Thursday, February 28, 2019

Commercialization of Agriculture Essay

IntroductionThe British prescript had pro nonenced and profound frugal par attain on India. The various scotch policies followed by the British adopt to the rapid trans pull ination of Indias deliverance into a colonial economy whose nature and structure were determined by needs of the British economy. maven important aspect of British economic policy was commercialisation of floriculture. commercialization of cultivation which can be defined as a influence where peasants start producing primarily for sale in distant trades, rather than to satiate their own need for feed or to move in local anesthetic markets, (Roy, 2007) has interpreted place at different snips in rejoinder to different stimuli.In the Indian context though a second of commercial crops such as cotton, tobacco and sugarcane were upgraden somewhatwhat extensively even off before the advent of British rule (Habib, 1982), since dobriny of a function revenue had to be paid mostly in change an d the prices of these crops were much higher at that time relative to the prices of foodgrains, however, commercialization of agriculture at that time corresponded yet to the requirements of traditional revenue economy in which the important form of revenue payable happened to be an indistinguishable mix of tax, re state of ward and rent (Raj, 1985).No doubt the need to pay revenue in cash was the initial compelling force for the marketing of unsophisticated produce, the boastfully surpluses so extracted from agriculture, with prohibited a flow of goods and services in the reverse program line in exchange, was basically an impediment to further commercialization (Raj, 1985). consequently, commercialization of agriculture in pre-British period existed only in its embryonic form. In adjust backbone, in that locationfore, agriculture of India got a commercial orientation during the British rule.Industrialization in Europe and commercialisation of floriculture in IndiaThe c ommercialization of Indian land took place not to feed the industries of India because India was far behind in industrial development as compared to Britain, France, Belgium and many opposite European countries of eighteenth hundred. The commercialization of Indian Agriculture was d unity primarily to feed the British industries that it was taken up and achieved only in cases-of those rural intersection points which were either needed by theBritish industries or could fetch cash commercial gain to the British in the European or American market. For example, several efforts were made to summation the outturn of cotton in India to provide raw and good part cotton to the cotton-textile industries of Britain which were growing fast by and by the Industrial Revolution in Britain. on that pointfore, cotton growing area amplify in India and its production change magnitude manifold with gradual lapse of time. Indigo and more than that, tea and java plantation were encouraged in I ndia because these could get commercial market abroad. It was right to the British planters, traders and manufacturers, who were provided with opport maven to make abundant profits by acquiring the commercialized country products at, throw a substance prices. The commercialization of Indian agriculture besides partly benefited Indian traders and coin lenders who made huge fortunes by working as middlemen for the British. This regard they acted as conduits delivering the products from peasants to the British company from where it was taken abroad.Though markets and trade in agricultural goods existed in quite form forms and on a large scale in the pre-British period just the market expansion in the British period marked a soft and quantitative break. According to Tirthankar Roy, in that location were three main qualitative changes.First, before the British rule, product markets were constrained and subject to imperfections, given numerousness of weights and measures, backwa rd and risky transportation systems, and extensive use of barter. British rule and the railways weakened these constraints. By doing so, it enab conduct closer integration of global, regional and local markets. Second, from the time of industrial revolution, a new inter topic specialization began to emerge as a will of trade. India specialized, in agricultural exports. Third, in turn, changes in the product market induced changes in background, labor, and credit markets (Roy, 2007). The American Civil warfare in addition indirectly encouraged commercialization of agriculture in India the British cotton demand was diverted to India. The demand of cotton was maintained even after the civil war ceased because of the rise of cotton textile industries in India.The commercialization of India agriculture was initiated in India by the British through their direct and indirect policies and activities. Firstly, the new shore up tenure system introduced in form of permanent settlement and Ryotwari Settlement had made agricultural land a freely exchangeable commodity. The Permanent settlement by giving possession right to the zamindars created a section of wealthy landlords they could make use of this self-possession right by sale or purchase of land. Secondly, the agriculture which had been way of life rather than a chore enterprise now began to be practiced for sale in internal and international market.Thirdly, the political unity established by the British and the resulted in rise of the unified national market. Fourthly, the spread of money economy replaced the barter and agricultural goods became market items and the surrogate of custom and tradition by competition and contract. Finally, the British policy of one way free trade also acted as fitting support factor for commercialization as the make items in textile, jute etc. could rule free entry in Indian