COMMENTARY

Agrarian Question in India

Indications from NSSOs 70th Round
C R Yadu, Satheesha B

Using the latest National Sample

Survey Office data on land
distribution and use, questions of
agrarian change in India are
revisited. With reducing
landholding size in general, the
increasing unviability of such small
plots, and increasing numbers of
effectively landless households,
the larger questions of employment
and sectoral shifts are flagged.
There is still no clear transition
away from agriculture.

The authors would like to thank the

anonymous referee for comments.
C R Yadu (chandran.yadu@gmail.com) is a
doctoral student at the Centre for Development
Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. Satheesha B
(satheeshababu@gmail.com) is a doctoral student
at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

20

n recent years, Eurocentric constructions of the agrarian question are

being increasingly challenged by a
resurgent scholarship from the global
South. The argument of Western scholarship that the agrarian question is dead
is at best minimalist and deterministic
(Moyo et al 2015). The counterargument
is that capital accumulation whether
linked to Western finance or Chinese industry, remains closely integrated with
agriculture and this is one of the many
dimensions of agrarian question at the
current juncture (Moyo et al 2015). The
contemporary agrarian question, thus,
encompasses a wide variety of land and
peasant questions which are central to
understand the development dynamics
of the countries in the South.
The stunted structural transformation in India has important implications
for its agrarian question. While the share
of agriculture is dramatically reduced in
gross domestic product (GDP), almost
half of the countrys population still

depends on the agricultural sector for

livelihood. In the age of globalisation,
where the peasantry is under assault from
international finance capital, the ways and
means in which they reproduce themselves
remain an important matter. The steadily
increasing wave of land grabs across the
South puts peasants at the receiving
end. With its land and livelihood imperilled, this reserve army of the dispossessed increasingly finds refuge in precarious activities in the informal sector.
Major Trends from NSSO Data
The National Sample Survey Offices
(NSSO) 70th round consists of three
surveys: Land and Livestock Holdings
Survey, All-India Debt and Investment
Survey, and Situation Assessment Survey.
All three are decennial surveys, last conducted in 2002. The tables presented
here are based on the Land and Livestock Survey and Situation Assessment
Survey as these surveys give us important
data that are relevant for the agrarian
question in India. Both these surveys in
the 70th round covered only rural areas
of the country.1
Table 1 (p 21) shows that total estimated
area owned and average area owned has
declined in the latest round. The average
land owned fell from 0.725 in 200203
to 0.592 in 201213. The fall in the

