Home » Articles » Absolute Ground Rent, Metabolic Alienation and Green Imperialism

Absolute Ground Rent, Metabolic Alienation and Green Imperialism

Shubhra Ketan Basu



The focal point of this writing is to discuss the contradictions in agriculture with special reference to India, in the light of two revolutionary discoveries of Marx i.e. absolute ground rent and metabolic alienation, which we think are still relevant for this purpose. We hope that it will help us to realize the complexity of contradictions prevailing in agriculture.


Absolute ground rent and its relation with the composition of capital (C/V ratio):


In the 6th chapter of the 3rd volume of Capital Marx discussed about the mode of conversion of surplus profit into the ground rent. The properties, characteristics, and different aspects of differential and absolute ground rent are elaborately stated there. Here we shall discuss the matter very briefly with special emphasis on the relation between the composition of agricultural capital and absolute ground rent. The learned reader should go through the original text to assess whether our inference is compatible with Marxඩew or not.


Let us assume that cultivation is done in four kinds of land, i.e., A, B, C, &D. According to fertility, infrastructure, and position the worst type is A. B is better than A, C is better than B and the best one is D. For cultivating the unit area of these four types of land, let us assume that the same amount of capital â ©s invested. Let us assume that the crop produce from the unit area of those four types of land are W, X, Y, &Z respectively. Naturally Z>Y>X>W. Let us assume that the market price of these W, X, Y, & Z quantity of crops are w, x, y, & z ; let us assume that â ©s 120% of the invested capital â ©.e. 120a/100 = wï² 6a/5 = w. If capital is ready to be invested for 20% profit and if it can be invested freely, then according to market price A type of land will produce no surplus profit. If only surplus profit is converted into ground rent, then A type of land will produce no ground rent. In case of B type of land the selling price of crop produced per unit area is â ¡nd x>w, thus x>6a/5, i.e. in B type of land invested capital â ·ill produce more than 20% profit. So (x-w) is the surplus profit which is converted into the ground rent and goes into the pocket of the landowner. In the same way it can be said that the surplus profit or ground rent produced from C type of land will be (y-w) and from D type of land (z-w).é´ is important to note that the surplus profit is grabbed by the landlord and not by the capitalist, because the landlord has monopoly right over the land, and it is a pre-capitalist right. Whether a capitalist will be able to invest on a piece of land or not depends solely upon the will of the landlord. Now if the location and infrastructure of a piece of land remain unchanged but its fertility is decreased, then to achieve the same amount of crop from unit area of B, C, or D type of land, an increase in investment is necessary. Let us assume, in this case, the increased investment will be â ‘cᮤ⠲espectively. If the 20% rate of profit is to be maintained the value of â ‘cæ¡­p; â £an be increased up to that extent when 6b/5 = x, 6c/5 = y, and 6d/5 = z. But then there will be no surplus profit. If investment is not increased, the product of B, C, & D, type of land will be decreased and thus the price of crop may rise. But then more area of Aï³°an> type of land, which is more infertile than even A type of land, may come under cultivation; or due to development of infrastructure A type of land may be converted into B, C, or D type of land. In such a process or for importing crops from foreign countries the price of crop may remain same or increased slightly. Then due to decreasing fertility, so long as B, C, or D type of land will be able to produce crop priced â ¯n investment of capital ⬠20% profit is possible. But in such case no surplus profit is produced, hence no ground rent. So it can be said if fertility is decreased, ground rent will be decreased; the income of landlord due to his pre-capitalist right will be decreased.


Now let us assume in the unit area of A type of land ⠣apital is invested. Thus W quantity of crop is produced whose market price is ⠡nd 6a/5 = w, i.e. rate of profit is 20% and there is no surplus profit. Naturally there is no question of conversion of surplus profit into ground rent. In such condition, does the landlord allow the capitalist farmer to invest in his land free of ground rent? Definitely not. Then if ground rent has to be paid for cultivation, what will be its source? As we have already seen in this condition there is no surplus profit. If㡰italist mode of production prevails then capital investor will definitely not pay rent from that 20% profit, in that case he will not invest in agriculture but some other place, because socially determined rate of profit is 20% or above. By cutting wages rent cannot also be paid, because in capitalism labour market is also free. Then what is the source of the absolute ground rent i.e. the ground rent which is not coming from surplus profit? Marxॸplanation regarding this is given below in abridgement.


Generally the composition of capital invested in agriculture is lesser than that of the average social capital i.e. the ratio of its constant portion â µsed for the material conditions of labour, and variable portion â ·hich is used for wages, (C/V ratio) is lesser than that of average social capital. Thus the surplus value produced in agriculture is greater and in such case the value of the produce is greater than the price. It is the perpetual tendency of capital to bring about through competition the equalization in the distribution of total surplus value produced by the total social capital. Price of production arises from this equalization of the values of commodities. In this way the price of production of a commodity produced by the higher composition (higher C/V ratio) is greater than its value and the reverse will occur in case of commodity produced by the capital of lower composition (lower C/V ratio). The entire matter can be made clearer with the following example. Let us assume there are two industries A & B. In A constant capital is Ca = 85 and variable capital Va = 15 and in B constant capital Cb = 75 and variable capital Vb = 25. If the rate of surplus value produced is 100% in both cases, then in case of A total value produced will be 115 and in B 125. But because the quantity of total social capital is 200 and total surplus value produced is 40, then in respect to the total social capital the rate of surplus value is 20%. In this way the socially determined rate of profit will be 20%. Thus in both A & B the price of production will be 120. So it is seen that in case of A price of production ( i.e. 120 ) is higher than the value ( i.e. 115 ) and in case of B price of production ( i.e.120 ) is less than the value ( i.e. 125 ) . But this type of situation can only occur when free capitalist competition exists. In case of agriculture the landlord has monopoly right over land, and capital can only be invested in the land according to the will of the landlord. Without rent the landlord does not allow the capitalist farmer to cultivate land. In that case if the capitalist farmer fails to sell the commodity produced through agriculture at a price above the price of production he will not be able to pay rent. Because the composition of capital invested in agriculture is less than that of average social capital, the value of agricultural commodities is greater than that of its price of production, so agricultural commodities can be sold at higher price than its price of production. Let us assume the total capital invested in agriculture is K (whose composition is less than average social capital). The profit determined by the equalization of total surplus value produced by total social capital is P. Then price of production is = K+P. Since the composition of capital invested here is lesser than that of social capital, the value of commodity is greater than the price of production. Let us assume its value is = K+P+d. (d stands for extra surplus value above the price of production). Since the landlord has monopoly right over land and he does not allow the capitalist farmer to cultivate land without rent, the capitalist farmer has to sell agricultural commodity at a price above the price of production for paying the rent. Let us assume the capitalist farmer sells agricultural commodity at a price which is= K+P+r .


