hectare yields of foodgrainsincreasewith high yielding seed varietiesand other inputs, under conditions of assuredmoisture. The absenceof a relationshipbetween availabilityof moisture and agriculturalgrowth ratesshouldnot be takento mean that an adequateor assured moisture supply is not requiredfor agriculturaldevelopment, or that the policies of expansion of irrigationand resourceconcentrationin areaswith adequate and assuredmoisture supply are wrong. But although moisture development, it is not supply may be a necessarycondition for agricultural and there is an urgent need to investigatethe factors the only requirement, that prevent a number of Indian states with good rainfall and extensive irrigated areas from attaining high agriculturalgrowth rates. Remedial measuresaimed at removing the growth-inhibitingfactorsarejust as important as the irrigationprogramsthat create a higher agricultural-production potential.
GROWTH OF POPULATION AND OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Population growth influences agricultural output in two ways: it increases the demand for agricultural products, and it increases the supply of labor. However, the relationship between agricultural output and labor supply is most easily studied by considering the growth rate of agricultural workers (Table I, lines 10-14). The coefficient of correlation between the population growth rate and the growth rates of agricultural output and of foodgrain output are both negative (Table V); the latter has a value of-0.51, which underlines the difficulties arising in several states in which population has isWillem Hoist: Evaluationof Population and Food ProductionProblemsof India, in The World Food Problem: A Report of the President'sScience Advisory Committee (2 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1967), Vol. 2, pp. 673-711.
I6

Ibid., pp. 704-706.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

365

but of outputhasnot. The low coefficient correlagrownrapidly foodgrain tion betweenthe growth ratesof male agricultural workersand of agriotherthanlaborsupplyhavehad indicates factors that cultural output(0.07) on the majorinfluence agricultural outputin thisperiod.The findingis not the widespreadunderemployment Indian in unexpected, considering agriculture.
PRODUCTIVITY PER HECTARE AND PER AGRICULTURALWORKER

The indicesof productivity hectareand per agricultural worker per of lines48-49) arebasedon indicesof intensity landuse,cropping (TableI, in and of The pattern, yieldperhectare the period1956-1959. influence the on the indexof productivity hectare clearfrom the is pattern per cropping in factthatall states whichriceis animportant havesignificantly crop higher indexvaluesthando states whichthearea in under is small.The range rice of of interstate variation the indexis of the orderof 3 :1; the highest valuesare for Madras, and West Bengal,and the lowest are for Rajasthan, Assam, Mysore,andMaharashtra. Gujarat, in Interstate differences productivity agricultural workerare someper whatlargerthanthosein productivity hectare; figurefor Punjab the is per threeanda halftimesthatfor Bihar.Differences thisorder,whichmight of at that in appear surprising first,indicate largedifferences productivity (and workercanexistevenin a situation overallhigh population of income)per between pressure.Moreover, the existence of pronounceddifferences states(for example,West Bengaland Bihar,or Punjaband Raadjoining jasthan)indicateshigher geographical immobility of labor. The coefficient of correlation betweenproductivity hectareand the rateof proper a ductivityis negative,-0.18, indicating lack of distributional relationship betweenthe two. If ahighpositive correlation beenfoundbetween levelof produchad the workerandthe rateof growthof agricultural tivityper agricultural output, it would haveindicated the capacity achieve that to in increases outputper workeris greaterat higherlevels of per capitaincome. This could have beeninterpreted theresult higherlevelsof savings investment, of as of and or worker(whichitselfis the resultof betternutrition and greater outputper or of a number otherreasons. the otherhand,a highnegative of On health), correlation would havesuggested tensions that arisefromfarmers poorer in states to catchup with theirmoreprosperous attempting neighbors (though one wouldexpectthe tension effectto be weakin a situation pronounced of of of coefficient correlation low is immobility labor).But, in fact,the actual

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

366

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

that levelof productivity workerhas (0.33), whichindicates the existing per on littleinfluence the growthrateof agricultural output.
USE OF MODERN INPUTS

