Reject Surrender at WTO Bali Ministerial

All India Kisan Sabha rejects the abject surrender at the WTO Ministerial by the Commerce Minister and demands that the Government refrain from accepting the provisions of the unequal Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes without discussion with and approval of the States and Parliament. We stand opposed to this WTO Ministerial Decision, which constrains and infringes upon our sovereign right to provide price support to farmers as well as ensure food security for the hungry millions. India has only given a new lease of life to the failed WTO, which was becoming irrelevant after the Doha Round.

The only possible gain that the Government can claim is that the Peace Clause will be in place in the interim until a permanent solution is found. The Commerce Minister’s public posturing and the text agreed to are at variance. On reading the Ministerial Decision carefully, one can understand how it will seriously compromise India’s food security and farmers’ livelihoods. India has failed to secure permanent protection to safeguard the food security and price support for farmers and assert it as a non-negotiable sovereign right. It has meekly agreed to the insistence of the developed world to accept guilt, by accepting the interim clause that mandates reporting of violations of de minimis Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) levels. The agreement will threaten expansion of present programmes of food security and price support to farmers as well as future programmes with such objectives. The USA, EU and other developed countries have brokered a deal with the Commerce Minister Anand Sharma to protect the interests of the rich nations and their agribusinesses.

Standstill Provision: The Ministerial Decision has a standstill provision incorporated in the text which clearly states that the Peace Clause or Due Restraint Provisions shall only be used to protect the public stockholding programmes “existing as of the date of this Decision”. The Footnote Number 3 is deceptive and even as it states that this Decision does not preclude developing countries from introducing programmes of public stockholding for food security purposes, in the name of Safeguards against Circumvention, Para 4 clearly states that they should not distort trade and Para 5 prohibits an increase of the support subject to the Member’s Bound Total Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) or the de minimis limits. This will freeze all scope of expansion of food security or price support to farmers in India and other G 33 countries, which have no such programmes in place at present, will also be deprived.

The crop basket under purview of Minimum Support Prices cannot be increased. Pulses, cooking oil and crops other than those described as “traditional staples” by the WTO cannot be included in the food security programme. Even the quantity of food grains procured cannot be increased beyond the procurement as of date which could have serious implications for the Food Security Programme. It may also mean entitlements under Food Security Programmes as also the MSP of different crops will have to be frozen. Further, the Support Price valuation will not be based on current prices as India was demanding and will remain to be based on 1987-88 prices.

Deliberate Ambiguity: While the Ministerial Decision in Para 2 states that it will be valid “in the interim, until a permanent solution is found” it also states in Para 1 that such a solution is for adoption at the 11th Ministerial Conference, which is 4 years hence. Para 2 also states that the Members shall refrain from challenging through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism “provided that the conditions set out” in the Decision are met. The WTO Secretariat described this as a “constructive ambiguity” and it actually deliberately dilutes the G-33 demand that this should be applicable till a permanent settlement is found under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM). The present Decision at the behest of the USA and EU is applicable only to AoA implying that Members may drag India to the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism under ASCM.

Conditions and Monitoring: Mandatory compliance to onerous data and transparency requirements and conditions that there should be no distortion of trade or adverse effects on food security of other members. This is an infringement on a Nation’s sovereign decision-making process and could have serious implications. The Agriculture Ministry and Food and Consumer Affairs Ministry will be forced to comply with these unilaterally decided conditions on an annual basis. Failure to supply the data can be tantamount to suspension of Peace Clause since it has been made conditional to meet the transparency requirement.  Countries are also to provide information on their administered or release prices and the volume of stocks purchased as well as how they arrived at these figures. This could unnecessarily expose domestic policies and priorities to being questioned in the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture. Such detailed notification and transparency requirements have not been demanded of the developed countries who would enjoy Special and Differential Treatment regarding transparency and notification.

Silence on Subsidies of Rich Countries: The rich countries led by the USA and the EU have retained their unrestricted right to channelise billions of dollars to their farmers and food aid programmes and the WTO has failed to deal with issues like the export subsidies of rich nations and US cotton subsidies, which the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial had promised to address in 2005. India has failed in the WTO Ministerial to give leadership to the Third World countries and ensure removal of such subsidies.