markets, where as the manufactured goods did not consume similar free access to European markets.s hock of commercialization on Indian AgricultureIt is interesting to note that though there is petty controversy with regard to the role of British in initiating and promoting the forces which take to the commercialization of Indian agriculture, however, the nature of commercialization and its impact on the Indian peasantry had been very controversial issue, both during and after the British rule. To the nationalists, it was not out of the free will of the cultivators commercialization of agriculture was forced and artificial (Dutt, 1906). This was so because the high pitch of revenue demand in cash compelled the cultivators to shell out large portion of the produce of their fields keeping an insufficient broth for their own consumption. On the other hand the colonial bureaucracy argued that it was the market force rather than the drive of land revenue that was drawing the farmers into the business of production for the market. The commercial crops were more profitable and this economic incentive led them to produce for sale and export, thus making it possible for them to increase per capita in seminal fluid.Furthermore, the imperialistic historiography and the colonial bureaucracy viewed commercialization ofagriculture, the expansion of trade in agricultural products and the rising agricultural prices as an indication of the growing prosperity of the peasantry. (Satyanarayana, 2005). On the other hand anti-imperialist historiography (both nationalist and radical Marxist) emphasizing the contradict impact of commercialization of agriculture and the integration implied that agricultural production in India was to be determined by imperial preferences and needs (Bhatia, 1967). Moreover, other historians following the neo-classical economic theory or with anti-imperialistic orientations (Marxists and non Marxists) have extended their support to either of the two.The commercialization of agriculture was a forced and artificial process for the majority of Ind ian peasants. It was introduced under coercion of the British and not out of the incentive of peasantry at large. The peasantry went for cultivation of commercial crops under duress. Most importantly the life of the Indian peasant was tied to the highly fluctuating national and international market. He was no longer a deciding factor in agricultural practices. Further, by making agricultural land a tradable commodity, the peasant helpless his security feeling. High land revenue demand forced him to take loan from the money lender at high interest rates. visitation to pay debt in time meant loss of land to the money lender at high interest rates. It led to land alienation and increase in the number of agricultural laborers whose conditions especially in plantation manufacture was pathetic.He had to pay the land revenue due to the British regimen in time. Moreover, he had to grow commercial crop on a specified tract of his land under the oppression of planters. Also, Indian money lenders advanced Cash advances to the farmers to cultivate the commercial crops and if the peasants failed to pay him back in time, the land of peasants came under ownership of moneylenders. The poor peasant was forced to sell his produce just after harvest at whatever prices he could get. This placed him at the money of the grain merchant, who was in a bureau to dictate terms and who purchased his produced at much less than the market price.It also resulted in reduced area under cultivation of food crops. The interlock result of this change was that Indian failed to produce even that much foodcrops which could provide even two square meals a day to its population. The ruin was further enhanced became the population of India was increasing every year, fragmentation of land was taking place because of the increasing hug on land and new-fashioned techniques of agricultural production were not introduced in India. While the upper class and British industries benefited-from it, the Indian peasants life was tiedto remote international market. It touch on adversely the poor people of India it became difficult for them to get even sufficient food. This becomes ample from the fact that ill 1880 India had a surplus of foodstuffs to the extent of louvre zillion tons and by 1945 it had a deficit of 10 million tons. George Byn records that from 1893-94 to 1945-46, the production of commercial crops increased by 85 percent and that of food crops fell by 7 percent. This had a devastating effect on the rural economy and often took the shape of paucitys.Bhatia believes that the rather famines were localized, and it was only after 1860, during the British rule, that famine came to signify general shortage of foodgrains in the country. There were approximately 25 major famines spread through postulates such as Tamil Nadu in the south, and Bihar and Bengal in the east during the latter half of the nineteenth century. dandy belief and Indian AgricultureA global econom ic depression broke out in 1929. However, the causes were more diverse and multi-pronged, with the descend in costs and economic deflation of the post-war period existence one of the main reasons. This deflation was caused by overweening manufacturing activities during the First World War. As a result, huge stocks of goods were piled up without being used. Wartime expenditure had reduced the countries of Europe to a state of heavy debt (Manikumra, 2003). With the outbreak of the Second World War, India was required to provide the resources for backing the war expenditures, which amounted to nearly 38 billion rupees from 194146.Government accustomed excessive importance in maintaining war related production, as a result of which a comprehensive system of put outing food to the urban areas at controlled prices was