Now whether the entire amount of extra surplus value will be grabbed by the landlord in the form of ground rent or a portion of it will be distributed through the process of equalization, depends upon the demand and supply. Thus we can say r < d or r = d/x when x > 1.


On the basis of this theory it can be said that if the composition of capital (i.e. C/V ratio) in agriculture increases and for that when d/x < r (x > 1), then ground rent or income of the landlord through pre-capitalist monopoly right will decrease. And if composition of capital becomes equal to that of average social capital then absolute ground rent will disappear. In Marx௷n language 漯span> the average composition of agricultural capital were equal to, or higher than, that of average social capital, then absolute ground rent ᧡in in the sense just described 篵ld disappear쯳pan>

In agriculture, increase in composition of capital erodes the pre-capitalist right.


Metabolic Alienation: Plants receive several elements like potassium (K) magnesium (Mg) molybdenum (Mo) zinc (Zn) etc. from the soil. Needless to say that the same is true for the crops also. Animals take plant as food and in this way those elements are transferred from plant to animal body; and in the same way from herbivorous to carnivorous animals. Those nutrient elements perform several vital roles in physiology. Through the decomposition of plant or animal dead body or excreta these elements come back into the soil again. Several bacteria and other organisms play a crucial role in this complex process of recycling.


If agricultural products are consumed at a place near by the site of production then the nutrient absorbed by it from the soil may return through the complex process of recycling mentioned above. But if it is consumed at a place, geographically distant from its site of production, the nutrient contained in it can never come back to the production field through the priceless natural process. Thus the fertility of soil becomes undone.


With the emergence of capitalism large number of peasants were uprooted from land and several rural artisans became jobless. A considerable portion of them gathered in the town as modern proletariat. Several large cities with monstrous industries and huge number of proletariat emerged vis-à­¶is capitalist development; simultaneously a demand for agricultural product (mainly foods & clothes) highly increased in cities and to meet with that a large quantity of agricultural product started coming from the country to the towns. Thus soil of the country gradually became deficit with nutrient and the problem of decreasing soil fertility became prominent. During the emergence of capitalism several countries had to face these problems. To maintain soil fertility huge amount of fertilizer application started. Import of fertilizer increased several times. In those days practice of chemical fertilizer application was not so extensive. Generally animal excreta, bones etc. were used as fertilizer. In the year 1823 Britain imported bones valued 14,400 Sterling Pound and in the year 1837 import shot up to 2,54,600 Sterling Pound.(1) The same story we found in the USA. In the year 1835 the USA for the first time imported Peruvian Guano (dried faeces of marine birds). In 1841 she imported 1700 tons of Guano and in 1847 it sprang up to 2,20,000 tons.(2) A desperate attempt was made to combat the fertility problem which solely evolved due to the commoditization of agricultural produce. In the year 1865 Guano Island Act was passed in the US Congress and American capitalists captured 94 Guano islands by sending fleet. But when these expeditions in search of fertilizer were going on, the huge excrement of human beings and animals in large cities created nothing but pollution.


In the year 1842 Lawes invented soluble phosphate or super phosphate which is absorbable to plant. Super phosphate factories were established in 1843 and its massive application in agricultural field started, bringing good result. But this chemical fertilizer fails to maintain soil fertility for a considerable time, because super phosphate can only supply phosphorus to soil and plants absorb more than 15 elements from soil to run its physiological processes. If there is deficiency of any one of these nutrients in the soil, it produces ill effect on plant physiology, no matter whether other elements are sufficiently present or not. In 1913 Haber invented technique applicable for production of nitrogenous fertilizer and huge production of nitrogenous fertilizer started. But for the reason mentioned above nitrogenous fertilizers also fail to keep soil fertility for a considerable time. In capitalist agriculture maintenance of soil fertility is still a burning problem. To combat it, magnificent researches on soil chemistry were done with the aid of the money of the capitalists and the states run by them; several different types of fertilizers were invented, but problem of declining soil fertility still remained. Actually speaking it is not at all a technical problem. In the mode of production where huge quantity of agricultural produce and nutrients contained in it are transferred from the field of production to distant places, maintenance of soil fertility there is like a long lasting battle. Fertilizer is not the answer. On the contrary the effect of it abolishes several soil organism which plays crucial role in recycling process, making the situation more complex.


It was expressed in the analysis by Karl Marx that the problem of soil fertility is not a mere technical problem but the problem of a specific mode of production. Jestus Von Leibig the great chemist, contemporary to Marx, first explained scientifically the process of nutrient absorption by plant from the soil, in his famous book⧡nic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiologyï³°an> in the year 1840. Marx was deeply familiar with this research work. Leibigಥsearch made an end of old idealist concept regarding soil, that soil has immortal and eternal power. Leibig proved that due to over exploitation, soil fertility may be ruined. According to Leibigଡw of minimum overall soil fertility, it is always limited by the nutrient in least abundance. Thus application of one or two nutrient like phosphate or nitrate cannot maintain the fertility. Leibig criticized that Great Britain robs all countries of the condition of fertility. On that basis Marx said in the first volume of Capital, and has indirectly exported the soil of Ireland, without even allowing its cultivators the means for replacing the constituents of the exhausted soilï³°an>. In the first volume of Capital Marx clearly stated that á°©talist production collects the population together in great centers, and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance. This has two results. On the one handé´ concentrates the historical motive force of society, on the other hand, it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e. it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil âµ´ by destroying the circumstances surrounding that metabolismså®¬à ©t compels its systematic restoration as a regulative law of social production, and in a form adequate to the full development of human race ï³°an>.ë��ll progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress toward ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertilityã¡°italist production, therefore, only develops the technique and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original source of all wealth – the soil and the worker.쯳pan>The Industrial proletariats are not only alienated from means of production but from nature also. This alienation was reflected in Marxà©®tellect as metabolic (in German stoffwechsel) alienation. If these impassable differences between town and country prevails, there is no way to overcome the problem. InAnti-Duhring Engels said ⯬ition of the antithesis between town and country is not merely possible. It has become a direct necessity of industrial production itself, just as it has become a necessity of agricultural production and, besides of public health. The present poisoning of the air and water and land can be put an end to only by the fusion of town and country; and only such fusion will change the situation of masses now languishing in the towns, and enable their excrement to be used for the production of plant instead of for the production of disease.ï³°an>

From the above discussion we may draw following three inferences.