Work Programme and Trade Facilitation: The Bali Ministerial also came up with an imbalanced package which will mean expensive customs agreement for developing countries in the name of Trade Facilitation. This is tailor-made to promote the interests of predatory agribusinesses who monopolise trade. The commitment to a Work Programme could lead to the damaging trade liberalisation agenda of Doha Round being brought in and developing countries will have to cough up much more in addition to paying with trade facilitation now for arriving at a permanent solution.

Solidarity of Third World Countries Broken: India was seen as the leader of the G-33 countries and the Third World looked up to its role. However, the Commerce Minister broke the solidarity built meticulously over the years and capitulated to the hard bargain from USA and developed countries. India failed to create a coalition of developing countries to collectively oppose the completely distorted Bali package. As a result, India could not contribute at all towards the correction of the fundamental problems of the present international trade regime. On the whole, the WTO agreement will continue to be a major threat to the working people in less-developed countries. India also did not insist on ending the inhuman 60-year US blockade on Cuba. The Latin American, African and Asian countries have been let down by India’s decision.

AIKS calls upon all sections to rise up and resist such decisions against the people and the sovereignty of the country.

Sd/-                                                                                                              
Amra Ram
President

Hannan Mollah
General Secretary

Reject Peace Clause on G-33 Proposal in WTO Bali Ministerial; Protect Farmers’ Livelihoods and People’s Right to Access Food

The All India Kisan Sabha has released this press statement:

In the context of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) 9th Ministerial Conference slated to be held in Bali in December 2013, the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) calls upon the UPA Government to intervene to protect the livelihoods of millions of our farmers and remain committed to our sovereign right to decide upon our price support policy as well as food security programme. The WTO induced policies of trade liberalisation has led to adverse implications for the Indian peasantry especially the poor and marginal farmers. AIKS has strongly opposed the WTO and especially the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which calls for cutting down agricultural subsidies in the developing countries on the pretext that they were “trade distorting”. AIKS calls for rejecting the Interim Solution suggested by the WTO Director General Roberto Azvedo to the G-33 Proposal. The proposed Interim Solution is detrimental to the interests of the developing countries and millions of farmers. 

The WTO Director General put forward a Peace Clause or Due Restraint Clause as a fait accompli to the G-33 countries with an arrogant “take it or leave it” stance. This will have adverse implications for the Procurement Policy and the Food Security Programme of the country. The WTO agenda remains to prise open the markets of the Third World Countries to the agribusinesses and to provide them an unregulated access.

The so-called Peace Clause restricts India and other developing countries’ right to provide subsidies or support to crops. It suggests that only “traditional staple food crops” may be extended subsidies for a stipulated period of 4 years extending till the 11th Ministerial Conference of WTO with an understanding that no member shall challenge it through WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism till then. Already the AoA only allows de minimis subsidy of 10 percent of production cost for most developing countries. This itself defies logic and is calculated based on a fixed reference price of 1986-88 when prices were much lower. It thereby shows inflated subsidies while remaining totally oblivious to the present day global agricultural prices. It also calculates subsidy on the basis of total production receiving subsidy rather than the actual procurement.

In addition the developed capitalist countries which are seeking to impose such restrictions have flexibility to retain high levels of subsidies in the form of direct transfers, food stamps and other measures. The USA and the European Union are going ahead with their domestic subsidies as well as export subsidies by conveniently shifting subsidies to the Green Box and has refused to comply with the stipulated 20 percent reduction in their Aggregate Measurement of Support. The USA has more than doubled its subsidy from US $ 61 Billion to US $ 130 Billion between 1995 and 2010 while the EU subsidies hover around € 90 to 79 Billion between 2006-09.  In 2012 USA spent US $ 100 Billion for its food aid programmes while India’s food subsidy bill is expected to be less than US $20 Billion only.