put in place. The rural poor were not viewed as being essential to the war effort and so the main burden of war financing waspassed on to them.With the enormous Depre ssion, agricultural prices worldwide started falling earlier than industrial prices. As a result, the manufacturing-agriculture terms of trade turned acutely against agriculture. A substantial redistribution took place from the mass of rural producers to urban classes. Thus the combination of the long term trend of decline in per direct production of foodgrains, a rise in per head production of marketable and the effects of deteriorating terms of trade created a set of pre-famine conditions in the sense that any substantial shock to the economic system under these stack was almost certain to precipitate famine in the absence of countervailing intervention. Taxes were jacked up and deficit financing by printing money was resorted to and money supply is estimated to have raised five folds in the four years from 1940.As a result there was a war boom and profit inflation. rice price started an upward spiral from the last quarter of 1941, doubled deep down a year and quadrupled with in eighteen months.Also, the colonial government from the startle strongly pushed exportable production by forcible cultivation of poppy in the early 19th century and export of opium to China, culminating in the infamous opium wars and anil mutiny. With time overt force became less necessary as the pressure of revenue demand transmitted down to the peasant cultivators as the pressure of rental demand and in the case of landlords paying the revenue compelled peasants to grow more commercial crops to sell and to commercialize food production itself. famine Indian Agriculture strained by commercialization and Great DepressionThe fall in prices had been higher in India compared to the rest of the world, the price of commodities manufactured in India rose dramatically compared to imports from the UnitedKingdom or some other country in the world. The Great Depression had a ugly impact on the Indian farmer. While there was a steady, unrepressed increase in land rent, the value of the ag ricultural produce had come downto alarming levels. Therefore, having incurred heavy losses, the farmer was compelled to sell off sumptuous and silver ornaments in his possession in order to pay the land rent and other taxes. Farmers who were cultivating food crops had earlier moved over to cash crop cultivation in large numbers to meet the demands of the mill in the United Kingdom. Now, they were crippled as they were unable to sell their products in India due to the high prices nor could they export the commodities to the United Kingdom which had recently adoptive a protective policy prohibiting imports from India.An ex ante excess of investment over nest egg was converted to equality through forced savings extracted via food price inflation from the rural population. The consumption of food was past estimated at one and a half pound per individual and in 1945 it was 1 pound. Nearly thirty percent of the Indian population was estimated to be suffering from chronic malnutrition and under nutrition. Thus, the commercialization of agriculture in India by the British was also one of the important causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people. This resulted in a combination of famines and epidemics claiming around 2.7 to 3.1 million lives.The most cited example is that of Bengal shortages. Romesh Chunder Dutt argued as early as 1900, and present-day scholars such as Amartya Sen agree, that some past famines were a product of both uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support British. The Great Famine of 187678, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died and the Indian famine of 18991900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died were the most destructive famines.The Bengal Famine resulted in approximately 3 milliondeaths. more often than not the estima tes are between 1.5 and 4 million, considering death due to starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengals 60.3 million populations. Half of the victims would have died from disease after food became available in December 1943. Generally it is thought that there was serious decrease in food production during that time which is coupled with continuing export of grain.However according to Amartya Sen, there was no significant decrease in food production in 1943 (in fact food productionwas higher compared to 1941). The highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people fatigued all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc. The famine also caused major economic and social disruption, ruining millions of families.ConclusionSince colonial times, opinions would seem to have been divided between optimists, for whom commercialization marked come about and a growing prosperity for all pe ssimists, for whom it marked regress into intensify class stratification and mass pauperization and skeptics who held that it made very little difference and that its impact was largely absorbed by pre-existing structures of wealth accumulation and power on the land. However, capitalization in the 21 st century is said to create similar impact as colonial times, the only difference being that the later one was forced through tyrannic policies, whereas the former would be market driven.The farmer in his choice of crops attached greater importance to market demand and price than o other factors. Capitalism has mixed impacts on Indian agriculture. While it brings about rest and globalization that leads to trans-border availability of agricultural products all over the world, it breaks the economic liberty in India leading to greater dependency onmarket forces. trade of food products is one of the major reasons for inflation in India, it reduces the availability of agricultural prod ucts in India, increasing the demand and thus escalating the prices.Trade and liberalization has also made Indian agriculture vulnerable to global crisis. However, it provides for a national economy and also brought about regional specialization of crops on an businesslike basis. Hence, it is essential to learn from the lessons in the past and formulate policies to mitigate the negative impacts on Indian agriculture while being globally committed and liberalized.ReferencesAtchi Reddy, M., The commercialization of Agriculture in Nellore DistrictEffects on Wages, function and Tenancy. in Essays on the Commercialization of Indian Agriculture, editors et. al. K.N.Raj, 163-83. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1985. Avineri, Shlomo editor. Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. Garden metropolis 1969. Barber, William. British economic Thought and India 1600-1858 A Study in the fib of Development stintings. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1975. Bardhan, Pranab K. Land, Labor, and R ural Poverty Essays in Development Economics. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1984.Bhatia, B.M. Famines in India, 1860-1965. tender York (1967)Beaud, Michel. A History of Capitalism, 1500-1980. new(a) York Monthly Review Press, 1983. Bernanke, B.S. Essays on the Great Depression. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000 Bharadwaj, Krishna. A View on Commercialisation in Indian Agriculture and the Development of Capitalism. The Journal of Peasant Studies 12, no. 4 (1985) 7-25. Chaudhuri, Binay Bhushan. The Process of rural Commercialisation in Eastern India During British ruleA second thought of the Nations of Forced Commercialisation and Dependent Peasantry. In Meanings in Agriculture Essays in southeastern Asian History and Economics, editor Peter Robb, 71-91. New Delhi Oxford University Press, 1996. Dutt, R. C. Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, 1837-1901. London (1906).Greenough, Paul R. Prosperity and miserableness in Modern Bengal The Famine of 1943-1944. N ew York Oxford University Press, 1982.Habib, Irfan (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 1, c.1200-c.1757 New Delhi Orient Longman (1982).Ludden, David. Agrarian Commercialism in Eighteenth Century southwesterly India Evidence From the 1823 Tirunelveli Census. Indian Economic and social History Review 25, no. 4 (1988) 493-520.. The Terms of Ryotwari Praxis Changing Property Relations Among Mirasidars in the Tinnevelly District. In Studies in South India An Anthology of Recent Research and Critical Scholarship, Editor Pauline Kolenda, pp.151-70. Madras New Era Publications and the American Institute of Indian Studies, 1985.Ludden, David (editor). bucolic exertion and Indian History. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1994.Manikumar, K. A. A Colonial Economy in the Great Depression, Madras (19291937). Orient Blackswan. (2003). ISBN 978-81-250-2456-9.Mishra, Satish Chandra. Commercialisation, Peasant Differentiation and Merchant Capital in former(a) Nineteenth Century Bo mbay and Punjab. Journal of Peasant Studies 10, no. 1 (1982).Mokyr, Joel editor. The British Industrial Revolution An Economic Perspective. Boulder Westview Press, 1993.Naoroji,Dadabhai. PovertyandBritishRuleinIndia.1901.http//www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/expansion-and-commercialization-ofagriculture-during-the-british-rule-in-india/640 (accessed on September 4th, 2014) Raj, K.N. Neeladari Bhattacharya, Sumit Guha, and Shakti Padhi (ed.), Essays on Commercialization of Agriculture in India. Delhi Oxford University Press, (1985), p. viii.Rajasekhar, D. Commercialization of Agriculture and Changes in Distribution of Land Ownership in Kurnool District of Andhra 9C.1900-1950). The South Indian Economy Agrarian Change, Industrial Structure, and offer Policy, C1914-1947, 78-119. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1991.Ray, Rajat Kanta. The Bazaar Changing Structural Characteristics in the Indigenous Section of the Indian Economy Before and After the Great Depression. The Indian Ec onomic and Social History Review 25, no. (3) (1988) pp. 263-318.Robb, Peter. Peasant Choices? Indian Agriculture and the Limits ofCommercialization in Nineteenth-Century Bihar. The Economic History Review XLV, no. 1 (1992). Roy, Tirthankar. The Economic History of India, 1857-1947. New Delhi Oxford University Press, second edition (2007), p. 124.Satyananarayana A., Expansion of Commodity Production and Agrarian Market. New Delhi Oxford University Press, second edition (2005), p. 182.Satyasai, K. J. S., and K. U. Viswanathan. Commercialisation and Diversification of Indian Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly 31, no. 45-46 (1996) 3027-28. Sen, Amartya K. Poverty and Famines An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation. New York Oxford University Press, 1981.Shiva, Vandana. Ecology and the Politics of Survival Conflicts Over Natural Resources in India. Newbury Park, CA Sage Publications, 1991.Tilly, Louise A. Food Entitlement, Famine, and Conflict. In Hunger and History The Impact of Changing Food Productionand Consumption Patterns on Society, Editors Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, 135-52. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1983. Wakimura, Kohei. The Indian Economy and Disasters during the new-fashioned Nineteenth Century ProblemsofInterpretationofColonialEconomy.http//srch.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/rp/publications/no10/10-06_Wakimura.pdf (accessed on September 6th, 2014)Washbrook, David. The Commercialization of Agriculture in Colonial India Production, Subsistence and Reproduction in the Dry South, C. 1870-1930. Modern Asian Studies 28, no. 1 (1994) 129-64.

No comments:

Post a Comment