Between 1971 and 1991, India’s total number of farm holdings (aggregate for all farm sizes) increased from 70.5 million to 106.6 million (Table 1). Within those totals, the small-size holdings - encompassing the categories sub-marginal (less than 0.50 ha), marginal (0.50 to 0.99 ha), and small (1.00 to 1.99 ha) - increased from 49.1 million (70 per cent of the 70.5 million total) to 83.4 million (78 per cent of the increased total of 106.6 million). Correspondingly, the average size of holding (all sizes) decreased from 2.28 ha (1971) to 1.55 ha (1991) as the number of holdings and of farm families increased - the total agricultural-land area remained almost unchanged. Significantly, the average size of those holdings smaller than 2.00 ha did not decline (Table 1); but the average size of holdings larger than 4.00 ha decreased from 9.18 ha in 1971 to 7.95 ha in 1991 - thereby lessening the national-average farm size. This trend has positive policy implications for farm efficiency, since we shall later suggest (as did Sen for the 1950s) an inverse relationship between productivity and farm size. Table 1 shows also that the land per caput decreased for almost all farm-size categories - indicating that the attainment of household food security is intensifying the pressure on the land resource.
Table 1: Distribution of holdings by farm-size category - All India - 1971 and 1991
|
Farm-size category |
Number of holdings (million) |
Net cropped area (million ha) |
Average size (ha/holding) |
Land per caput (ha/cap) |
||||
|
1971 |
1991 |
1971 |
1991 |
1971 |
1991 |
1971 |
1991 |
|
|
Sub-marginal |
23.2 |
42.7 |
5.4 |
9.8 |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.046 |
0.046 |
|
Marginal |
12.5 |
20.6 |
9.1 |
15.0 |
0.73 |
0.73 |
0.140 |
0.124 |
|
Small |
13.4 |
20.1 |
19.3 |
28.8 |
1.44 |
1.43 |
0.240 |
0.217 |
|
Medium |
10.7 |
13.8 |
30.0 |
38.4 |
2.81 |
2.76 |
0.426 |
0.373 |
|
Large |
10.7 |
9.2 |
98.3 |
73.4 |
9.18 |
7.95 |
1.257 |
0.994 |
|
All Farms |
70.5 |
106.6 |
162.1 |
165.5 |
2.28 |
1.55 |
0.400 |
0.258 |
Source: Agricultural Census 1970-71 and 1990-91; Figures in parenthesis: share (%) in the all-farms total.In 1991, small-size holdings, constituting 78 per cent of all holdings, commanded 33 per cent of the total net cropped area, while medium- and large-size holdings, constituting 22 per cent of the farmers, commanded 67 per cent (Table 1). About three-fifths of all holdings were marginal or sub-marginal, and about one-fifth were small. However, sub-marginal holdings - comprising 40 percent of all holdings, commanded only 9.8 per cent of the total agricultural-land area. Contrastingly, large-size holdings (> 4.00 ha) accounted for only 9 percent of all holdings but commanded 44 per cent of the area. Between 1971 and 1991, the proportion of holdings smaller than 1.00 ha increased from 51 to 62 per cent.
Gross cropped area (GCA - Table 2) increased by 21 million hectares (13 percent) between 1971 and 1991 - a result primarily of increases within the small-size holdings; Table 1 indicated that during the same period there was much less increase - 3 million hectares (2 percent) - in net cropped area. The last two columns of Table 2 permit a determination of the extent to which the increase in net cropped area is a consequence of increase in gross cropped area. For the smaller farms (sub-marginal, marginal, small) in aggregate, the proportional increase in gross cropped area is typically 10 percentage points higher than the proportional increase in net cropped area; for the larger (medium, large) farms, the corresponding figure is typically 7 percentage points. There is thus some slight evidence that the smaller farms intensified somewhat more than the larger farms; the large farms nonetheless intensified creditably. However, the trend to smaller farm-size, and the somewhat greater intensification (and possibly greater diversification) achieved on the smaller farms, together suggest that the small and marginal holdings may expect to play a prominent part in modernizing Indian farming procedures and in achieving increased and sustainable productivity and profitability.
Table 2: Changes (1971-1991) in gross and in net cropped area (GCA, NCA) by farm-size category
|
Farm-size category |
Gross cropped area (million hectare) |
Change in GCA: 1971 to 1991 |
Change in NCA: 1971 to 1991 |
||
|
1971 |
1991 |
Million ha |
Percent |
Percent |
|
|
Sub-marginal |
6.4 |
12.4 |
+ 6.0 |
+ 93 |
+ 81 |
|
Marginal |
10.5 |
18.3 |
+ 7.8 |
+ 74 |
+ 65 |
|
Small |
20.8 |
33.0 |
+12.2 |
+ 59 |
+ 49 |
|
Medium |
31.3 |
42.6 |
+11.3 |
+ 36 |
+ 28 |
|
Large |
89.0 |
72.9 |
-16.1 |
- 18 |
- 25 |
|
All farms |
158.1 |
179.3 |
+21.2 |
+ 13 |
+ 13 |
Source: Computed from Agricultural Census, 1970-71 and 1990-91Table 3 summarizes the proportionate contribution by farms of various sizes to food-grains production at 1971, 1981, and 1991. Notably, holdings smaller than 2.00 hectare - which at 1971 accounted for only 28 per cent of total food-grains production - were by 1981 contributing 34 per cent, and by 1991 41 per cent. (Table 3). In contrast, the proportionate contribution from medium-size holdings increased by a mere 3 percentage points during 1971-1991, while that from the large holdings declined from 51 to 35 per cent. For individual crops, and between 1971 and 1991, small-size holdings increased their share in production of rice from 38 to 49 percent, of wheat from 26 to 40 per cent, of coarse cereals from 19 to 29 per, and of pulses from 19 to 27 per cent. These substantive increases in the proportionate (and in the absolute contributions) from the smaller-size holdings is ascribed to favourable changes in agrarian structure, and to impressive adoption of new technologies and intensive use of modern inputs on those small-holder farms.
For non-food-grains production (Table 4), large farms had the dominant shares at 1971 for oilseed (63 per cent) and for cotton (77 per cent); by 1991, these shares had declined to 48 and to 53 per cent respectively; there were compensatory increases in the contributions by the small- and medium-size holdings. For sugarcane and jute, the contributions (proportionate and absolute) from the smaller-size holdings increased very substantially between 1971 and 1991: proportionate contribution to sugarcane production increasing from 29 to 46 per cent, and for jute from 47 to 65 per cent. Similarly, smaller-size holdings were the major producers of vegetables and fruits, contributing 51 per cent of the production in 1991. The increasing importance of small-holder agriculture to national production and to food security is clearly manifest.
Table 3: Proportionate contribution (%) to food-grains production by farms in various size categories at 1971-1981-1991
|
Crop |
Farm size |
1971 |
1981 |
1991 |
|
Rice |
Sub-marginal |
7 |
9 |
11 |
|
Marginal |
11 |
13 |
15 |
|
|
Small |
20 |
21 |
23 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
38 |
43 |
49 |
|
|
Medium |
24 |
25 |
25 |
|
|
Large |
38 |
32 |
26 |
|
|
Wheat
|
Sub-marginal |
5 |
7 |
9 |
|
Marginal |
7 |
9 |
12 |
|
|
Small |
14 |
15 |
19 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
26 |
31 |
40 |
|
|
Medium |
21 |
23 |
23 |
|
|
Large |
53 |
46 |
38 |
|
|
Coarse cereals
|
Sub-marginal |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
Marginal |
5 |
6 |
8 |
|
|
Small |
11 |
13 |
17 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
19 |
22 |
29 |
|
|
Medium |
19 |
22 |
25 |
|
|
Large |
63 |
57 |
46 |
|
|
Pulses
|
Sub-marginal |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Marginal |
5 |
7 |
8 |
|
|
Small |
11 |
13 |
15 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
19 |
24 |
27 |
|
|
Medium |
18 |
20 |
22 |
|
|
Large |
63 |
56 |
51 |
|
|
All food-grains
|
Sub-marginal |
5 |
7 |
9 |
|
Marginal |
8 |
10 |
12 |
|
|
Small |
15 |
17 |
20 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
28 |
34 |
41 |
|
|
Medium |
21 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
Large |
51 |
43 |
35 |
Source: Computed from data in Agricultural Census and in Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, GOITable 4: Proportionate contribution (%) to non-food-grains production: Various farm-size categories, at 1971-1981-1991
|
Crop |
Farm-size category |
1971 |
1981 |
1991 |
|
Oilseeds
|
Sub-marginal |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Marginal |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
Small |
11 |
13 |
16 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
21 |
23 |
28 |
|
|
Medium |
18 |
22 |
24 |
|
|
Large |
63 |
55 |
48 |
|
|
Sugarcane
|
Sub-marginal |
5 |
6 |
9 |
|
Marginal |
8 |
10 |
14 |
|
|
Small |
16 |
19 |
23 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
29 |
35 |
46 |
|
|
Medium |
25 |
27 |
26 |
|
|
Large |
45 |
38 |
28 |
|
|
Fruits & Vegetables
|
Sub-marginal |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
Marginal |
12 |
13 |
15 |
|
|
Small |
18 |
18 |
21 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
43 |
45 |
51 |
|
|
Medium |
20 |
23 |
22 |
|
|
Large |
38 |
32 |
27 |
|
|
Cotton
|
Sub-marginal |
* |
1 |
1 |
|
Marginal |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Small |
6 |
9 |
15 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
8 |
12 |
20 |
|
|
Medium |
15 |
20 |
25 |
|
|
Large |
77 |
68 |
53 |
|
|
Jute
|
Sub-marginal |
8 |
10 |
18 |
|
Marginal |
11 |
18 |
19 |
|
|
Small |
28 |
28 |
28 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
47 |
56 |
65 |
|
|
Medium |
25 |
26 |
21 |
|
|
Large |
27 |
17 |
14 |
Source: Computed from data in Agricultural Census and in Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, GOI.Table 5 compares food-grains production at 1971 and 1991. For all food-grains, the production increment during those 29 years was 92 million tons per annum (Mt/an). Rice contributed 47 per cent, and wheat 50 per cent to this total, with coarse cereals and pulses respectively contributing 1 and 2 per cent. For rice, of the 1971-91 production increment (Table 6) of 43 Mt/an, 62 per cent came from smaller farms (< 2.0 ha), with 25 per cent from the medium-size farms, and 13 per cent from the large farms. For wheat, 48 per cent of the production increment (46 million tons) came from the smaller holdings, 25 per cent from the medium-size, and 27 per cent from the large farms.
Table 5: Rice and wheat: contributions to total food-grains production: 1971 and 1991
|
Crop |
Production (M ton/an) |
Production increment 1971-1991 |
||
|
1971 |
1991 |
M ton/an |
% of total |
|
|
Rice |
43 |
86 |
43 |
47 |
|
Wheat |
24 |
70 |
46 |
50 |
|
Coarse cereals |
30 |
31 |
1 |
1 |
|
Pulses |
12 |
14 |
2 |
2 |
|
Total |
109 |
201 |
92 |
100 |
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, GOI.Table 6: Contribution (%) to incremental production (rice and wheat): Various farm-size categories: 1971-91
|
Crop |
Farm-size group |
1971-81 |
1981-91 |
1971-91 |
|
Rice
|
Sub-marginal |
16 |
16 |
16 |
|
Marginal |
18 |
21 |
20 |
|
|
Small |
25 |
26 |
26 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
59 |
63 |
62 |
|
|
Medium |
27 |
24 |
25 |
|
|
Large |
14 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
Wheat
|
Sub-marginal |
11 |
11 |
11 |
|
Marginal |
13 |
16 |
15 |
|
|
Small |
19 |
24 |
22 |
|
|
Subtotal < 2.0 ha |
43 |
51 |
48 |
|
|
Medium |
27 |
23 |
25 |
|
|
Large |
30 |
26 |
27 |
Source: Adapted from Agriculture Census Reports.The results from these Tables 3, 4, 6 thus attest to the impressive role of small-holders in the Green-Revolution process and in the attainment of national food security. Moreover, in preparing those Tables it was assumed (lacking other evidence) that yields were equal among all farm-size categories. If, as is suggested later in this analysis, smaller farms have higher productivity than larger ones, then estimates for the proportionate contributions from the smaller holdings shall correspondingly increase. It appears, therefore, that in the national interest the small-holder role should be further strengthened. Such strengthening could facilitate higher productivity, stability, and sustainability of agricultural production, and hence help address - at both household and at national levels - the emerging issues of equity in nutritional security and in food security.