Subsidies that seek to bring in a semblance of livelihood security and food security in impoverished countries cannot be treated as “trade distorting”. Acquisition of food stocks to ensure food security needs and support for resource-poor, small and marginal farmers to provide minimum livelihood security cannot be given up. Procurement on grounds of food security or support for poor and marginal farmers must be exempt from all restrictions. AIKS reiterates that this falls strictly within the realm of our sovereign State policy and the Government should speed up efforts to extricate India and other Third World countries from such unequal and unfair restrictions. The huge disparities in permissible agricultural support levels between developed and developing countries needs to be eliminated. In the interim period the reference price needs to be updated by accounting for inflation and increased costs and levels of price support should be computed on the basis of actual quantity procured rather than the actual quantity produced. India should effectively intervene to safeguard these rights. AIKS demands that the developed countries’ domestic and export subsidies in the Green Box should be challenged and eliminated. India should take the lead to unite all the developing and Third World countries to restructure and overturn the unequal WTO regime.

Amra Ram                                 
President

Hannan Mollah
General Secretary

Comrade T. N. Seema's dissent note on the Food Security Bill

The National Food Security Bill, 2011 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2011. The Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution presented its report on January 17, 2013. It made recommendations on key issues such as the categorisation of beneficiaries, cash transfers and cost sharing between the centre and states. A dissent note was presented by one MP from the CPI (M), Dr. T.N. Seema. We are happy to publish the dissent note below:
 
I wish to record my disagreement and dissent on some recommendations of the Committee as well as on some recommendations not made by the Committee which 1 feel should have been made. I have expressed these views in the course of the discussions in the Committee also. However, the final report in my opinion is not satisfactory on these issues fundamental to the question of food security; hence this note of dissent.

1. The entitlements in the Bill should be universal in nature with no caps artificially decided. However the Committee has recommended only a uniform entitlement not a universal one. Thus the numbers of those to be covered by even a uniform entitlement will be subject to the arbitrary caps put by the Planning Commission of 75 per cent (rural) and 50 per cent (urban). In fact the committee specifically recommends these caps in paraa 2.5. This undermines food security in a fundamental way. The recommendation of the Committee is only that the State Governments if they want can increase the coverage at their own cost. This is both meaningless and unfair. At present, the Bill specifically states that all foodgrains provided by the centre to the States have to be distributed as mandated. This means that the States which are using the foodgrains at present to ensure near universal coverage will no longer be able to do so. They will now have to buy the extra foodgrains required at the market price. This will mean the elimination of the effective food programmes being run by several State Governments. The committee has failed to take these factors into account.

2. The uniform entitlement recommended by the Committee at 5 kgs per head is quite unacceptable as it would reduce even the present entitlement for BPL and AAY families of 35 kgs effectively by 10 kgs for a family of five. This cut in entitlement will be creating food insecurity for 6.52 crore families (presently identified as BPL/Antodaya). This will only help the Government to contain its subsidy but not provide food security which is the aim of the Bill. It would have been better to have kept the entitlement to 7 kgs per individual for all with a minimum of 35 kgs ensured by law. Larger families would in any case be covered through the individual entitlement.

3. The Committee has correctly recommended a uniform price for all. However, it has adopted the prices of three rupees, two rupees and one rupee, for one kg of rice, wheat and millets respectively. While this is beneficial for those who would have been categorized as "general sections" in the Government Bill, it is not doing justice to the Antodaya sections who are getting their allotments at two rupees per kg, which has also been adopted as the price norm for non-Antodaya sections in many States. Thus, the committee's recommendation should have taken into account the present situation in the States and suggested a uniform price of 35 kgs (minimum) at two rupees a kilo.

4. The Bill has been rightly criticized by many of the representations being highly centralized. This is more so as far as the cost sharing issue is concerned. In a central Bill the centre must bear the major share of the cost. Many State Governments said that the entire cost should be born by the centre. However, the committee has recommended categorization of States. This is opening up a pandora's box and will lead to giving the centre even more powers to pick and choose the categories. States with a particular problem of transportation, such as the north-east States should get the benefit of the centre paying for the full amount. In any case, no cost sharing can be decided by central Government arbitrarily as is being done with many schemes and laws. The relevant clauses in the Bill which deal with this topic must be deleted; otherwise, it is extremely unfair to the States and moreover undermines the federal character of the constitution.

5. On the issue of direct cash transfers the recommendation of the committee is that "at this juncture" it should not be introduced as the infrastructure is absent. While this note of caution should be taken seriously by the Government, the committee however has failed to recommend, as it should have, that reference to cash transfers in the Bill should be removed altogether. I believe it is essential to emphasise in the recommendation that cash transfers instead of food at a time of high food inflation is bound to lead to food insecurity. The increase in market prices of foodgrains will mean that the cash subsidy will not cover the entire cost of 35 kgs entitlement. Further, since there is no guarantee as to how the cash will be spent, it may lead to further malnutrition. Retaining the cash transfer clause in the law would mean that a Government would have the legal right to enforce it.

6. I think it is wrong for the committee to make a specific recommendation to limit the allowance of 1000 rupees to a pregnant woman for only the first two children. This is imposing a two child norm which is objectionable. The problems she faces will be the same, if not more with a third child. Why should we make the woman suffer, when she rarely has the power to take the decision about the numbers of children she should bear. As far as anganwadis are concerned, the committee has wrongly absolved the Government from providing free meals and added nutrition for pregnant mothers. There are other points such as fixing control prices for pulses, edible oil and other essential commodities which should be included in the Bill.

Stop transferring people’s cash to corporate pockets!

All India Kisan Sabha condemns the decision of the Congress-led UPA Government to decontrol diesel prices and allow oil marketing companies to arbitrarily hike prices. This will lead to hike in prices of all essential commodities, increase irrigation costs and costs of transport. The poor, the cultivating peasantry and the masses will be adversely hit by this move. Within no time the oil companies have hiked the price of diesel by 45 paise per litre excluding taxes.

The Indian Oil Corporation has also announced that subsidies will no longer be available to bulk diesel consumers and the prices will be determined by the market forces. This implies an increase by Rs.9.25 Ps per litre excluding taxes. The effective hike of around Rs.10.80 Ps a litre for bulk diesel consumers like railways, transport undertakings, power sector and many other sectors will only spark off an overall hike in transportation costs, costs of power generation and in many other sectors. Already the rail fares have been hiked and the Railways has immediately claimed that this move will lead to an additional 30 percent increase in fuel costs or effectively an annual burden of Rs.2700 crores. Oil companies are seeking to bring Indian diesel prices at par with international prices. This betrays logic as India imports crude oil which is then refined here. There is no way that this price can be at par with global price of diesel.

The oil marketing companies have also raised the price of the domestic non-subsidised LPG cylinder by Rs. 46.50 paise. While the demand has been to remove the unjustified cap on number of cylinders for domestic use, the Government has capped it at 9 cylinders per year. The cost of the subsidised cylinders will be Rs.410.50 Ps while a non-subsidised cylinder will cost not less than Rs.942. The move will only further burden the common masses. AIKS demands the withdrawal of the decision to cap subsidised cylinders for domestic use.

Deregulation in petrol and fertilisers in the recent past have led to an arbitrary and uncontrolled rise in prices of petrol and fertilisers. The present decision will ensure that this would be the order of the day for diesel also from now on.  Irrigation costs for the peasantry will only keep rising. The prices of gas cylinders for domestic use will also see a similar trend. This Government which has been resorting to farcical “cash transfers” by resorting to deregulation is actually transferring people’s money into the pockets of profiteering private companies. On the pretext of cutting down fiscal deficit it is doing away with subsidies which provided some relief to the poor even as massive tax concessions are being given to the rich and the corporate sector.
 
AIKS calls upon all State Units to hold massive protests against these anti-people moves.

Press Statement, 19th January, 2013.

AIKS statement on the Rangarajan Committee on Sugar Decontrol

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) strongly condemns the Rangarajan Committee recommendation for total decontrol of the sugar industry. This move pushed by the Congress-led UPA Government will only promote the interests of the profit seeking Corporate Sugar Mills at the expense of the farmers, consumers and the Cooperative sector. The Government is pushing for decontrol of sugar to aid the sugar lobby and big corporates who also are defaulters in terms of huge arrears that need to be paid to Cane Growers. This move is at the behest of the sugar lobby which has been demanding removal of controls and allowing for unbridled profiteering. Opinion of AIKS on the major issues raised by the Committee is given below:

On Removal Of State Administered Price: 

AIKS rejects the Committee call for ending the State Administered Price (SAP) of sugarcane set by the States in favour of the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) set by the Centre as the minimum. This is against the principles of federalism guiding Centre-State relations as well as against the spirit of the Apex Court judgment in 2004 reinforcing the State Governments’ right to announce SAP. The right of the State in fixing prices must be safeguarded. It is notable that the ‘Fair and Remunerative Price’ used by the Central Government is a deceptive term and is far below the cost of cultivation in all States. In the name of “Rationalisation of Sugar Cane Pricing” the Committee is pitching for the discredited FRP which is neither “Fair” nor “Remunerative”.  This move is against the interest of the Cane Growers. 

On Removal of Levy Sugar Obligation: 

AIKS rejects its recommendation that the levy sugar obligation and administrative control on non-levy sugar must be immediately ended. Under this obligation mills are required to sell 10 per cent of their production to the Government at below market price for the poor under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). The Committee also suggests that the States that wanted to provide sugar under the TPDS might procure from the open market through competitive bidding, and then fix an issue price. It also has asked the Government to “rationalize” the current issue price for TPDS sugar. The Food Ministry is reported to have already proposed to double the issue price to around Rs. 23/Kg. This move is going to have a cascading effect on the prices of sugar for the TPDS beneficiaries and States will end up coughing out huge resources for buying sugar from the open market for TPDS supply. The price of sugar in the open market will also sky rocket. In effect the move is against the TPDS and the poor. It has to be noted that earlier the levy sugar obligation was 65 percent and 35 percent alone was for the open market. This had been gradually altered to 10 percent levy sugar and 90 percent for open market. By doing away with the obligation of even 10 percent levy sugar the Government intends to allow a free hand to Private players to fix prices.

On Removal Of The Cane Reservation Area: 

The Committee has suggested the removal of the concept of a Reservation Area of a minimum distance of 15 km between any two sugar mills. As of now it is obligatory that a mill buys cane from growers within the reservation area. Instead the Committee suggests that mills must enter into contracts with farmers and the Cane Reservation Area and bonding must be phased out. This move will only promote monopolies of big corporate sugar mills and destroy the Cooperative sector. Companies will no longer be bound by any agreement on Government fixed prices. It will open the way for loot by the sugar lobby and Cane Growers will be at the mercy of Private players.

On Tagging Order: 

The Committee recommends that the mills must share 70 per cent of the value of sugar and each by-product, including bagasse, molasses and press-mud as cane dues payable to farmers for supplies. The payment to farmers will be made in two steps: the first, the minimum FRP set by the Centre; and the second, subsequent to the publication of half-yearly ex-mill prices. The Tagging Order earlier was 80 percent of the value of sugar and each by-products and the Committee has only reduced it further to the detriment of the Cane-Growers. The Mills have also defaulted on paying this amount. They have arbitrarily fixed the recovery rate often much below the actual and reports of fraudulent weighing of produce are rampant. The Sugar Mills’ word is taken as final on both recovery and weighing and there is no check on them. Cane Growers never really have benefited from value of by-products. There is no mechanism in place to ensure that the Cane Growers get any share of the value of by-products. In such a context to give a free unregulated role to the Sugar Millers will only lead to their strangle-hold over the market.

On Export and Import Policy: 

The Committee in the name of a stable trade policy calls for outright ban or doing away with quantitative restrictions once and for all. It calls for liberalisation of sugar trade over a two to three year period in a calibrated and phased manner. It suggests a moderate duty on imports and exports and suggests that Export and import policy should not be guided by domestic availability. It argues for promoting exports by arguing that even though India contributes 17 per cent to the global sugar output, its share in exports is only four per cent. It also keeps the doors open for imports from outside as well as the possibility of dumping of sugar by calling for an outright ban on quantitative restrictions. We have seen the adverse impact of withdrawal of quantitative restrictions and import duties as well as linking of prices to the volatile world market prices in the case of other commercial crops. While farmers bear the brunt of falling global prices, the Corporate Mills earn huge profits when global prices rise without transferring any benefit to farmers. Like in the case of decontrol of Seed industry, Fertiliser industry, Pesticide industry and Petroleum industry, the move will only lead to increased prices for the consumers and unending profits for the Companies. 

AIKS calls upon the State Units to rise up in protest against this move and resist this retrograde move tooth and nail. AIKS demands that the Government reject these recommendations and a Comprehensive Sugarcane Policy be evolved through consultation with the Cane Growers and Peasant Organisations. 

Sd/-                                                                                                            

S.Ramachandran Pillai                                                                               
President

K. Varadha Rajan
General Secretary

First Krishna Khopkar Memorial Lecture delivered

The first Krishna Khopkar Memorial Lecture, organised by the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), was held in Nashik on the 15th September 2012, Saturday. The memorial lecture was delivered by Professor V. K. Ramachandran, Professor, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. Professor Ramachandran spoke on "Resolving the Agrarian Question in India".

After paying rich homages to Comrade Krishna Khopkar, Ramachandran spoke on "Resolving the Agrarian Question in India". He said that the agrarian question continues to be the foremost national question before the people of India. This question had deeply influenced selfless leaders of the kisan movement like Krishna Khopkar through their life. The significance of the agrarian question in India lies not merely in the fact that more than 70 per cent of India’s population lives in rural areas (an important reason in itself), but in the fact that the agrarian question is the axis of the people’s democratic revolution, and its overwhelming significance will remain as long as the people’s democratic phase continues.

When India gained Independence 63 years ago, the major economic problems of the newly independent nation could be characterised thus: hundreds of millions of India’s people lived in the depths of income poverty, in conditions of hunger, illiteracy, lack of schooling, avoidable disease, and subject to what were among the worst forms of class, caste, and gender oppression in the world. The truly appalling feature of more than six decades of independent development is that that characterisation of India’s economic problems remains true even today. The basic reason is clear: modern historical experience has shown us that no fundamental transformation of conditions of poverty and oppression in Indian society is possible without a resolution of its agrarian question.

He explained that to solve the agrarian question today is to address seven major issues: 1) to free the countryside of all forms of landlordism, old and new; 2) to free the working peasantry and manual workers from their present fetters of unfreedom and drudgery and to guarantee them the means of income and livelihood; 3) to redistribute agricultural land; 4) to provide the rural working people with house-sites, and basic, clean, sanitary homes and habitations; 5) to create the conditions for the liberation of the people of the scheduled castes and tribes, of women, and other victims of sectional deprivation (including in most parts of India, the rural Muslim population); 6) to ensure universal formal school education; 7) to achieve the general democratisation of life and progressive cultural development in rural India.

एफ डी अई: विनाशकाले विपरीध बुद्धी (पूर्वार्ध)

(मार्क्सवादी कम्म्युनिस्ट पक्षाच्या पुस्तिकेचा पहिला भाग या अंकात प्रकाशित करीत आहोत)

(Click to enlarge page 1)

(Click to enlarge page 2)

(Click to enlarge page 3)

This is a part of the document; the full document can be read in English at http://www.cpim.org/documents/2011-Dec-FDI-Retail.pdf.

An article on agrarian issues in India, including Maharashtra

We take this opportunity to introduce to you all a very important paper on agrarian issues in India in the era of globalisation.

 

This paper describes and analyzes the impact of policies of globalization and liberalization on the agrarian economy of India. In particular, it discusses the reversal of land reform, changes in the policies of administered agricultural input costs and output prices, cutbacks in public investment in rural physical and social infrastructure, the dismantling of the institutional structure of social and development banking, the withdrawal of quantitative restrictions on the import of agricultural products, cutbacks in the public distribution system, and the undermining of national systems of research and extension and protection of national plant and other biological wealth. The data used in the paper come from the major sources of national-level official statistics and primary data collected as part of a Project on Agrarian Relations in India. 

Maharashtra was the fourth State to be studied as part of the Project on Agrarian Relations in India (PARI). Census-type surveys were conducted in May-June 2007 in two villages. This paper uses data collected from the two villages in Maharashtra, among others: Warwat Khanderao in Buldhana and Nimshirgaon in Kolhapur. Warwat Khanderao is in Sangrampur tehsil, Buldhana district, in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Nimshirgaon is a village in Shirol taluk of Kolhapur district in the sugarcane-growing region of western Maharashtra. For more details on the villages, see http://agrarianstudies.org/pages.asp?menuid=29

The paper comes to the conclusion that "Our survey data from Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra indicate the near-impossibility, in the present circumstances, of peasant households with two hectares of operational holdings or less earning an income sufficient for family survival." 

Read the paper by clicking here: DOWNLOAD