Agricultural Transformation in North-East India: With Special Reference to Arunachal Pradesh

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

About The Book

There are various paths that agricultural transformation adopts. Some of the theoretically celebrated paths are the English path, the Prussian path, the American path, the German experience, the Roman experience, etc. Theoretically the topic is debated sufficiently and in each line of the argument empirical studies were carried out. But the epistemic underpinnings of the arguments remain obscure for the readers at large because invariably all contenders deal with them implicitly. Further it is often surmised in the received literatures of tribal agricultural transformation that non-economic factors always dominate, shape and determine the modus operandi of economic variables. The present study: (i) clearly highlights the epistemic reasons adhering to a particular method to study agricultural transformation and thereby it analyses the issue with a clear philosophical approach; (ii) shows that under the event of globalization market forces are capable to release the economic variables to operate as per market principles and therefore they confer freedom particularly to labour through developing the labour market. Based on a large survey of 277 tribal households of West Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh the study has a wider relevance in terms of application to different areas of tribal concentration in the north-east in particular and the country as a whole.

About the Author

M.A. SALAM (b. 1964) is Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Economics at Government College, Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh. He studied upto post-graduation level at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He completed his Ph.D. at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He has published many articles and has participated in various national and international seminars and conferences.

Preface

Peasant family farm is the reality which is found in almost all agricultural societies. In whatever way we think about the subsiance of this reality we find that peasant household produces mainly for family consumption through employing family work force. Therefore the logical corollary of these postulates in regard to the peasantry follows that in peasant economy: (i) size of production remains limited precisely because it is orientated to family consumption; (ii) the method of production is traditional due to interlocked social relations of production; and (iii) the pattern of production largely remains the mixed cropping pattern. Contextualizing this conception in the situation of the North-East in general and Arunachal Pradesh in particular brings us close to the traditional Jhum cultivation. As a policy matter, this method of cultivation has been discouraged and modernization of agriculture has been endeavoured. Consequently over a period of time Jhum cultivation with traditional crops has reduced and permanent cultivation with commercial crops has advanced. This was possible because commodification of agricultural produce has taken place. This commodification in turn has caused differentiation of social relations of production within the peasantry. The present study shows that this differentiation has occurred in two phases: the first phase is at the attitudinal level, and second phase is at the social level.

Production in the agricultural farm is carried out with the help of factors of production where these factors are combined in a specific order, i.e., technical coalescence of factors. This combination is mechanistic and additive. But factors of production are allocated by the social relations of production. And social relations of production are instituted in the social system through the institutions effecting product flow and factor flow. This institutedness shows the organic integration of social relations of production. Hence if there is a change in mechanistic relation of factors of production due to changes in the composition of product flow, this causes transformation in organical social relations of production which have evolved historically in the society. This study therefore focuses on this transformation.

The present book is the revised version of my Ph.D. thesis "Nature, Extent and Causalities of Peasant Differentiation: A Case Study of Peasant Dynamics in Arunachal Pradesh" at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, under the supervision of Professor M.S. Bhatt.

INTRODUCTION

Theoretical Issues on Agrarian Transition

In a predominantly agrarian society, peasant family farms are prominent where size of production is small because it: (1) produces mainly for self-consumption; (i) practises the mixed cropping pattern to meet variety of family requirements. In mixed cropping pattern size of production of each crop is limited. Further the production is carried out by family labour by using traditional method of production. Hence it is argued that agrarian societies must be transformed. Harriss (1982) considered three main ways whereby these societies can be transformed: (1) development of capitalist farming. (2) large scale co-operative or collective state farms, and (3) capital-intensive small scale farming similar to Japan and Taiwan models. Which of these ways will be the actual process of transformation in a country is a debatable issue. In the present study we are concerned with the first one i.e. development of a capitalist farming, which is experienced in general by all agrarian societies in varying degree.

Theoretically the issue of agrarian transformation has been approached from three different epistemic paradigms: atomistic approach or decision-making model, substantive approach or system approach, dialectical-materialist approach or historical/ structural views [see for details Harriss (1982)).

The Atomistic Approach is concerned with the allocation of resources on the farm with the farmers' response to markets and innovations. Here system is left out in analysis and it explains the success or failure of an individual within the system. It focuses upon the emergence of entrepreneurial activities.

The System Approach seeks to explain the inter relationships of ()technological factors, (1) demographic factors, and (i) environmental factors. This is more or less a functionalist approach where all regular patterns of social behaviors are perceived as having some function to perform in relation to the creation and maintenance of order in societies. (Harriss 1982). Therefore the approach is to understand the feature of peasant society and culture as a 'mechanism' which functions in such a way that homogeneity in terms of resource share is maintained and development of gross inequalities is prevented in order to maintain the state of equilibrium within community as a whole. With a little variation in functional side, Substantive Approach (Karl Polanyi 1957) addresses the same problem in similar manner.

In both (System Approach and Substantive Approach) main problem is that they take the change coming from externally induced forces. They therefore neglect the internal process of change.

The Structural/Historical view or Dialectical-Materialistic Approach grasps the relationship between 'parts' and 'whole'. Here the social character of individual is emphasized. This approach is concerned with the relationship between expanding capitalism and various forms of production of pre-capitalist societies. It is an 'articulation' of capitalism with other modes of production i.e. it explains that the relationships between capitalist and pre-capitalist societies are more than 'linkage'.

Book's Contents and Sample Pages