An Assessment of Share Cropping in Paddy Cultivation- An Empirical Analysis in Burdwan District of West Bengal

Introduction

This paper begins with an examination of the reforms undertaken during the fifties under the Congress regime in West Bengal mainly the Acts of1950, 1953 and 1955 and their impact on share croppers. This is followed by a review of the legislative and administrative decisions taken during the seventies, again under the Congress regime which were very radical in content, but were not meant to be implemented.¹⁰ In sharecropping, a family farmed someone else’s land where the land owner demanded around half of the crop yield (usually cotton) in exchange for rent. But because the landowner provided the share cropper with seeds, beasts of burden, farm tools, housing, and food, he often claimed a larger share.Farm tenancy is a form of lease arrangement where by a tenant rents, for cash or a share of crops, farm property from a landowner. Different variations of tenant arrangements exist, including share cropping, in which, typically, a landowner provides all of the capital and a tenant all of the labor for a fifty percent share of crops.The need to bring structure to the share cropping system, however, has only grown with time. In debt to the landowner for everything, the share cropper rarely worked up from poverty.¹ The second labor system, tenant farming, also required farmers to work someone else’s land and pay rent with a portion of the crop yield. But the tenants usually at least owned a small home, farm tools, and a horse or mule.⁴ Temporarily selected research have claimed that benefit disparity per se is not that much aproblematic, rather it is the blend of benefit disparity and bazaar let downs that pointers to undesirable result on development. Easterly (2007) has illustrious among physical disparity and bazaar dis similarity and has claimed that physical disparity is definitely ruthless, but market disparity has vague effects.² For medium and large farmers,the main reasons for pursuing share cropping in rice cultivation is due to their comparative better economic condition, better resource endowment such as human labour, draught animal resources, tractor and power tillers availability.³ In West Bengal,Rice is the staple food crop. The risk of yield  has dropped from the previously 13 per cent to 5 per cent of late and the yield risk is fundamentally liable for the waning in variability production of  rice in this state.⁸

Table 1: Instability Indices of Rice and Wheat crops in IGP of India.

Source: Computed from FAO statistics

Methodology

In most of the cases, it was found that share cropping in rice cultivation is surviving on the condition of 50:50 produce sharing between share croppers and land owners who give their land for cultivation to these farmers. In some cases of share cropping, very few land owners give input to their share croppers. In fact, almost all the famers irrespective of their size of operational holding have 50:50 produce sharing between the share croppers and their land owners.⁵ But 12.24 per cent of share cropping practicing farmers have both 50:50 inputs and produce share among them.Present study is an attempt to know the extent and pattern of share cropping practiced in crop cultivation in general and in rice cultivation in particular. Among the three districts Burdwan was selected for the present study because this district has maximum area under rice (50.60 per cent of the total cropped area of the district).

The sample for the study was made using Three Stage Random Sampling Design. Block formed the first stage unit while the villages and farm households were the second and ultimate unit of sampling respectively. One block was selected in the district,Burdwan of the Damodarvalley zone in West Bengal. Survey was conducted on 100 numbers of farm households distributed in ten villages and these villages were selected at random. Later on farm household were stratified into four groups on the basis of their operational or total cultivated land holding as follows:

A detailed Survey was conducted by using semi structured and particularly premeditated interview schedules. The analytical procedures like growth rate, simple tabular analysis, were applied to estimate convenience and use of productive resources by share cropper farmers versus other farmers. Regression analysis approach was used in evaluating relation between land resources inequity and productivity of inputs. In the present paper ‘growers with functionalprosperities of land extent below 2 ha’ have been stated as ‘tiny holders’. In order make the data more analogous, recently designed states, viz. Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand were collected with their unique states from which that states were etched out, viz. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and UP, correspondingly(FAO,2005).⁶

Results and Discussion

West Bengal’s sharecroppers have benefited enormously from the State’s land reforms and legislation-implementation programs like Operation Barga. The success of West Bengal’s efforts is evident in its villages: the economic and social status of many bargadars has been significantly enhanced.¹¹ The NNS 59th round (January-December 2003) report has pointed out that on issues ranging from indebtedness of farmer households to their access to modern technology, Bengal farmers are not better off than their counterparts in other states. Operation Barga involvedregistration of 1.4 million bargadars, of which over 30 per cent were dalits and over 12 per cent were adivasis.⁹ Through Operation Barga, about 1.1 million acres of land was permanently brought under the control of bargadars and their right to cultivate this land was secured.

Below the table 2 provides official data on the extent of SCs and STs among the beneficiaries of land reform.

Table 2: Extent of SCs and STs among the beneficiaries of land reform.

From the above table there has more pattadar than that of bargadar in the study area and the percentage of scheduled tribe is more in pattadar.