1.ɦ natural soil fertility reduces and maintenance of soil fertility comes under control of capital, it undermines pre-capitalist right over soil.

2.ɮcreasing composition of agricultural capital abated pre-capitalist right over land.

3.Ô¨e unavoidable catastrophe of capitalist development in agriculture is the alienation of human being from nature.

Now let us have a glance at the Indian situation.


Indian perspective : Before entering into the discussion we would like to state some statistical information which is as follows:

1.Ʋom the year 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 the number of tractors sold all over India is 11, 88,735 and the number of power tillers sold is 75566. If we consider only the number of tractors that were sold in those five years, the net sown area per tractor comes to 119 hectares. A tractor can till 4-5 hectares land per day, so within one month the tractors that were sold in those 5 years can till the net sown area of the whole country. If we include the power tillers, the net sown area can be tilled in a shorter time.(3)

2.Ô¨e energy utilization in Indian agriculture is increasing. The 25%-30% of the total used electricity of the country is being utilized in agriculture.(4)

3.É® the year 1992 the total number of electric pumps and diesel pumps that were utilized in Indian agricultural field was 45774000 and 64035000 respectively.(5)

4.É® the year 1951-52 the total quantity of utilized chemical fertilizerà©® Indian agricultural field was 65600 MT and in the year 2002-03 it sprang up to 16094100 MT. The fertilizer application increased about 245.3 times in these years.(6)

5.É® the year 1992-93, 90.8% of the total wheat field and in the year 1993-94, 70% of the total paddy field in India, had the so called HYV seeds used in cultivation. At present the use of so called HYV seeds has increased more.(7)

6.Ô¨e area under irrigation is gradually increasing since 1951. In the year 1988-89, 78.1% of wheat field and 44.9% of paddy field came under irrigation.(8)

7.É® the year 1960, 2000 tons pesticide was used in Indian agricultural field, and in the year 1993-94 the quantity of applied pesticide became 90000 tons. At present in India 50 large and 450 small companies are engaged in pesticide production and it is an industry of Rs.1400 crore.(9)

8.É® the year 1992 India alone imported 8%,14% & 7% of total imported urea DAP and potash of the world. It is notable that India has to import the total quantity of potassium fertilizer, which is utilized in her agricultural field.(10)

9.É® the year 2002-2003 India exported agricultural product, the value of which was about US$6734 million.(11)

10.é® the year 2003-04 the total amount of institutional agricultural credit in India was Rs80000 crore.(12)

11.äµ²ing the year 2000-01 to 2003-04 the total number of distributed Krisan Credit Card was 413.79 lakhs, and the total amount of credit given through those cards is Rs.97710 crores.(13)

12.䨥 percentage of peasant and agricultural labour in respect of the total working people in India is 31.7 & 26.7 respectively.(14)


From the above information it can be easily inferred that a considerable amount of capital is invested in Indian agriculture. Now we shall discuss the state of metabolic alienation in India. According to the Census 2001, Indian urban population is 28, 53, 54,954. The average monthly consumption of different food items by urban people is given in the table-1. In the year 1999-2000 urban people of India consumed average 5.5Kg rice and 4.4Kg wheat per month. In 1999-2000 India produced rice and wheat a little more than the demand. So it can be assumed that the quantity of rice and wheat consumed by urban people in that year was produced in the agricultural field of this country. (If some food was imported at all, as production was greater than demand, surplus was either exported or stored and rotted in the godowns and in this way went far away from the production field). Several different elements contained in this huge amount of food grains were consumed by urban people. Among them we only produce a detailed account of potassium. Calculations regarding other elements may be made by the interested readers by her/himself, from the data given in the table 2, 3, 4 & 5. One of the reasons to confine our discussion only to potassium is that, this fertilizer is not at all produced in India. The entire quantity is imported. Potassium (K) contained per gm of rice and wheat are 1.16 mg and 3.86mg respectively. Thus per month every urban Indian consumed (5.5×1.16×1000) + (4.4×3.86×1000) =â³³64 mg Potassium i.e. 23364×12 = 280368 mg, say 280.4 gm Potassium per year. Through simple arithmetic it can be shown that, in one year (280.4×285354954)/1000×1000 = 80013.5 metric ton Potassium was transferred from Indian agricultural field to cities through rice and wheat only. The quantity is greater than even the total Potassium fertilizer utilized in the agricultural field of India in the year 1964-65 (i.e. 69300 MT). This Potassium will never come back to the agricultural field through normal natural process. If we consider the Potassium contained in exported food grains, food grains that were stored and rotted in Govt. godowns, the large quantity of fruits, vegetables, pulses, oilseeds, etc. which come from country to town, the quantity of Potassium that is departed from agricultural field will increase many times. The fate is the same for other elements absorbed by the crops from the field and exported to the town. This process impoverished the soil. From table 4, 5, & 6. it can be seen how soil is being impoverished. Chemical fertilizer is used for checking the impoverishment, but this invites several other problems. Major fertilizers (N, P, and K) cannot supply micronutrients. Thus very soon micronutrient (i.e. Zn, Mo, Cu, Mn, Fe, etc.) deficiencies occur. Due to deficiency of some micronutrient the requirement of some macronutrient increases. For example, if there are deficiencies of Mo and Mn in soil the Nitrogen fixation and rate of Nitrogen absorption fall. To combat the situation new micronutrient fertilizers are recommended. But there is very little difference between the density of micronutrient ideal for production and the density which brings toxic effect. After four decades of green revolution different agricultural fields of our country are now suffering from over density of some nutrients and deficiency of others. Due to prolonged application of chemical fertilizer and reduction of application of organic manure, several soil organisms get abolished. Thus the entire process of natural recycling is jeopardized. Deficiency of organic matter not only reduces the rate of absorption of different nutrients, but also creates several ecological problems which reduce both quality and quantity of production. In the age of globalization several MNCs are having patent over several beneficial bacteria, micro flora, fauna, of our soil, and selling it to us in the name of promoting organic farming.


For increasing production, Green Revolution (i.e. cultivation of foreign HYVs with heavy chemical input) was not indispensable. In a healthy soil where nutrient cycling is not jeopardized, there are several indigenous rice varieties which can give production more than so called HYVs, without any chemical input, in a sustainable manner. (15)请ever Govt. policy makers ignore this fact with a malintention.(16)




All India Urban Per Capita Average Food Intake (Kg/30 Days)

Name of the food Itemà à 饡r 1987-88à à à à 饡r 1999-2000

Riceà à 5.65à à à à à ൮50

Wheatà 䮵7à à à à à à´®40

Other Grainsà à à à à à 0.83à à à à à à®´0

Total Grainsà à à à à à 11.05à à à à à á°®3

Pulsesà à±®06à à à à à à ±.0

Milk & Milk Productà à à à 䮵2à à à à à 家

Edible Oilà°®56à à à à à à°®70

Meat/Fish/Eggà à à à à ಮ01à à à à à ⮹0

Vegetable/Fruità à à à à 11.46à à à à à áµ®20

Sugar/spicesà à à à à à 1.63à à à à à ᮶0

Processed Foodà à à à à ஸ0à à à à à ⮲0

Beverageà µ.84à à à à à ථ40

(Source: Food Consumption and Calorie Intake in Contemporary India by Srikanta Chatterjee, Allen Rae, Ranjan Ray.)

Few Elements Contained in Rice, Wheat, & Potato (mg/g)

Name of the food itemà Calcium (Ca)ɲon (Fe)à Яtassium (K)

Riceà à 3.35à à à °.29à à à±®16

Wheatà â®°0à à à °.30à à à³®86

Potatoà à®°9à à à °.01à à à´®17

(Source: Nutritive Value of Food. Susan E Gebhardt. And Robin G Thomas, U S Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service Home and Garden Bulletin Number 72.)



Absorption of Micronutrients Per Crop-Cycle (gm/Ha.)

Name of the cropà Productionâ ãµ ê® à �oÆ¥à Mn

Potatoà á³®0 ton potatoes & 2.5 tons leaves and stem.à³±à 13à 14à à à à à 1.0à 350à ±8

Wheat (Kalyansona)à·®2 ton grain & 8.2 ton hayâ±¸à ²36ã¸³à ±3.0㶵0à à à à 帰

Source: Micronutrient  Dimension in Agriculture; J.S. Kanowar, Indian Farming 18(10), 5-8 (January 1969).



Absorption of N P K by Different Crops per Crop-Cycle

Name of the cropsà Production (Kg/Ha.)à N (Kg/Ha.)à P (Kg/Ha.)à à à à à Ë (Kg/Ha.)

Wheat (HYV) Grain-5000, Hay-7500 140-210à 85-105à 215-290

Maizeà Dzain-2690, Hay-10760à ±14ä· à ±05

Groundnut Seed 1906ç¸ â² 45

Mustered Oil Seedà 673à ²2à 11ಸ

Linseedà 1009 19à 12à³³

Sugar Caneà 57809à ±46à ³0à 186

Cottonà ᰴಶà 20ิ

Jute (Fibre Only) 1121-1681 112-280 112-123 168-224

Potato 17575 85 30 140

Tobacco 1121-1345 87 19 52

Source: Fertilizer Statistics, 1978-79 F.A.I





Different Elements Contained Per Ton of Paddy and Hay (in Kg)

Name of Item N P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B Si Cl

Hay 5.3 0.8 13.6 3.9 2.6 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.03 0.00289 0.0089 74.0 1.8

Paddy 10.9 2.0 3.1 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.04 0.05 0.010.00506 0.0038 16.8 1.6

After de Dalla (1981)


N P K Status of the Soil after Cultivating HYV Paddy with the Chemical Fertilizer for Five consecutive Years.

Experiment No. Cultivation Process Applied Fertilizer (total in 5 Yrs.) Total Grain Production (In 5 Yrs. Kg/Ha) Applied Element (Kg/Ha) Absorbed Element (Kg/Ha) Result (Kg/Ha)


1 HYV Twice in a year No Fertilizer 32400 0 0 0 545 122 710 -545 -122 -710

2 Do 105Kg N/Ha/Crop 50100 1050 0 0 840 190 1100 210 -190 -1100

3 Do 105Kg N + 26 Kg P /Ha/Crop 54700 1050 262 0 920 208 1199 130 55 -1200

4 Do 105Kg N + 26Kg P + 50Kg K/Ha/Crop 59300 1050 262 49 995 225 1299 55 37 -801

After Von Vexkull (1978)

Source: Table-5&6, The Ecology of Tropical Food Crops. 2nd Edition. By MJT Normen, CJ Pearson and PGE Searle: Cambridge University Press.


As a whole the natural fertility of the soil is going to be finished. Application of chemical fertilizer increased many times but in comparison production is not increased much.沯m 1950-51 to 2000-01 fertilizer application per hectare increased 181.22 times, percentage of irrigated area for food grains increased 2.39 times but yield of food-grains increased 3.11 times.



All India Yields of Food Grains

Year Yield (Kg/Ha.) Irrigated Area (%)

1950-51 à   522 18.1

2000-01 à ±626 43.4

Source: Agricultural Statistics IFFCO New Delhi, in association with Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi.



Area Involved and Fertilizer applied For Agriculture (All India)

(Area in Million Hectors, Fertilizer in Thousand Ton)

Year Sown Area Gross Sown Area Net Irrigated Area Gross Irrigated Area Fertilizer Applied

1950-51 118.75 131.84 20.85 22.56 65.6

2000-01 141.10 187.94 54.68 75.14 16702.3

Source: Agricultural Statistics IFFCO New Delhi, in association with Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi.