Threeindicators-useof chemical use fertilizers, of mechanical power, credit-havebeenselected indicators theadoption as anduseof cooperative of in of modemtechnology agriculture (TableI, lines 50-53).17The choiceof is but of thefirsttwo indicators obvious, inclusion cooperative credit deserves as of comment.It was selected it advance: primarily a measure institutional of cooperative indicatesthe successful which have institutions, adoption role in the development modernization agrian important and of played and culture elsewhere whicharebeingencouraged theIndian by government. creditperhectare cropland not a good of But the amountof cooperative is for reasons. of measure agricultural in investment, several First,investment sincesomeof the loansarefor is fromloansto farmers, agriculture different consumption purposes, while some of the investment is financed from personal savings of the farmers. Second, loans from cooperative societies are only part of the total borrowings of farmers; other sources include the government, money lenders, relatives, and friends. A survey of rural debt and investment conducted by the Reserve Bank of India in 1961-1962 revealed that loans from cooperatives formed only 18.7 percent of the total borrowings of farmers.'8 Finally, the figures in Table I relate only to shortterm and medium-term loans, which are used primarily to finance current agricultural operations or short-term investments such as buying a pair of bullocks; they do not include loans for long-term investments such as irrigation wells. Data on the use of chemical fertilizers relate to nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers and are given in terms of kilograms of plant nutrient (N + P,Os + KO2) per hectare of gross cropped area. Data on use of mechanical power in agriculture are derived from the number of tractors and electric- or oil-driven pumps in use on farms, as reported in the Livestock Census of 1961. Each tractor has been considered equivalent to two units, and each pump as equivalent to one unit, in converting the figures into units of mechanical power. Data on cooperative credit, as indicated, relate to shortterm and medium-term loans. The composite index of use of modern inputs has been calculated by converting the figures for each indicator into an index
I7 output, had to be excluded becauseof Improved seed, importantas it is as a factor in agricultural deficienciesof data. 18V. M. Jakhade:AgriculturalProduction, Credit and InstitutionalArrangements,Indian Journ.of PublicAdministration, 13, 1967, pp. 540-549; referenceon p. 542. Vol.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

367

(with the all-Indiaaverageas 100) and then averagingthe values.In this way, each indicatorhas been given equal weight in the composite index. The figures for individualindicatorsand for the composite index show large interstatevariations.The range is in the order of 18:1 for chemical fertilizers, and it is even larger for the other two indicators and for the composite index. Madrashas the highest figuresfor the three indicatorsand and for the composite index; Rajasthan Assamhave the lowest. Most of the southernand western stateshave appreciablyhigher figures than the eastern and north-centralstateshave. These differencesreflect, to some extent, the influence of factors such as rainfall,cropping patterns,and development of irrigation. But even more they indicate differencesin the acceptance of modern technology. Use of chemical fertilizer, for instance, is higher in Madras,where most of the croppedareais in the zone of medium rainfalland where most of the landis in the 45 percentof it is irrigated,thanin Rajasthan, zone of low rainfalland only about 12 percentis irrigated.Similarly,use of mechanical power is higher in Madras, where groundwater conditions facilitate development of lift irrigation, than in Madhya Pradesh, where do conditionsarelessfavorable.But suchexplanations not adequatelyexplain the large interstatedifferencesthat exist. Low indicatorvalues in the eastern states-Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, and Orissa-and in Uttar Pradesh indicate, primarily,a lag in adopting modern techniques.Also, large interstate differencesin the value of cooperative credit per hectare indicate differencesin the willingness and the capacity of farmersto use cooperative credit for agricultural purposes. The coefficientof correlationbetween the level of use of chemicalfertilizersand the rate of increaseof productivity,0.27, is low; but that between the index of use of moder inputs and the rate of increaseof productivityis higher, 0.52. However, even this last is not significantat the 5 percentlevel. The correlationsbetween irrigatedland and the use of chemical fertilizers, and between irrigatedland and the index of use of modem inputs, are both above 0.5, but again are not significantat the 5 percentlevel. However, the index of use of modem inputs has a significantcorrelation,0.72, with the index of developmentof services,which indicatesthat use of modem inputs is influencedby factorssuch as the level of literacyof farmers,the existenceof good communications,and the number of towns.
INDEX OF DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICES

The index of development of services(Table I, line 58) is a composite based on four indicators:the ruralliteracy rate (education),the number of doctors per million of population (medical care), the network of roads in

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

368

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

of kilometers roadsper thousand kilometers and square (communications), of towns per million ruralinhabitants the number It (urbanization). was for indexvalues theindividual constructed firstcalculating indicators and by in the sameway asin the indexof useof modern the thenaveraging values, inputs. of in The numberof towns was selectedas an indicator urbanization of to totalpopulation; was it to theproportion urban population preference but felt that not only the size of the urbanpopulation the patternof its on of An distribution have an influence the development agriculture. may concentrated one or two citiesis likelyto havedifferent in urban population of distributed areas thesame than on effects rural population amonga number of the greater number pointsfor rural-urban or medium-sized small towns; on of interaction havean influence diffusion new ideasandtechniques may to It sincethe view has farmers. was interesting testthishypothesis, among is small that of beenexpressed thenumber townsin India unusually recently shouldundertake andthatIndia to thesizeof the rural in relation population for townswith facilities to new market of a program building10,000 12,000 distribuof and as activities marketing processing agricultural such products, of tion of consumergoods, maintenance farm implements,agricultural and extension services, the like, whichareneededfor agricultural development and for the modernizationof rurallife.'9 variationsin the value of the index of development of services Interstate are much smallerthan was the casein the index of modern inputs; the range is in the order of 3.5 :1. The southernstatesand all the western statesexcept have much higherindex values thanmost of the easternandnorthRajasthan statesdo. The importantexception is West Bengal, an easternstate, central which has one of the highest values in this index. The coefficientof correlationbetween the index of the development of servicesand the rateof growth of agricultural outputis lessthan0.5 andis not significantat the 5 percent level. But the correlationbetween the index of and the growth rate of agricultural urbanization output is high, o.85, and is also significantat the 5 percentlevel. The index of urbanization has a high and with the composite index of agricultural significant correlation, 0.71, development. These coefficientssuggest the possible existence of a relationship between the number of towns in a state and its rate of agricultural progress.
19"Market Towns and Spatial Development in India" (National Council of Applied Economic Research,New Delhi, 1965), Chapter1.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

369

A composite index of agricultural development (Table I, line 59) based

on three factors-the growth rate of agriculturaloutput, the use of modern inputs in agriculture,and the productivityper hectare-has been constructed to give an overall indication of comparativelevels of agriculturaldevelopment in differentstates.As in the other composite indices, the three constituents are given equal weight. The values of the index show an interstate variation from 228.55 in Madras to 57.72 in Assam. The states have been

rankedby values of the index and have also been divided into two groups, "high" and "low," with seven statesin each (Fig. 3). It is noteworthy that the west-east dichotomy, to which referencehas been made in discussionof growth rates,is even clearerhere. The coefficient of correlationof the index of agriculturaldevelopment with the index of development of servicesis more than 0.5, but it is not significantat the 5 percent level. However, the correlationof the index of 0.71, is significant. agricultural developmentwith the index of urbanization, The relationshipof the index of agricultural development with relevantsocioeconomic and physical variablesneeds further study in order to understand the causesof differentialprogressbetween statesand, in particular,of the slow progressin some. The causesof slow progresswill, of course,differ from stateto state,but it is worth mentioning that all the states with low values in the index of agriculturaldevelopment are formed from areasthat were formerly in the Britishprovincesthat had the zamindari2o systemof land tenure(for example, West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh)or in the small, backward princely states (for example, Rajasthanand Madhya Pradesh).In the case of Orissa, the coastal area was included in a British province having the zamindari system, and the inland areaswere within a number of small princely states. Moreover, Orissaand Madhya Pradeshhave large tribalpopulations,which are at low socioeconomic levels. On the other hand, all statesthat have high values in the index of agriculturaldevelopment are mainly formed either from Britishprovinceswith land-tenuresystems approximatingpeasantproprietorship(Madras,Maharashtra, and Punjab) or from princely states (for instance, Mysore and Travancore[Kerala]),with progressiveadministrations and levels of social
20 Zamindarswere revenue farmerswho acted as intermediariesbetween the government and the cultivators.They acquiredconsiderablesocial prestige and political power, and some were regardedas virtual rulersof their areas.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