april 16, 2016

vol lI no 16

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

have to look for alternative employment regular workers in either agricultural

opportunities outside agriculture.
or non-agricultural enterprises. However,
The dominant feature that defines results from the NSSO employment and
present-day farming in India is the pre- unemployment surveys show that it is
ponderance of marginal holdings. Inter- casual labourers who remain predomigenerational subdivision and fragmenta- nant in rural labour. While 35% of housetion of land means that people now have holds earn their livelihood from casual
to cultivate on the tiny pieces of land lead- labour, only 9% of households earn income
ing to a viability crisis as we discussed from regular wage work in the countryearlier. Table 2 shows that the proportion side (NSSO 2013). Therefore, it can be
of marginal holdings has deduced that majority of the wage/salTable 1: Changes in Household Ownership of Land
Item
200203
201213
increased to 75.42% in aried employment category consists of
(59th Round)
(70th Round)
201213 from 69.63% in casual labour households. It is also interEstimated area owned (000 ha)
1,07,228
92,369
200203. Similarly, the esting to note that the lowest share of
Average area owned per household (ha)
0.725
0.592
area under marginal land was owned by households that
Source: NSSO (2014a).
holdings increased by were self-employed in livestock farming.
Table 2: Changes in the Percentage Distribution of Households and
more than 6 percentage
Table 4 shows the distribution of agriArea Owned by Category of Household Ownership Holdings
points
in
this
period.
The
cultural
households as per their major
Category of Holdings
Percentage of
Percentage of
Households
Area Owned
proportion
of
households
source
of
income. NSSO defines agricul200203 201213 200203 201213
in
all
other
categories
of
tural
household
as a household receivLandless ( 0.002 ha)
10.04 7.41
0.01
0.01
holdings
which
has
more
ing
some
value
of
produce from agriculMarginal (> 0.002 but 1.000 ha)
69.63 75.42
23.01 29.75
than
1
hectare
of
land
ture
activities
(for
example, cultivation
Small (>1.000 but 2.000 ha)
10.81
10
20.38 23.54
Semi-medium (> 2.000 but 4.000 ha) 6.03 5.01
21.29 22.07 has witnessed a decline.
of field crops, horticultural crops, fodder
Medium (> 4.000 but 10.000 ha)
2.96 1.93
23.08 18.83 It is also notable that the
crops, plantation, animal husbandry,
Large (> 10.000 ha)
0.53 0.24
11.55
5.81 percentage area owned
poultry, fishery, piggery, beekeeping,
Source: NSSO (2014a).
in the large size holdings vermiculture and sericulture) in the last
A look at Table 2 will show that land- has declined from 11.55% in 200102 to 365 days. However, this definition excludes agricultural labour households. It
lessness has declined in the last decade 5.81% in 201112.
Table 3 shows the distribution of can be seen that the source of income
in the country. However, it must be kept
in mind that NSSOs landlessness figures households on the basis of their major depends on the size of land in possesare actually an underestimation (Rawal source of income and the proportion of sion. In the higher classes of land posse2008). The proportion of households land they own. Around 43% of the rural ssion, the households main source of
which NSSO categorises as landless fell households are self-employed in agri- income is cultivation. In the lower-size
by more than 2.5 percentage points be- culture and they own as high as 81.41% classes, a major part of the households
tween 200203 and 201213. However, of the total land owned. Wage/salaried income is earned from wage/salaried
the definition of landless as owning less employment is the second-most impor- employment. Following from our earlier
than 0.002 hectares of land fails to cap- tant source of income for the rural argument, the major part of this wage/
ture the actual situation. Basole and households. As per NSSOs definition, salaried employment would be casual
Basu (2011: 44) remark that if landless- wage/salaried employment has a broad labour. For example, in the size category
ness is understood as pertaining to land definition. It consists of both casual and of less than 0.1 hectare, more than half
that can be used for cultivation and that Table 3: Distribution of Households and Area of Land Owned
Self-employed
Self-employed Self-employed in Self-employed in
Wages/
Others Total
can generate some income for the famiin Cultivation
in Livestock
Other Agricultural Non-agricultural
Salaried
ly, then a more realistic definition must
Farming
Activities
Enterprises
Employment
consider all households owning less than % of households
42.92
1.75
3.47
11.59
32.36
7.1 100
1 acre [0.40 ha] as effectively landless. % area of land owned
81.41
1.47
1.48
3.28
10.4
1.97 100
If we take effective landlessness as an Source: NSSO (2014a).
important marker, it can be seen that Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Agricultural Households by Principal Source of Income
there is a significant rise in landlessness Size Class of Land Possessed2 Cultivation Livestock Other Agricultural Non-agricultural Wage/Salaried Others All
Activity
Enterprises
Employment
in the countryside in the last decade. In
1.6
22.9
2.7
10.8
56.4
5.5
100
200203, 60.1% of the households were < 0.01
0.010.40
42.1
4.8
1.2
7.5
35.2
9.3
100
effectively landless (Basole and Basu
0.411.00
69.2
2.3
0.9
3.6
20
4.1
100
2011), whereas in the latest period the 1.012.00
83
2.5
0.9
3.2
8.6
1.8
100
figure rose to 66.1%. This means the 2.014.00
85.9
2.4
1.1
1.6
7.1
1.8
100
direct dependency on land for livelihood 4.0110.00
87.9
2.7
0.5
0.9
5.9
2
100
for some section of rural population has 10.00+
89.4
5.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
0.1
100
become no longer viable and now they Source: NSSO (2014b).
average size of land is natural, given the
demographic pressure on land. But, the
falling size of landholdings raises serious
questions about the viability of farming.
The declining size of holdings means that
those households which solely depend
on agriculture will find it increasingly
difficult to sustain their livelihoods.
They have to find subsidiary ways to
support their livelihood.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