Considerable amount of capital is invested in Indian agriculture and the intensity of capital investment is increasing. The commoditization of Indian agricultural product is done up to a considerable level. The marketed surplus ratio of different agricultural product also provides support to this inference (see Table-9). But it is an undeniable truth that in India the pre-capitalist land-lord classes have not been uprooted by force. The glorious peasant rebellions like Tebhaga, Telengana, Naksalbari, were organized here but the land-lord classes have not been uprooted, though some reforms were done to tackle peasant rebellions. Among those reforms, two are worth mentioning, e.g. land reforms (mainly through tenancy reforms and making a plastic land ceiling act) blue-printed by a World Bank theoretician Wolf Ladejinsky; and green revolution, invented by Nobel peace prize winner agronomist, Norman Bourlag. Ladejinskyà­¡in goal was to prevent communist influences in rural areas by doing land reforms from above, not harming the interest of rural elite. The most conservative rural elite of India did not accept this; but the scheme was successfully utilized by CPI (M) in the rural areas under their influence, to combat revolutionary peasant movements, demanding the total land reforms. The goal of green revolution was two fold, firstly the economic goal for expanding market of chemical fertilizer, pesticide, agricultural machinery, seeds etc. throughout India. Secondly, the political goal of preventing recurrence of Chinese Revolution, through increasing food production for neutralizing peasantsèµ®ger. By refuting cautions given by honest scientists like Dr. R.H. Richharia, the most unscientific green revolution was implemented throughout the country (17). As a result highly rich genetic diversities of indigenous crops eroded, agro-ecology jeopardized, and deadly poisons entered into the nutrient cycle. In this socio-economic condition it is necessary to assess the effect of jeopardized agro-ecology and invested capital in agriculture on production relation. In this connection we will first discuss about the relation between capital use and landholding patterns, and then its significance. Data from CMIE-EIS 2006, tells us that from 1971 to 1996, both the number and area under small, marginal & semi-medium holding increased gradually (see Tables 10, 11). On the contrary, both the number and area under medium and large holdings decreased. From the statistics given in the tables 10, 11, & 12, it can be seen very clearly that there is a neat erosion in medium & large holding (>4 hectare) up to a certain extent occurs in our country. As this erosion occurs in rich and agriculturally advanced states like Hariyana, it occurs in the state like Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and backward states like Bihar, Orissa also. Only in Punjab the picture is different.



Marketed Surplus Ratio of Important Agricultural Commodities

Name of the commodities 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002

Rice 61.7 73.8 73.6

Wheat 56.5 69.7 73.3

Maize 67.3 69.1 66.0

Bazra 61.7 62.1 56.9

Gram 71.8 74.5 81.2

Moong 74.6 83.2 74.7

Potato 47.6 78.9 91.1

Onion 98.5 96.9 100.0

Sugar Cane 96.4 100.0 98.3

Jute 97.5 88.9 93.2

Source: Agricultural Statistics, IFFCO New Delhi, in association with Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi.

Now it is necessary to determine the characteristics of those large & medium (>4He.) holdings, and also of those marginal, small & semi-medium (<4He) holdings. Through the analysis of the data from the Situation Assessment Survey (SAS) of Farmers, conducted by the NSSO during January to December 2003, as a part of its 59th round, G.S. Bhalla, in relation to income and consumption of farmer household summed up that ﴨ income and consumption of farmer households varied with the size of holding. There were also large inter-state differences in both the income and consumption levels. At the all-India level, a farmer household had to possess 4.01 ha. or more to be able to make ends meet. The proportion of such farmers was only 5.2 per cent; the rest namely, 94.8 per cent, were running in deficit. The situation differed in various states but on the whole a large proportion of small and marginal farmer households possessing less than 2.01-4.01 ha. were unable to earn enough to meet there consumption needs. At the all-India level, farmers诵seholds below 2 ha. accounted for above 80.5 per cent of total farmer households.쯳pan>(18) (See Table 13, 14). Thus we separate large & medium holding (>4ha.) in one category and small & marginal (<2ha.) in another.


It is found that except for regular labour, per hectare expenditure on all other inputs for agriculture declines with increase in the size of holding (19) (See Table 15, 16).Ô¨is indicates that those large and medium holdings are not as capital-intensive as small and marginal holdings. Then what is the significance of this intensive farming in small holdings? In small holdings the capital required for intensive farming is not invested directly by the small farmer himself, instead he gathered the inputs like seeds, fertilizer, pesticide etc. on credit from local dealers, equipments like pumps tractors etc. He utilized on credit also. By selling the crop he has to repay them. When the farmer buys the inputs on credit, he has to pay more than that of market price. As there is pressure of repaying the credit, the small farmer has to sale the crop as soon as he reaps it. Through the tactics of the touts at the time of reaping the market price of the crops falls. If the poor farmer would be able to hold the crop for a considerable time, he could sale it at a better price; but due to his poverty and the pressure upon him to repay the credit, he cannot hold the crop and has to sale it soon after the harvest. The small farmer who gets institutional credit, the condition is to some extent better to him, but due to bureaucratic complexities and procrastination the institutional credit is not always available to small farmers. Often the rural oppressing section captures the lion೨are of the institutional credit and uses it in other business or brokery and hording of agricultural commodities. Due to the jeopardized agro-ecology, attack of pests and pathogens, foul weather, etc. often the crop gets lost and the small farmer who is able to manage institutional credit, fails to repay it, and again falls in the clutch of local input dealers and touts of agricultural products. In this way the small peasant becomes a pauper and fails to accumulate capital to become a capitalist farmer. He/she is deprived of both the surplus profit and absolute ground rent. The main source of his/her income is selling of labour, thus his/her worker character becomes more prominent. Now what is the class character of those who make the small peasants pauper? Are they pre-capitalist exploiters? It is not that the rural India is free of pre-capitalist money lenders. They are present as usual. But there are little instances that they lend money at high interest in production process. The lion೨are of total rural credit is expended in nonproductive purpose. The 27.6% of total rural credit is expended for household purpose, 24% for marriage and other ceremonies, 1% for repaying loans, 21% for purchasing land or making houses, and only 18.5% are utilized for production purpose. (20) Money lenders contribute 31.7% of the total rural debt. (21) So through simple arithmetic it can be shown that out of total rural credit the portion of loan given by the money lenders for production is only 5.86%. So it is clear that money lenders are not lending their money mainly for production but for other household purposes. This is not the sign of pre-capitalism. In the countries where capitalism was fully developed this type of usury was found. So it will be an over-simplification to say usury is equal to pre-capitalism. The sections that mainly give credit to the small farmers for production, i.e. the input dealers or the owners of agricultural machinery, are not the pre-capitalist exploiters. They are ready to use highest form of technology. They came into existence only after the settlement of this post-green revolution capital intensive agriculture. If the agro-ecology was not jeopardized due to the deadly effect of the green revolution their business would not flourish. There is not any prominent instance that they are exploiting their debtor as cheap bonded labour. They are not the pre-capitalist usurers, but the local agent of the most reactionary global capital. The same is true for the brokery of agricultural commodity. Recently the global capital has taken entrance in this brokery and retail business of agricultural commodities. The best management students are now engaged in doing research to find out smoother way to pauperize farmers. Giant companies like ITC have started to purchase agricultural commodities directly from the farmers. During the year 2000 to 2007, ITC opened 6400 internet kiosks throughout 9 states of our country. The name given to those kiosks are E-choupal. Near about 4million people of 3800 villages have come under the area of operation of those E-choupals.é® the year 2006-07 ITC purchased 2 million tons of wheat, coffee, soyabean, shrimp, pulses, etc. through those kiosks, the value of which comes to US$400 million.(22) Companies like Metro Carry Cash, Reliance, etc. have also started their business directly with the farmers. Various supermarkets in different metropolises run by global capital are engaged in retail business of agro-products.




Area Operated by Holdings in India.

à° Hectare

Category Dec.71 Dec.77 Dec81 Dec86 Dec91 Dec.96 % Changes Over 71 to 96

All 162120 163340 163800 164560 165600 163357 0.76

Marginal(<1.01) 14550 17510 19730 22040 24620 28121 93.27

Small(1.01-2) 19280 20900 23170 25710 28710 30722 59.34

Semi-Medium 30000 32430 34650 36670 38350 38953 29.84


Medium(4.01-10) 48230 49630 48540 47140 45050 41398 -14.17

Large(>10) 50060 42870 37710 33000 28890 24163 -51.73

Source: Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy- Economic Intelligence Service, 2006.



No. of Operation Holdings in India

à° Nos.

Category Dec.71 Dec.77 Dec81 Dec86 Dec91 Dec.96 % Changes Over 71 to 96

All 70490 81570 88880 97160 105290 115580 63.97

Marginal(<1.01) 35680 44520 50120 56150 62110 71179 99.49

Small(1.01-2) 13430 14730 16070 17920 19970 21643 61.15

Semi-Medium 10680 11670 12450 13250 13910 14261 33.52


Medium(4.01-10) 7930 8210 8070 7920 7630 7092 -10.57

Large(>10) 2770 2440 2170 1920 1670 1404 -49.31

Source: Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy- Economic Intelligence Service, 2006.à



Average Size of Holdings in India


Category Dec.71 Dec.77 Dec81 Dec86 Dec91 Dec.96

All 2.3 2 1.84 1.69 1.57 1.41

Marginal(<1.01) 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.4 0.4

Small(1.01-2) 1.44 1.42 1.44 1.43 1.44 1.42

Semi-Medium(2.01-4) 2.81 2.78 2.78 2.77 2.76 2.73

Medium(4.01-10) 6.08 6.04 6.01 5.95 5.9 5.85

Large(>10) 18.07 17.57 17.38 17.19 17.3 17.21

Source: Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy- Economic Intelligence Service, 2006.


Average Monthly Income and Consumption (in Rupees) per Farmer Household: All India.

Size Class of Land Possessed (ha) Total Income From all Sources Total Consumption Expenditure

<0.01 1380 2297

0.01-0.40 1633 2390

0.41-1.00 1809 2672

1.01-2.00 2493 3184

2.01-4.00 3598 3685

4.01-10.00 5681 4626

>10.00 9667 6418

All size 2115 2770

Source: G.S.Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Performing Indian Agriculture, Edited By S.K.Bhoumik. SAGE.


Average Monthly Income from Different Sources, Consumption and Net Investment in productive assets per Farmer Household (in Rs)

Size Class of Land Possessed (ha.) Income from Wages Net Receipts from Cultivation Net Receipt from Farming of Animals Net Receipts from Non-farm Business Total Income from all Sources Total Consumption Expenditure Net Investment in Productive assets

<0.01 1075 11 64 230 1380 2297 40

0.01-0.40 973 296 94 270 1633 2390 37

0.41-1.00 720 784 112 193 1809 2672 96

1.01-2.00 635 1578 102 178 2493 3148 151

2.01-4.00 637 2685 57 210 3589 3685 387

4.01-10.00 486 4676 12 507 5681 4626 685

>10.00 557 8321 113 676 9667 6418 737

All Size 819 969 91 236 2115 2770 124

Source: G.S.Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Performing Indian Agriculture, Edited By S.K.Bhoumik. SAGE.



Average Expenses per Farmer Household by Size Class of Land Possessed: All India

Size Class of Land Possessed Seeds Pesticides/Insecticides Fertilizer/Manure Irrigation Minor Repair & Maintenance of Machine & Equipment Interest Lease Rent for Land Labour Regular Labuor Casual Other Expenses Total Expenses

<0.01 88 23 123 96 4 6 32 21 91 68 552

0.01-0.40 333 114 550 319 24 12 109 31 450 294 2235

0.41-1.00 924 350 1414 741 87 53 302 71 1244 735 5921

1.01-2.00 1716 722 2502 1352 198 133 471 156 2211 1264 10723

2.01-4.00 3004 1353 3961 2133 416 259 944 427 3643 2031 18166

4.01-10.00 5878 3185 8019 3777 851 548 2037 1305 7117 3970 36687

>10.00 11244 6128 13344 5755 1717 1151 5795 4684 12097 6525 68439

All Size 1404 625 1993 1038 170 108 463 209 1767 1017 8791

% Share 16 7 23 12 2 1 5 2 20 12 100

Source: G.S.Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Performing Indian Agriculture, Edited By S.K.Bhoumik. SAGE.

Regression Results of Expenditure per Hectare for All India

Elasticity Significance ofä “eeds Pesticides Fertilizers Irrigation Repair Interest Rent Regular Labor Casual Labor Total Labor Other Expenditure Total Expenditure

-0.188 -0.070 -0.259 -0.321 -0.007 -0.050 -0.105 0.177 -0.238 -0.183 -0.279 -0.209

0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.765 0.244 0.133 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Source: G.S.Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Performing Indian Agriculture, Edited By S.K.Bhoumik. SAGE.


In case of medium & large holdings (i.e. >4ha.) the income is greater than consumption (23). Particularly when the size of holding is greater than 10 ha. a considerable amount of surplus can be accumulated in the hand of the farmer. But in these holdings per hectare investment is lesser than that of small and marginal holdings. Simultaneously per hectare output is also less (24). In case of Punjab and Haryana, however the picture is different; per hectare value of output increases with increase in holding size. But according to G.S. Bhalla the results for Haryana are insignificant, and that for Punjab holds at 95 percent confidence level only (25).é´ doesnà­¥an that the total amount of capital invested in large and medium holding is negligible. In those holdings quite a large amount of capital, mainly in the form of costly agricultural machinery (i.e. tractor, power tiller etc.), is invested (26) (See Table 17). So it cannot be said that in those large and medium holdings pre-capitalist agriculture is practised. The capital investment vis-à­¶is commoditization of agricultural product is increased many times. The reinvestment of surplus is also found in those holdings (27). The capital intensive agriculture brings changes in the role of human labour in agriculture. This change should be studied meticulously. The tilling is mostly done by the tractors instead of plough now. For this the labour required for ploughing is decreased. Not only that, the cowboys also are not required to maintain the bulls throughout the year. After the introduction of threshing machine, the labour required to thresh paddy, wheat or other grains also decreased. After the introduction of rice mill or other food processing factories the quantity of labour required for making rice from paddy or other food processing also decreases. The neat result of it is a sharp decline in requirement of permanent labour (Mahindor, Nagarekisen etc) for large landholders throughout the year. But as the intensity of cropping has increased, the requirement of labour for shorter period of time in a particular season of the year has increased many times. For an example it can be said that in boro paddy cultivation many labours are required for planting and reaping, that is why even small farmers have to employ labour for those periods. The demand of free labour also increases for jute, wheat and other crops. So free labour is more desirable to the farmers engaged in intensive farming, and their demand cannot be met with local labor. On the other hand in the unirrigated districts and states of India where the multiple cropping is not practised, the labour remains jobless at the season of boro or wheat cultivation.㯠a seasonal migration of labour is observed towards the area of intensive cropping from those backward areas. Agricultural labour migrates seasonally to the states like Punjab, Haryana, from Bihar and to the districts like Hooghly, Burdwan, of West Bengal from the district like Bankura, Purulia, and Mursidabad. In this way intensive farming in one area makes free the labour of backward areas. Thus contradiction with the oppressing class of those backward areas becomes inevitable. In this contradiction often the ruling class of intensive cropping area stands against the oppressing class of backward areas.(28)⥮ Rogaly, in his famous research paper ᮧerous Liaison? Seasonal Migration and Agrarian Changes in West Bengal䩳cussed about the seasonally migrated agricultural labour. In his work he has shown that due to such seasonal migration, the untouchability based on cast system is becoming weak. He studied 11 such seasonally migrated workers, and found that out of them two have repaid usury loan of their area and freed mortgaged land from the wages earned (29). This also indicates the erosion of pre-capitalist bondage. On the contrary, absence of any trade-union for these migratory workers, and their weakness in bargaining for wages (30), indicate the weak development of capitalism.



Average Number of Tractors Possessed per 100 Households by Size Class of Land Possessed at All-India Level

Area of Land Possessed (Hectare) Number of Tractors

<0.01 0

0.01-0.40 0

0.41-1.00 1

1.01-2.00 3

2.01-4.00 8

4.01-10.00 18

>10.00 38

All Classes 3

Source: G.S.Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Performing Indian Agriculture, Edited By S.K.Bhoumik. SAGE.



From the above discussion it can be said that a more or less capitalist farming is practised in those large and medium holdings. But there is a neat erosion of those large and medium holdings in all states of our country, except Punjab. In Punjab though this erosion has not occurred, but there is no prominent tendency of land centralization.ॲ hectare investment and output is also decreasing along with the increase in holding size. Cultivation of land with a considerable amount of capital investment on the one hand, and absence of capitalistic centralization of cultivable land on the other, makes a paradox.é¦ this paradox cannot be explained, it will be difficult to assess the class characters of the owners of those large and medium holdings.


As agro-ecology is jeopardized, fertility vis-à­¶is productivity of soil is decreasing. Agriculture becomes more vulnerable to the attack of pests and pathogens. This increases uncertainty in agricultural production. In Punjab, the state government had appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Professor S.S. Jhol, an agronomist, to look into this problem of the agrarian sector, in the year 1985. In the report submitted in 1986, the Jhol Committee expressed concern about stagnating productivity levels and deteriorating environment due to the cropping pattern dominated by paddy-wheat rotation (31). As a bourgeois agronomist Professor Jhol fails to touch the root of the problem. Actually the problem originates from Metabolic Alienation, an unavoidable catastrophe of capitalist society and aggravated due to the erosion of local crop varieties, and entrance of deadly poison into agro-ecosystem. This problem does not occur only in Punjab, but in most parts of our country.


The market of the agricultural commodities is dominated by touts and brokers. Recently global capital has entered this market. Due to the unholy nexus of the touts and government officials, often the farmers, not only small and marginal but also medium and large, fail to sale their product at a fair price. Surinder S. Jodhka, in his article under the title of è¥ Decline of Agriculture൴ a representative example of such unholy nexus in Punjab. In the year 2000, there was a bumper crop of paddy. But the procurement agencies refused to purchase the grain at the minimum support price (MSP) declared by the central government, on the plea that the grains were of inferior quality. The FCI chief went to the extent of saying that as much as 80 per cent of the Punjab paddy was spoilt, a claim that had no scientific basis. The private traders and rice millers were quite willing to buy the same paddy, but at a price much lower than the official support price (32). Surinder S. Jodhka points out that due to these stagnating productivity and market fluctuations the younger generation of rural Punjabis are losing their interest in agriculture (33) (See Table-18).㯴ton cultivators of Andhra Pradesh, sugarcane cultivators of Uttar Pradesh, potato cultivators of West Bengal, tomato cultivators of Punjab in contract with Pepsico,î ¡ long list of farmers deprived due to agro-ecological debacle and market fluctuations, can be prepared. This is one of the major reasons why capitalistic centralization of cultivable land is absent. Through their experience the rural elite realizes that, it will be more profitable and secured to invest in the business of agricultural inputs and agricultural commodities instead of cultivation. The jeopardized agro-ecology makes agriculture vulnerable, but not the input business. In the imperialist countries the large farmers receive a fabulous amount of subsidies to over-come the problems of agro-ecological debacles, narrow genetic base of crops, and market fluctuations. Now some MNCs are willing to make large agricultural farms either by directly taking lease of agricultural land or in the form of contract farming. If it happens, they will ruin the ecosystem of those lands, finish their productivity and will fly away with their booty.