From the Table 2 study showed that 26.49 per cent of the total operational holding area was put under sharecroped cultivation in rice cultivation, which varied from 19.65 per cent in marginal farms to 26.86 percent in large farms (Table1). Thus, it was found that the extent of share cropping in the sampled area increases with the increase in farm size holdings. Again, it was found that 49 per cent of the farm households were practicing share cropping in rice cultivation as a whole. Percentage of farm households practicing share cropping was highest.

Table 3: Characteristics of share cropping and land use pattern in rice cultivation by size group of farms districts in West Bengal.

The total human labour employment created due to share cropping in rice cultivation in the sample area was 60.09 man days per farm per year in average situation which varied from man days in marginal farm to 141.82 man days in large farms per year. Thus, human labour employment generation due to share cropping in rice cultivation increases with the increase in farm size.

Special characteristics of share cropping in the study area are:

For marginal and small farmers, they undertake share cropping due to their very small size of operational holding (0.58ha& 1.47ha respectively).⁷ and also due to their available human and draught animal power resources. Thus, they are using their disguised un-employment in rice cultivation through share cropping mode of crop cultivation. Otherwise, there would be more disguised unemployment. Existing owned resources would be underutilized or remains idle .Thus, sharecropping helps marginal and small farmers in minimizing their level of disguised unemployment. Their resources get seasonal employment and thus, help in supplementing their total farm income and employment.

For medium and large farmers, the main reasons for pursuing sharecropping in rice cultivation is due to their comparative better economic condition, better resource endowment such as human labour, draught animal resources, tractor and power tillers availability and those who do not have enough of these resources, they are also in position to hire these sources of power for their crop cultivation. Sharecropping by medium and large farmers also help in supplementing their total farm income, resources get employment and thereby help in enhancing their purchasing power and per capita income.

Those marginal farmers who give their cultivable land to other farmers for share cropping in rice cultivation, they do that due to their non-availability of draught animal power, their inability to hire tractor or power tillers for ploughing their land and also due to their inability to apply the required amount of fertilizers and plant protections chemicals. Because, economically their purchasing power is very low and their attitude for cultivation is far away from commercial line. Their economic conditions is such that they find wage earning in other’s farms and non-farm sectors more profitable than undergoing traditional mode of crop cultivation in their very small unit of land

 Conclusion

Thus, from the above analysis it can be concluded that share cropping in West Bengal state is needof vital reforms. An enormous scope is there to raise paddy production in the eastern India through increasing the efficiency of crops with the implementation of better-quality inputs and cost-effective methods of rice cultivation in due time and space on a sustainable way. In West Bengal Share cropping is established as additional source of farm returns to that producers who accept share-cropping by leasing plots from others landlord. It also provide a complementary income source and employment generation for both the farmers and non-farmers. Itis due to the farmer who accepts share-cropping in landlord and others cultivators who lease their land for share-cropping to other cultivators. Thus, Share-cropping in the study area has created both additional and balancing source of family returns.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Science,GKVK,Bangalore for providing financial support and necessary facilities to carry out this research work. We also thank Agricultural University, UAS, GKVK for providing data analysis software to carry out this study.

References

1. Bardhan P. Evolution of Land Distribution in West Bengal 1967-2004: Role of Land Reform and Demographic Changes.WorkingPaper , Hanoi. 2014
2. Chopra., Kanchan. Distribution of agricultural assets in Punjab: Some aspects of inequality. Economic and Political Weekly, 19 (13): A29 – A38. 1984
3. Deininger K., Jin S., Yadav V. Long term effects of land reform on human capital accumulation: Evidence from West Bengal. UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2011.
4. Easterly., William. Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new instrument. Journal of Development Economics. 2007;84(2):755-776.
   CrossRef
5. FAO Fertilizer Use by Crops in India. Report of the Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service, Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 2005.
6. Goswami BinoyandBezbaruah,M.P.Revisiting the Tenancy-Inefficiency Question with an Inter-temporal OptimisationFramework: Insights from the Agrarian Set-up of Assam Plains in Eastern India.SAUFE-WP-2015-001. 2015
7. Nayak., Sanatan. Distributional inequality and groundwater depletion: An analysis across major states in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2009;64(1) 89-107.
8. Sharma A.   A Cross-country Analyses of Trends in Agricultural Labour Force, paper presented at 5th IWMI-Tata Annual Partners’ Meet at IRMA, Anand, Gujarat. 2006
9. Takashi., Kurosakia. Evaluating Efficiency Gains from Tenancy Reform Targeting a Heterogeneous Group of Sharecroppers: Evidence from India. Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University. 2016.
10. Wheeler, Rachel Sabates. Asset Inequality and Agricultural Growth: How Are Patterns of Asset Inequality Established and Reproduced? Background paper for World Development Report. 2004.
11. Nielsen., Robin., Hanstad., Tim. From Sharecroppers to Landowners: Paving the Way for West Bengal’s Bargadars. Rural Development Institute Report No. 121.  2004.