april 16, 2016

vol lI no 16

21

COMMENTARY

of the households (56.4%) find income

from wage employment followed by
livestock. In the next highest-size class
(0.010.40), 35.2% of households earn
income from wage employment. Thus,
Table 4 gives strong credence to the semiproletarianisation thesis as put forward
by Moyo et al (2013) as one of the defining features of the agrarian question of
the South in the 21st century. Rather
than depending solely on cultivation,
people have to seek livelihood from other
sources of employment, most commonly
casual labour in the non-agricultural
sector. Krishnaji (1990) has noted this
phenomenon as the inevitable consequence of demographic change among
poor farmers. Various village studies
also give credence to the fact that semiproletarianisation or multi-occupational
deepening is a dominant feature of
present-day Indian countryside. For
example, Lindberg et al (2014: 351) in their
panel study of six villages in central
Tamil Nadu have the following to say:
About half of all households now live by
working solely in agriculture (as workers
and farmers), while the rest are pluriactive:
combining farm work with various forms
of non-farm work and tiny businesses. The
effect of this change is dramatic: today the
non-farm (often urban) linkage is almost as
important as farming for the livelihood and
social life of agrarian population.

As Shah and Harris-White (2011) rightly

point out, what we witness in India is not
the classic agrarian transition. Rather than
moving from agriculture to become
factory hands in the city, rural livelihoods
have to combine both forms of work,
tilling their small plots of land and now,
dependent on migrant wage labour, on
working in the rural non-farm economy
and on petty commodity production
and trade in the capitalist economy to

reproduce their household (Shah and

Harris-White 2011: 17). This kind of a
labour transformation has made rural
life much more complex.
It can be seen from Table 5 that 92.6%
of agricultural households have homestead and other land. In the lowest sizeclass, less than half of agricultural
households operated any agricultural
land for the last 365 days. This is small
compared to other size classes where
more than 95% of households could
operate any agricultural land. This again
reflects the viability question of the
owners of tiny plots. Another important
trend visible in the table is regarding the
proportion of MGNREGA cardholders
among agricultural households. The
presence of MGNREGA cardholders are
invariably present in all size classes.
However, the number of cardholders
seems to be decreasing from the fourth
highest land class onwards. The proportion of cardholders is the smallest in the
highest-size class (29.3%). Overall, 44.4%
of agricultural households are MGNREGA
cardholders. This gives strength to the
argument that semi-proletarianisation is
the major feature of the contemporary
agrarian question in India.
Table 6 shows the terms of lease and
the proportion of households under each
Table 6: Forms of Tenancy Contracts
Terms of Lease

Percentage of
Households

For fixed money

For share of produce
From relatives under no specified terms
For fixed produce
Under other terms
For share of produce together with other terms
For service contract
Under usufructuary mortgage
Total

32.6
26.2
14.6
14.2
8.2
2
1.6
0.7
100

Source: Authors calculation from Land and Livestock

Survey 201213.

Table 5: Percentage Distribution of Agricultural Households by Type of Land Possessed

Size Class

< 0.01
0.01 0.40
0.411.00
1.012.00
2.014.00
4.0110.00
10.00 +
All sizes

Distribution of Agricultural Households by Type of Land Possessed

Homestead
Homestead and
Other Land
No Land
All
Only
Other Land
Only

70.3
10
2.9
2
1.9
2
0.2
6.7

23.3
89.5
96.5
97.6
97.4
97.2
94.1
92.6

1.1
0.5
5
1
0.6
0.9
5.7
0.5

2.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Operated Any
Agricultural Land
for Last 365 Days
(in %)

Having MGNREGA
Job Card
(in %)

46.6
94.8
99.4
99.6
99.8
99.6
97.5
96.6

38.3
45.3
46.3
43.8
41.4
36.1
29.3
44.4

of them in rural India. Generally speaking, tenancy is on the decline in rural

India over the decades (Basole and Basu
2011). Studies also note the presence of
reverse tenancy in different parts of the
country (Sharma 2005; Shah and HarrisWhite 2011; Yadu 2014). Table 6 shows
that fixed money (32.6%) constitute the
largest terms of leasing followed by share
of produce (26.2%). Sharecropping still
remains an important tenancy arrangement. This provides evidence for the
presence of pre-capitalist agrarian relations in many parts in the country.
Concluding Observations
The agrarian question has serious implications for employment in India. As the
number of effectively landless increased considerably in the last decade, rural
people can no longer depend on agriculture as the sole means of livelihood. The
preponderance of small and marginal
holdings in the agrarian scene tells us
that more and more people will soon be
displaced from agriculture as the fragmentation and subdivision of landholdings will only become acute and the
landholdings, unviable to operate.
With jobless growth in the formal
sector, this problem rises to major proportions. Those who are dispossessed
from the agricultural sector find it hard
to get alternative forms of gainful employment in the formal industrial sector
as this sector stagnated in generating
additional employment in the country.
So, the reserve army of the dispossessed
increasingly find refuge in the growing
informal sector where the possibility of
getting a decent job is highly impossible.
NSSOs 70th round data reasserts the
argument that instead of the classic
transition from peasants to workers,
the dominant phenomenon that characterises rural labour in the contemporary
era is semi-proletarianisation. This is the
hallmark of the contemporary agrarian
question in India.
Notes
1
2

Source: NSSO (2014b).

22

april 16, 2016

Earlier rounds of land and livestock surveys

covered both rural and urban areas.
NSSO defines land possessed as land owned
(including land under owner-like possession)
+ land leased in land leased out + land held
by the household but neither owned nor leased
in (for example, encroached land).
vol lI no 16

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

References
Basole, Amit and Deepankar Basu (2011): Relations
of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction
in India: Part IAgriculture, Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 46, No 14, pp 4158.
Krishnaji (1990): Land and Labour in IndiaThe
Demographic Factor, Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol XXV, Nos 1819, pp 103842.
Lindberg, Staffan, Venkatesh B Athreya, Goran
Djurfeldt, A Rajagopal and R Vidyasagar (2014):
Progress over the Long Haul: Dynamics of
Agrarian Change in Kaveri Delta, Persistence of
Poverty in India, Nandini Gooptu and Jonathan
Parry (eds), New Delhi: Social Science Press.
Moyo, Sam, Praveen Jha and Paris Yeros (2013): The
Classical Agrarian Question: Myth, Reality and

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

april 16, 2016

Relevance Today, Agrarian South Jour nal of

Political Economy, Vol 2, No 1, pp 93119.
(2015): The Agrarian Question in the 21st Century, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 50,
No 37, pp 3541.
NSSO (2013): Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in India 201112, National Sample
Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
(2014a): Key Indicators of Land and Livestock
Holdings in India, National Sample Survey
Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India.
(2014b): Key Indicators of Situation of Agricultural Households in India, National Sample
Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and

vol lI no 16

Programme Implementation, Government of

India.
Rawal, Vikas (2008): Ownership Holdings in Rural
India: Putting the Record Straight, Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol 43, No 10, pp 4347.
Shah, Alpa and Barbara Harris-White (2011): Resurrecting Scholarship on Agrarian Transformations, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 46,
No 39, pp 1318.
Sharma, A N (2005): Agrarian Relations and
Socio-Economic Change in Bihar, Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 40, No 10, pp 96072.
Yadu, C R (2014): Land Question and Mobility of
the Marginalised: A Study of Land Inequality
in Kerala, MPhil diss submitted to Centre for
Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

23