370

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

FIG.3

to, development comparable or even higher than, those in the British provinces. States suchasRajasthan, and to Pradesh, Orissa be expected Madhya may havelow rates growthandmodernization sometime.But thefactthat of for most of the statesthathad the zamindari systemalso exhibitlow ratesof andof adoption moderntechniques of indicates the that agricultural output legacy of the zamindari systemitself impedesagricultural progress.The wasabolished the 195o's, it appears implementation not in but that has system

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GROWTH OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

371

and beenadequate hasnot produced desired the social economic and changes. The reporton "Implementation LandReforms" of reveals largeareas that of land in these statescontinueto be held by the formerzamindars under varioussharecropping with Thus the arrangements theirformertenants.2' actual cultivators not haverights thelandthatwouldgive themsecurity do to of tenureandan incentive investin agricultural to Whether improvements. thisfailure landreform theprimary of is reason slowagricultural for progress in thesestatesor whetherthereare otherreasons needsto be investigated.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In a recentstudyGeorgeBlyn analyzed trendsin population, cropped and agricultural in formerBritishIndia (BritishProvinces) area, output The duringthe sixty yearsprecedingindependence.22 analysis comprises the whole of BritishIndiaexceptBaluchistan, which almostno crop "for datawere available," it excludes princely but the states because "incomof of data."Still,the areacovered the studycontained percent "76 pleteness by of the population 51 percentof the total areaof all Indiain 1941."23 and A comparison Blyn'sdatawith the datain this studyshowsinteresting of differences similarities and between the trendsin the two periods.The ratesof both populationand agricultural growth output have been apBut preciably higherin the recent periodthanbeforeindependence. whereas in the recentperiodthe growth rateof agricultural has been well output aheadof the growth rate of population, agricultural outputin the earlier had not kept pace with population period growth. However,two trends notedin the present study-fastergrowthof outputof nonfoodgrain crops thanof foodgrains, faster and growthof agricultural outputin thesouththan in the eastor in UttarPradesh in (UnitedProvinces the preindependence in the earlyyearsof thiscentury.However, period)-had already appeared the growth ratesof both populationand agricultural output have been sinceindependence they were earlier. than The growth appreciably higher rateof agricultural hasbeenwell aheadof the growthrateof popuoutput lationsinceindependence, whereas earlier wasnot keeping it pace.Of course, of trendsin the postindependence comparison period with those in the to terms because of periodstudied Blynmustbe confined themostgeneral by the political thathaveoccurred since1947,including formation the changes
2I

22
23

"Implementationof Land Reforms"(PlanningCommission, New Delhi, 1966), pp. 1-17. George Blyn: AgriculturalTrends in India, 1891-1947 (Philadelphia,1966).
Ibid., p. 33.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

372

THE GEOGRAPHICALREVIEW

of India and Pakistan,integrationof the princely states,and reorganization of the Indianstates. The broad pattern of regional differencesrevealedby the present study will probablynot change much as a resultof the more detailed,district-level analysisthat will soon be possible. The pattern has historicalroots, which suggests the need to investigate the causes of differentialprogress and, in particular,the causesof slow progressin the easternand north-centralstates. The investigationis essentialfor evolving remedialmeasuresthat will enable these states,which have a high potential for agricultural growth becauseof favorable moisture and soil conditions, to participatemore effectively in agricultural progress.

This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sun, 4 May 2014 02:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions