THE Nagpur Resolut ion on co operative f a r m i n g is being

debated in a manner w h i c h is l i ke ly to i n h i b i t a dispassionate considerat ion of several issues, both conceptual and operat ional , invo lved i n i t . A n emot iona l ly sur­charged atmosphere w i l l probably be required for the Implementa t ion of a p rogramme of a g r a r i a n re­construct ion as rad ica l as the one adumbra ted in the Nagpur Resolu t l on . B u t t h a t does no t mean t h a t persons on w h o m less the responsi b i l i t y fo r the implementa t ion of the p rogramme can af ford to remain bl issful ly unconcerned about the k n o t t y issues w i t h w h i c h the p r o ­blem bristles.

People's Participation Inc identa l ly , th is raises the ve ry

first issue as to who exact ly w i l l be entrusted w i t h the i m p l e m e n t a ­t i on of the programme. To say t ha t such a programme cannot be implemented w i t h o u t "the act ive pa r t i c ipa t ion of the people" is no t very enl ightening and m a y even be a symptom of in te l lectual e m p t i ­ness. I t is obvious t h a t a p rogramme l ike this cannot be implemented exclusively by the depar tmenta l agencies of the Government . The ex­perience of non-communist countries w i t h a record of successful i m p l e ­menta t ion of l a n d reforms — e g. Japan — also indicates the c ruc ia l importance of regional and local organisat ions such as vi l lage c o m ­mittees.

I f , as is postulated in the Resolu­t i on , the Panchayats In I n d i a are to play th is c ruc ia l role, the colossal task of equipping them w i t h the requisite technical and organiza t iona l k n o w - h o w w o u l d need to be tack led . Such rad ica l measures have also been success­f u l l y ' implemented i n the c o m m u ­nis t countries. ( A l l t h a t i s impl ied In ca l l i ng t hem 'successful' i s t h a t the organiza t iona l change was effected.) In these countries, the m a i n reliance was on Communis t P a r t y cadres. I t i s for our consi­de ra t ion whether we, in I n d i a , w o u l d l i k e to use the ins t rument of p a r t y cadres fo r th i s purpose, t a k i n g i n t o considerat ion a l l i t s

po l i t i ca l impl ica t ions . As i t is, even the pa r ty in power cannot c la im to have in readiness such a wel l - t ra ined cadre of pol i t ica l workers w i t h the necessary ideo logical convic t ion and organiza t ional discipline.

'Firm and Plant Approach' The second point to wh ich I

wou ld l ike to refer is t ha t of defini t ion and concept of co-opera t ive f a r m i n g . The Nagpur Resolu­t ion definitely postulates "pool ing o f l and for j o i n t c u l t i v a t i o n " . Presumably, w h a t is impl ied by 'pool ing and j o i n t cu l t i va t i on ' is the merg ing o f a l l l and to const i tute one single f a r m . At a Seminar on Co-operat ive F a r m i n g , organised by the I n d i a n Society of A g r i c u l ­t u r a l Economics, this question was very t hough t fu l l y discussed. P r o ­fessor D R Gadgl l , w i t h his usual incisive logic, contended t ha t pool ing of l and and j o i n t cu l t i va t i on is a ma t t e r of secondary decision. He recommended w h a t may be called, a ' F i r m and P lan t Approach ' . This w o u l d i m p l y t h a t a l l i m p o r t a n t decisions w o u l d be t aken by the firm, i e, the general body of the co-operative. Th i s body wou ld have the freedom and the au tho r i t y to determine, among other things, the farm-size pa t te rn . I t may decide to pool a l l the l and or m a y prefer to ar range i t in separate blocks as Indicated by agronomic condit ions.

Whether the cu l t i va t i on is j o i n t or not, the i m p o r t a n t point is t ha t co-operat ive f a r m i n g would imp ly t ransfer of decision m a k i n g autho­r i t y ( r i g h t ) i n r egard t o a l l i m p o r t a n t mat te rs f r o m the i nd iv idua l to the collective body of a l l cu l t iva tors . The degree of au tonomy w h i c h is permi t ted by the co-operative ( f i r m ) to i ts const i tuent uni t s ( f a r m s / p lants ) is a question of p ragmat ic decision and need not be deter m i n e d in advance on a p r i o r i ideo­logica l grounds. Pool ing of l and and j o i n t cu l t i va t ion need not, so to say, be w r i t t e n in the cons t i tu t ion of the co-operat ive. One s ignif icant advantage of such a modif ica t ion w o u l d be to m a k e the conf l ic t ing views about the economies of scale

319

I r re levant in deciding on the mer i t s Of co-operative f a r m i n g . The co­operative w o u l d be free to adopt intensive f a rming , if such a pat tern appeared to be advantageous.

Small or Large Farms? The mer i t of an ag ra r i an pat tern

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. W h i c h of these two, or how much of each, the co operative j o i n t f a r m i n g w i l l serve, needs to be examined. The economic efficien cy of agr icul ture can be judged by p roduc t iv i ty and marke tab le surplus. Since the Resolution suggests tha t l and w i l l be pooled for j o in t cu l t iva t ion , i t would appear tha t the expectat ion is tha t co-operative f a r m i n g w i l l help in securing the economies of scale. D u r i n g the debate on the Resolution, several speakers had ment ioned t ha t I n d i a n agr icu l ture suffered f r o m the exis tence of too m a n y t i n y and scat tered holdings and tha t one could not expect improvement in produc­t ion under such circumstances. A point wh ich needs emphasis here is the d i s t inc t ion between the per-acre product ion and p roduc t iv i ty in the input-output sense. In so far as production per acre is con­cerned, i t is not at a l l proved tha t smal l f a rms are infer ior . The da ta avai lable f rom the f a r m manage­ment surveys, w h i c h were recently conducted under t he R P C , indicate tha t for food crops, at any rate, the per acre yie ld on the smal l f a r m is larger t h a n that on the bigger farms.

Th i s is the posit ion under the present set up. It is we l l -known t h a t sma l l farmers suffer f rom m a n y handicaps in the ma t t e r of supply of credit as wel l as supply of seeds, manure, etc. Some of these could be overcome th rough service co-operatives, wi thout neces­sa r i ly a n y change in the size of the un i t . In compar ing the relat ive mer i t s of the small and the large-sized farms, or ind iv idua l and co­operative f a rming , It is but fa i r to assume the existence of the same favourable (or unfavourable) situa-

Co-operative Farming Wil l It Augment Marketable Surplus ?

M L Dantwala

February 28, 1959

t i o n in r egard to a n c i l l a r y services. On the whole, i t w o u l d therefore appear tha t in the m a t t e r of yield per acre, at any rate , the larger f a rms do not have any definite advantage. Here is one more reason why , as suggested earlier, it is not necessary to decide in advance tha t co-operative f a r m i n g wou ld necessarily i m p l y pool ing of l a n d for purposes of Joint cu l t i va ­t i o n . A decision in th is mat te r m a y be left to the panchayat or the co-operative w h i c h w i l l decide in the l igh t of the condit ions in the i r own vi l lage.

Man - Land Ratio As for p roduc t iv i t y w h i c h would

determine the r e tu rn (income) to labour, this wou ld depend m a i n l y on the man- land r a t i o as i t would emerge after pool ing of a l l the resources. I f , a long w i t h the pool ing of land, a l l the exis t ing cu l t iva tors and a few more of l and­less labourers are accommodated on the co-operative f a rm , there w i l l be no improvement - a n d there m a y be even some de ter iora t ion - ' i n the new man- l and ra t io , and th is w i l l have a depressing effect on the r e t u r n w h i c h workers on the co-operative f a r m w i l l re­ceive. In th is connection, i t i s a rgued tha t do ing a w a y w i t h i nd i ­v i d u a l ownership and pool ing of a l l resources wou ld open up possi­bi l i t ies of u n d e r t a k i n g develop­men ta l a c t i v i t y — such as soil conservat ion, level l ing, bunding, layout of field channels etc w h i c h has to contend against numerous obstacles under the ex i s t ing s i tua-t ion , and thereby enlarge the scope for productive employment w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector i tself .

Fur ther , co-operative f a r m i n g w i l l f ac i l i t a te the release o f surplus labour o f i nd iv idua l fa rmers who, under the ex is t ing condit ions, are t ied down to the i r smal l un i t s ; and though unemployed over considera­ble periods, are often not avai lable fo r a l ternate employment . Thus, co-operative f a r m i n g opens up, on the one hand, opportuni t ies for developmental w o r k i n agr icul ture , and, on the other, also makes the disguised surplus labour avai lable for a l ternate employment . I t should however be clearly recognised that , even w i t h the addi t ion of develop­menta l act ivi t ies , if a large number of landless labourers are accom­modated on the co-operative f a r m , the average Income of the members

m a y be less, t h o u g h more equal, t h a n t h a t o f the i n d i v i d u a l fa rmers a t present. I f , on the other hand, the co-operative f a r m w o u l d insist , as i t may, on t a k i n g up o n l y an o p t i m u m q u a n t u m of labour force, i t w i l l be mere ly conve r t ing the disguised unemployment in to open unemployment and t r a n s f e r r i n g the responsibi l i ty of i t s ga in fu l absorp­t i on on some one else.

Mobilising the Surplus Anothe r i m p o r t a n t objective which

the planners wou ld l i k e to achieve th rough co-operative f a r m i n g i s mobi l i za t ion of surplus bo th fo r the purposes of re investment (capi ta l f o r m a t i o n ) a n d for m a i n ­t a i n i n g an adequate supply fo r urban consumption. The impor­tance of reasonably stable prices of foodgrains to the developmen­t a l efforts of the coun t ry is univer­sally recognised, a n d success in this f ie ld w i l l depend as m u c h on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of marke tab le surplus as on product ion. I t w o u l d therefore be per t inent to enquire whether co-operative f a r m i n g as a f o r m of product ion w o u l d be a more sui table ins t rument fo r mobi l i za ­t ion of the surplus. Other th ings being equal, i t is obvious t h a t purely f r o m the point o f v iew of admin i s ­t r a t i v e ar rangement , i t w i l l b e easier to collect the surplus f r o m the fewer, organised uni ts of pro­duc t ion such as a co-operative f a r m t h a n i t wou ld b e i f i t were t o be collected f r o m a large number of sma l l and scattered fa rms . I n fact , one of the m a i n a t t r ac t ions of the co-operative (collective) f a r m i n g s t ructure in the communis t coun­tries was this f a c i l i t y fo r m o b i l i ­zat ion of the surplus w h i c h th is type of o rganisa t ion offers.

The Machine T r a c t o r Stat ions wh ich were, so to say, the com­munis t vers ion of service co-opera­tives, per formed th is func t ion . B u t i t should be emphasised t h a t th is advantage could accrue m a i n l y because (a) payments fo r services rendered by the M T S were p r i o r charge on the produce, a n d (b) o f the system of compulsory de l i ­veries of produce of r e l a t ive ly l o w prices. In the absence of these t w o coercive devices, i t is doubt fu l whether the co-operative f a rms in I n d i a w o u l d fac i l i t a te mobi l i za t ion of surplus.

Higher Retention Probable I t i s even probable t h a t the out­

come m a y be cu r t a i lmen t of the

330

surplus. The concern w i t h social just ice and the objective of i m p r o v ­i n g the l i v i n g s t andard o f the c u l t i ­vators , associated w i t h the proposal, w o u l d i m p l y h igher r u r a l consump­t i o n t h a n a t present a n d correspond­i n g l y smal le r marke t ab l e surplus. This wou ld be p a r t i c u l a r l y so, i f , by accommodat ing the landless labourers and other under-employed persons in the v i l lage on the co­operative f a r m , the state i m p l i c i t l y underwri tes adequate subsistence to the ent i re f a r m i n g populat ion, irrespective of whether ' or no t enough product ive employment is avai lable on the f a r m .

At present, even a subsistence f a r m , to the extent of i ts +require­ment fo r cash, has to release a por t ion of i ts produce fo r the marke t . The par t ic ipants on the co-operative f a r m , however, w o u l d be f u l l y jus t i f ied in the i r c la im to r e t a in as much of the produce of the f a r m as w o u l d be needed for m a i n t a i n i n g an improved s tandard o f l i v i n g . A n d un l i ke the com­munis t state, the Government here w i l l not , and mus t not, dare t o collect any t h i n g f r o m the co­operat ive f a rms , fo r such an a t t empt w o u l d be made to appear as exploi ta t ive a n d responsible f o r m a i n t a i n i n g a l ow level of l i v i n g of the ag r i cu l tu r i s t , or p reven t ing i ts con t inu ing Improvement .

Under the present system, taxes — apar t f r o m rent and interest -are the f irst charge on the farmer ' s produce. Under state-sponsored co­operat ive f a r m i n g , a decent level o f l i v i n g fo r the f a r m e r w o u l d be the first charge. W h i l e such a change would be desirable, i t w o u l d not augment the marke tab le surplus.

Programmes for Special Area' FOR areas deserving special t rea t ­

men t and emphasis i n d i v i d u a l programmes of development are needed. No u n i f o r m pa t t e rn can he equally effective in the whole count ry .

There are problems peculiar to different areas, e g, desert a n d d r y areas, coastal areas, h i l l y areas, t r i ­ba l areas, a n d areas a round cities a n d b i g towns.

To help fo rmu la t i on of such i n d i ­v idua l programmes the M i n i s t r y o f C o m m u n i t y Development a n d Co­operat ion has sent deta i led sugges­t ions to the State Governments . Dif ferent contents of the p rog ramme under various developmental heads suited to the various areas have been suggested.

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY February 28, 1959

321

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY February 28, 1959

326