Perceptions of Desirability/Likelihood of Next Generation Doing Farming (Only Non-Dalit Rural Respondents)

Total Number Surveyed Preferred Not-Preferred Not Applicable/No Response

1008(100) 121(12.0) 635(63.00) 252(25.00)

Source: Surinder S. Jodhka, The Decline of Agriculture. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.



Perception of Rural Non-Dalit on the Future Economic Status of Farming Community in Punjab

Total Number Surveyed Certainly Better Same as Now Worse Much Worseî¯ Response

1009(100) 88(8.72) 185(19.65) 28(2.77) 487(48.27) 221(21.90)

Source: Surinder S. Jodhka, The Decline of Agriculture. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.


In Indian agriculture pre-capitalist right is diminishing. But we do not want to say that pre-capitalism is completely abolished, in many parts of our country pre-capitalist exploitation prevails. What we want to say is that, it does not remain the major trend. On the other hand capitalist farming is also not developing. Agricultural machinery decreased the demand of labour throughout the year, but surplus labours are not absorbed in industries, because employment generated per unit of capital investment in organized sectors is also reducing. Portion of rural surplus population is gathering in urban slum areas, some are absorbed in unorganized sector, deprived mostly of any sort of human facilities. They constitute the masses alienated from both means of production and nature. Global capital grabbing fertility, seeds, water, and knowledge for agriculture, makes inroads in wholesale and retail business of agricultural commodities. This situations undoubtedly erodes the power of the landlords, and is bringing the peasants in direct confrontation with the global capital more and more.

Epilogue :


In the world we are living, the most reactionary global capital refutes all of its democratic liabilities. Thus the highest form of technology is now co-existing with semi-bonded labour in SEZ, and the MNCs enter into hording of agricultural commodities. Global capital is now ready to enter even into usury business; the 쯲ious帡mple of this is the e Usurer� Unus of Bangladesh. So the absence of democratic environment is not only the crop of pre-capitalism, but global capital also is quite capable of promoting anti-democracy. These characteristics of global capital we are now finding in agriculture.


Several reformist views are put forward to run the human civilization between the Scylla of capitalist exploitation and Charybdis of environmental degradations by many agencies (specially by NGOs). These views are as follows.


Some speak at high pitch for organic farming. They point out that if only organic fertilizer is used and the soil organisms, playing vital role in the process of recycling, are restored (which are mostly abolished due to application of agricultural chemical) the whole problem will be solved. There is no doubt that organic farming and restoration of beneficial soil organisms are indispensable, but is it possible at large scale without changing the socio-economic condition? Beneficial soil organisms play vital role in the recycling of nutrients but they cannot create the nutrient from nothing. Sustaining this socio-economic system where crops are robbed of huge quantity of nutrients every season from the agricultural field, no sustainable agriculture is possible. Thus promoting organic farming without promoting revolution is nothing but drawing a round square, though the reverse is also true.쯳pan>


Another reformist view is to use city effluent (without breaking present hierarchy of cities!) as fertilizer in agricultural field. But in modern commodity fetish metropolises the effluent is a mixture of both organic matter and deadly poisonous chemicals and heavy metals. If we use it directly to the agricultural field we will allow those deadly poisonous elements to enter into the food chain, which will bring another disaster; and if we want to segregate the organic matter completely from those poisons, it will be nothing but to maintain a white elephant.쯳pan>


Some MNCs, to mask their plundering activities say that the use of poisonous agricultural chemicals can be put to an end by using Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). But the result of introducing Bt. Cotton is known to everybody now. How dangerous the application of GMOs in agricultural field is may be a subject of another article.

It is a matter of regret that in spite of the brilliant work of Marx and Engels the USSR failed to realize it, and the Americanized model of chemical farming promoted by a bureaucratic state brought disasters. But Fidel Castroõba shows how organic farming can be used to the benefit of her citizens.


It is the duty of the communist revolutionaries of the 21st centuries to realize and uphold the vision of the Communist Manifesto – ï³°an>Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country쯳pan>(Emphasis is ours).





References :


1. John Bellamy Foster, Marxţology Materialism and Nature, Monthly Review Foundation.

2. John Bellamy Foster, Marxţology Materialism and Nature, Monthly Review Foundation

3. Economic Survey 2003-04

4. Agricultural Statistics IFFCO, New Delhi, in association with Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi.

5. Ministry of Agriculture.

6. Agricultural Statistics, IFFCO New Delhi, in association with Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi.

7. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.

8. Directorate of壯nomics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture

9. Handbook of Indian Agriculture, Vikas Singhal, Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

10. Handbook of Indian Agriculture, Vikas Singhal, Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

11. Economic Survey 2003-04



14. Census Report 2001.

15. Dr. Debal Deb, Seeds of Tradition, Seeds of Future, Folk rice varieties of Eastern India, Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, New Delhi.

16. Dr. Claude Alvares: The Great Gene Robbery: Illustrated Weekly of India, 23-29 March 1986.

17. Dr. Claude Alvares: The Great Gene Robbery: Illustrated Weekly of India, 23-29 March 1986.

18. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. SAGE.

19. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. SAGE.

20. Rural Labor Enquiry Report on Indebtedness among Rural Labor Household 1999-2000.

21. Rural Labor Enquiry Report on Indebtedness among Rural Labor Household 1999-2000.

22. Agriculture for Development, World Development Report, 2008, UNO.

23. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

24. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

25. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

26. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

27. G.S. Bhalla, Income, Consumption and Expenditure of Farmers. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

28. Ben Rogaly, Dangerous Liaison? Seasonal migration and agrarian changes in West Bengal, Sonar Bangla? SAGE.

29. Ben Rogaly, Dangerous Liaison? Seasonal Migration and Agrarian Changes in West Bengal. Sonar Bangla? SAGE.

30. Ben Rogaly, Dangerous Liaison? Seasonal migration and agrarian changes in West Bengal. Sonar Bangla? SAGE.

31. Surinder S. Jodhka, The Decline of Agriculture. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.

32. Surinder S. Jodhka, The Decline of Agriculture. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.ã�‡E.

33. Surinder S. Jodhka, The Decline of Agriculture. Reforming Indian Agriculture. Edited By S.K.Bhoumik.�E.쯳pan>










COPYRIGHT © marxist-intellection.org. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *