THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY August 5, 1961

Agricul tural Economic Theory and the Indian Economy by J R Be l le rby and N A M u j u m d a r , Bombay , V o r a and Co, 1961, Pp 158, Rs 7,50.

The Cooperative Movemen t in India by E M H o u g h , rev ised by K Madhava Das, f o u r t h ed i t ion , Bombay , O U P, 1959. Pp x x x , 493, Rs 20. The same, abr idged, 1960. Pp x v , 240, Rs 4.

Agricultural Market ing in India and Abroad by R S Sr i vas tava , Bombay , V o r a and Co, I 9 6 0 . Pp 243, Rs 12.50.

Farmers of India, Vo l I , Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir by M S Rand-h a w a a n d P r e m N a t h , N e w De lh i , I n d i a n Counc i l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Research, 1959.

IT i s sad that the group o f books under review here is a poor lot.

The absence of good l i terature on the subject should not j us t i f y the publ ishers in sett ing these books before the pub l i c in their present f o r m , a l though thorough revisions of the last two could tu rn them in­to good books. Y o u r reviewer w i l l start w i t h the poorest book and c l imb the ladder to the on ly good one.

the reputat ion of Messrs Bel lerby and M u j u m d a r have wr i t ten and publ ished this book. It is a bad book — bad because the authors ventured into moral ph i losophy where they reveal their lack of ex­pertise, and into matters of rura l reconstruct ion about wh ich there is already a far more sophisticated l i terature.

The f i rst chapter on " A g r i c u l t u ­ra l Economic Theory and Po l i cy " — o r i g i n a l l y publ ished in the Ind ian Journal of Ag r i cu l tu ra l Economies — is a good essay, a wor thwh i le cont r ibu t ion to the l i terature on ' 'economic d u a l i s m " . Thereafter the book deteriorates. Imp l i c i t in the argument is the assumption that soon I n d i a w i l l face the pro­blem of what to do w i t h its i n ­creasing weal th and leisure, and th is premise, combined w i t h a naive view of phi losophy and human at t i ­tudes and ' inst i tut ions leads them u l t ima te ly to the statement on p 143 :

" T h e f i rs t stage in the p ro­g ramme ( f i r i n g imaginat ion and causing a widespread movement towards forms of l i f e wh i ch a l low of conscious f u l f i lmen t ) m igh t be to inv i te a Committee of I n d i a n Phi losophers to suggest an answer to the quest ion:

T h r o u g h what fo rms of econo­mic and spare t ime act iv i ty and contemplat ion can the Ind ian people in town and count ry be­come most comprehensively f u l ­f i l led and be aware of i t ? " Th is passage occurs amidst quo­

tat ions f rom Vice President Radha-kr ishnan, pleas for " a m a t e u r i s m " as a means of fu l f i lment , and heavy r i d i ng of the authors' hobby horse — arousing ru ra l Ind ia through

radios in each v i l lage.

The earlier pa r t of the book contains much less secular reviva­l i sm, but betrays an ignorance of the l i terature on ru ra l develop­ment in Ind ia . Chapter VI out­lines a scheme of "s tandard target f o r m s " f o r agr icu l tu re and lists e ight ways to get the target forms accepted. These eight steps (p 100) are a good length behind normal techniques of extension work in the i r sophis t ica t ion; but sadder s t i l l is the absence of any indica­t ion that the authors are aware of the problems of extension work in r u ra l Ind ia , as revealed in the P E 0 reports: and the independent evaluations of Communi ty Projects by Dube, Coldwel l , and the Bal-wantra i Committee. Act ion and analysis are eight years past the need for pleas- for recogni t ion of the prob lem or schemes which do not allot duties and suggest, very specific techniques for an already func t ion ing departmenta l h ierarchy.

Wh i le the chapters on the agr i ­cu l tura l s i tuat ion, the popula t ion prob lem, and admin is t ra t ion are not bad, they are outdated and add no th ing to common knowledge. One might read — and assign to students — Chapter I, but should stop there.

Th is reviewer has f requent ly been embarrassed by the tendency of

1259

his fe l low-Amer icans to draw up schemes for the total reconstruct ion and development of the Ind ian eco­nomy and Ind ian society. Now that they have been jo ined by an Engl ishman and an Ind ian his blushes need be less scarlet.

For some reason—perhaps because Ind ia is being newly discovered by Western economists, perhaps, be­cause there are economists in the P lann ing Commission, perhaps be­cause fore ign economists are treated w i t h such courtesy, very l i ke ly because there is so much ignorance of Ind ian history and society — Ind ia has become a k ind of play­th ing fo r academicians, so that advice is given not merely on mat­ters in wh ich the adviser is techni­cal ly competent, but on the whole tone and structure of society. Th is k i n d of advice wou ld never be given to governments or organisa­tions in the fore ign economist's home country, but is given freely and unselfconsciously to I n d i a . Agricultural Economic Theory and the Indian Economy is one of the worst examples of this genre.

N o t Good Enough

Madhava Das's revis ion of E M Hough's book and its abr idged edi­t i on fa i l to be any th ing , which is a p i t y since Eleanor Hough's o r ig ina l ed i t ion was a useful and wor thwhi le venture at the t ime. The book has now grown by accretion w i thout selection. The books could be an encyclopedia of co-operatives, but are not, .Alternatively, they could be a history or a compara­t ive analysis of co-operation in the dif ferent States, but are not. Rather they are an agglomerat ion of mis­cellaneous facts.

A book needs a theme, the focus of a clear question. Neither the

Review Article

Some Recent Books on Indian Agriculture Walter C Neale

A Sad Mistake

I t is too bad that economists of

August 5, 1961 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

l a r g e nor the abridged version ( w h i c h fo l lows the larger wo rk very closely) has a u n i f y i n g ques­t ion . The fact that a l l facts smen­t ioned do have to do w i t h co-opera­t ion does not kn i t the w o r k toge­ther. The books are not readable ei ther because so many figures are used: a reader can absorb only a few f igures f r o m the tex t . I f many are presented, they should appear in tabular f o r m , b u t in the abr idged version (p 75) 16 f igures appear, not i nc lud ing dates. There is cer­ta in l y need fo r an analysis of where and how and why co-opera-lives have g rown or fa i led in I nd ia , and about tested measures to en­courage them, but we st i l l wa i l for i t .

As an encyclopedia, i t is not use­f u l since most of the data refers to the years 194748 and 1956-57. I f f igures fo r later years are not avai lable (a l though the abr idged version came out a year l a te r ) , at least the mater ia l f o r the interven­i n g years could be pub l ished in tabular f o r m .

Unapplied Economics

Shr i Srivastava's book misses be ing good by fa i l i ng to use analy­sis (and commonsense) in app ly ing economic theory and a large body of comparat ive mater ia l to market­ing in Ind ia . Professors Ashby and Raeburn, quoted on the f ly- leaf , have given the work a strong re­commendat ion, and it is a good thesis. But what is needed to show grow ing competence as an econo­mist does not constitute a publ ish-able book. The obvious topics are taken chapter by chapter, and w i th ­in each chapter there are resumes of the experiences of I nd ia and other countr ies, usual ly the U S, Canada, U K and Sweden.

Wha t more is wanted? An ana­lysis of w h i c h fo re ign experiences are relevant to I nd ia and why . Only when such an analysis is made can one recommend — not a necessary element in scienti f ic work—because one can recommend on l y after establ ishing a strong expectat ion that the suggested pol ic ies w i l l have the hoped f o r effects. I t is the absence of this element wh ich hur ts the book : a thorough r e w r i t i n g to t ie the comparat ive mater ials to analysis wou ld make Shr i Srivas­tava's vo lume a usefu l , perhaps the leading work , on I nd ian marke t ing .

Fur thermore , Srivastava's book i l lustrates how some att i tudes have become hab i tua l . On page 123 we are to ld that paddy losses d u r i n g storage are 1 per cent, wheat losses 3 per cent, and that "losses in the case of perishable crops are even more s tagger ing" . But what is " s tagger ing " about losses of 1 or 3 or even 5 per cent? Wha t are com­parable losses elsewhere? A g a i n , same page: "Damage by 'weevils and other pests is also enormous. No comprehensive estimate fo r these losses is ava i lab le" . Commonsense asks the quest ion : how does Srivas-tava know they are "enormous" i f they are unmeasured? ( I take i t that is what he means by the lack of a comprehensive est imate). A n d how large is "enormous"? Th is k i n d of w r i t i n g is not analysis but merely an expression of common, unthought-out att i tudes.

On pages 127-29 Srivastava pleads fo r more cold storage fac i l i ­ties, a rgu ing that w i thou t them 15 to 20 per cent of f r u i t and veget­able crops are now spoi led. There is, however, no economic analysis of the issue raised. Wha t is the value of the spoiled c rop? W h a t is the cost of cold storage fo r the crop? A n d here, of course, one means the costs, given the size of marketed lota, d is t r ibu t ion of out­put over the countryside, and the t ransport network. I t seems not un l i ke ly to this reviewer that there is l i t t le cold storage because it is uneconomic, and l i ke ly that grains are " p o o r l y " stored because it is not wor thwh i le to rat and weevi l proof small godowns. A proper study of ag r i cu l t u ra l market ing wou ld analyse the actual costs and benefits in I nd ia and neither assume nor assert them.

As of ten occurs in economics books recommending po l icy , no attention is pa id to the problems of admin is t ra t ion and technical competence. Granted that g rad ing wou ld be benef ic ia l , how does one recru i t a n d / o r t r a i n the personnel? A n d once employed, how does one keep the graders honest? A f te r a l l , the present arthiyas do grade when they b u y : the prob lem is that thei r g rad ing is suspect, perhaps dishonest, cer ta in ly not u n i f o r m . W o u l d , f o r instance, graders at Rs 100 per mon th be bet ter? I f the answer is yes, then how and w h y ? On these and s im i la r questions Srivastava has noth ing to say.

The Wrong Book by the Bight M a n

The vo lume by M S Randhawa and Prem Nath is the f irst in a series designed to "promotes better understanding of the problems of the farmers of var ious States" since " the need of a book which could give i n f o r m a t i o n about the cl imate, soils, crops, the f a rm ing communi t ies, their vi l lages and homes and the i r cu l ture was badly f e l t " (p 9 ) . As those who make a profession of wo r r y i ng about I n d i a n agr icu l tu re know, the pur­pose is a d m i r a b l e ; the need clear. The quest ion, then, is whether Messrs M S Randhawa and Prem Na th of the I C A R have produced a book wh ich persuades us that the series w i l l f u l f i l its purpose. The answer is "perhaps, but p robab ly not.'"

For each of the States described — t h i s volume is rea l ly three books on three States, bound in one set of covers — the authors at tempt to describe the geology, soils and cl imate, then the crops and f a r m ­ing practices, and last ly the far­mers and their v i l lages. The authors are better on the geology and b io logy of agr icu l ture than on the sociology, where they are weak indeed.

The strength of the book is in descr ip t ion ; the weakness, in i n ­terpre ta t ion . The lists of crops, rotat ions and practices in regard to p lough ing , weeding, i r r i ga t i on are in fo rmat i ve and i f the succeed­ing books follow a common design we should be able to compare one State w i t h another. A reader who knew the agr icu l ture of another State but not Pun jab would f ind points of comparat ive interest wi thout d i f f i cu l ty ; the novice reader wou ld learn what Pun jab farmers grow, when, and to some extent how and why . A n d reader, too, could learn how the vi l lages and houses are laid-out. the look of the room in wh ich the farmers l ive and of the clothes in wh ich they dress. But if one asks more of the book, there w i l l be dis­appoin tment , and there are diffi­cult ies even in the descript ive passages.

Y o u r reviewer is an alien econo­mist turned specialist in Indian agr icu l ture , w i t h def ini te, horren-toua gaps in his agronomic know­ledge. To such a person a couple of chemical formulas are un in for -

1261

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY August 5, 1961

August 5, 1961 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

mative, and one suspects too superf ic ia l f o r the soil specialist. On another level of assumption, the Engl ish equivalents of names of implements used in the mountains are g iven, but not of those used in the p la ins. Yet would a reader f r om Bengal or Madras be l i ke ly to know the equivalents of Pun jab i terms ?

Shr i Randhawa wrote a book on " Commun i t y Projects in Pun jab " ' f ive years ago. When your reviewer read it he felt that it was not a hook about Communi ty Projects in Pun jab , but rather about agr icu l ­ture in Pun jab and how to im­prove i t . That book was more in fo rmat ive than the present one and covered much of the same mater ia l , but suffered as does this one f r om an absence of knowledge of social analysis.

The impor tan t questions raised by vi l lage layout and style of housing are " w h y is i t la id out th is w a y " and "what effect does this lay-out have on social re lat ion­ships, on cast h ierarchy, on the d is t r ibu t ion of power w i t h i n the v i l lage ? To these questions. Messrs Randhawa and Nath give no answers.

They also treat 'cu l ture ' in the spi r i t of a travelogue — pret ty em­bro idery and lovely songs. A strong element of pastoral romant i ­cism pervades the discussion of cu l ture, and perhaps as a conse­quence there is no presentation of the ideas of the people —at t i tudes, prejudices, a ims, fears. The reader does not f ind out what the farmers are l ike, much less why they are that way. When a man who knows Pun jab as well as Shr i Randhawa does fa i l here, one wonders i f i t is because no one knows the ans­wers. A l ternat ive ly , one wonders i f it is the usual, rather sad case of a man of in t imate knowledge ap­proach ing a subject w i thou t the necessary tools.

The sociological naivette is espe­cial ly marked on pp 97-98 where one is given the classic Jat descrip­t ion of Jats : " f inest of the Pun jab peasantry . . . I n physique they are in fe r io r to no race of peasants . . . handsome features . . . f ruga l and industr ious. Though not i n ­t e l l e c t u a l , they have considerable shrewdness . , unusual indepen­dence of character . . , l i t ig ious . . , natural stubborness. . , . but honest, indust r ious and enterpr i ­

s ing . . ." Th is is fo l lowed by a quotat ion (w i thou t c i tat ion of so­urce) f r om D a r l i n g in the same vein, a l though Da r l i ng does call the Amr i tsar Jat "spend th r i f t and violent1 ' . But nowhere is it men­t ioned that the Jat is the hardest d r i n k i n g peasant in Ind ia , W h y ? Is this less relevant than the other characterist ics to ' an understanding of the men ? A n d is any of this — t h r i f t , thr i f t lessness handsome­ness, industriousness, drunkenness

more than a compendium of the prejudices of pro and ant i - ja ts ? K i p l i n g ' s Ind ia apparent ly lives on at the I C A R.

F ina l l y , there is evidence that this is a "cut-and-paste j o b " . On p 139 one finds the statement that j o w a r "as human food is confined to the southern distr icts, and that, too, in the winter months'". Twice before this same statement has ir­r i tated your reviewer because the same in fo rma t ion w i l l suppor t the remark that "in the southern dis­tr icts jowar is one of the two staples, ma in ta in ing the cu l t iva tor fo r hal f h is l i f e " . Since Shr i

Randhawa has been author of th is sentence twice before, i t is at least his. However, th is cannot be said fo r l i f t i ng passages f r o m the ear ly Sett lement Report fo r Rohtak Dis t r ic t .

As your reviewer reads over the last few paragraphs he feels he has been vic ious, and is sorry to be so. Had the authors restr icted themselves to f a r m i n g , at the ex­p lanat ion at wh ich they are indeed good, this would have been a fa­vourable review.

It is sad to review a group of books and find so l i t t le pleasant to say about them. Had Shr i Srivas-lava attempted to relate the p r i n ­ciples of marke t ing — especially a cost-benefit analysis and an analy­sis of the admin is t ra t ive problems — a n d the experience of other countr ies to I nd i an problems in more detai l than he has; i f Messrs Randhawa and Prem Nath used more sociological sophist ica­t ion or restricted themselves to " f a r m i n g i n " rather than " fa rmers o f " Ind ia , then we wou ld have two good books.

1262