Vol. 1 · pages 486–490

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES 471 the knowledge though they may take it in and thoroughly understand that superior tillage and proper manuring mean a greater out turn in crops. Their great want is capital.”22 The farmer knows, says the same author, that his agricultural equipment is inefficient and antiquated but he cannot substitute better ones in its place for : “A superior class of cattle and superior farm implements mean to him so much outlay of what he has not—Money.” Similar facts for the Baroda State have been collected in another connection by Mr. M. B. Nanavali, Director of Commerce and Industry. But unfortunately he did not bring his knowledge of such facts to bear upon the conclusions of the Committee for the consolidation of holdings in the State of which he was also a member, apparently thinking that the size of a holding bore no relation to the instruments of production. He bemoans that: “The farmers are not fully equipped with draught-cattle. They have today (1913) 8,34,901 bullocks, etc., for use on farms, that is one pair for 36 bighas of land. On an average a pair of good bullocks can cultivate 25 bighas of land. But the present breed has much deteriorated and one pair is supposed to cultivate 20 bighas at the most, while the present actual averages comes to about 36 bighas. Under the circumstances it is not likely that ploughing can be deep. It must be like scratching the surface. The small cultivators do not possess any draught-cattle or at the most a single one and cultivate land in co-operation with their friends similarly situated. As for farm implements there are 1,54,364 ploughs in the State, i.e., one for two Khatedars. It must be understood here that the number of cultivators and tenants is much more than three lakhs. Every one of them needs full equipment. Therefore actually the average must be much smaller than shown above.” 23 In fact the equipment for agricultural production in the State has considerably deteriorated since 1898 as shown by the table below : Year Plough Carts Plough Cattle Other Domestics 1898 .. 1,75,989 .... 4,15,089 5,70,517 1910 .. 1,51,664 68,946 3,34,801 5,09,416 Given, this state of affairs can we not say with more propriety that not only the existing equipment is inadequate for the enlarged holdings but 22 Indian Industries, p. 6. 23. Report on Agricultural Indebtedness in the Baroda State, 1913, para. 35.

472 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES that the existing holdings, small as they are, are too big for the available instruments of production other than land ? Facts such as these interpreted in the light of our theory force upon us the conclusion that the existing holdings are uneconomic, not, however, in the sense that they are too small but that they are too large. Shall we therefore argue that the existing holdings should be further reduced in size with a view to render them economic in the sense in which we have used the term ? Unwary readers might suppose that this is the only logical and inevitable conclusion— a conclusion that is in strange contrast with the main trend of opinion in this country. Contrary, no doubt, the conclusion is ; but it is by no means inevitable. For, from our premises we can with perfect logic and even with more cogency argue for increase in agricultural stock and implements which in turn will necessitate enlarged holdings which will be economic holdings as well. Consequently the remedy for the ills of agriculture in India does not lie primarily in the matter of enlarging holdings but in the matter of increasing capital and capital goods. That capital arises from saving and that saving is possible where there is surplus is a commonplace of political economy. Does our agriculture—the main stay of our population—give us any surplus ? We agree with the answer which is unanimously in the negative. We also approve of the remedies that are advocated for turning the deficit economy into a surplus economy, namely by enlarging and consolidating the holdings. What we demur to is the method of realizing this object. For we most strongly hold that the evil of small holdings in India is not fundamental but is derived from the parent evil of the mal-adjustment in her social economy. Consequently if we wish to effect a permanent cure we must go to the parent malady. But before doing that we will show how we suffer by a bad social economy. It has become a tried statement that India is largely an agicultural country. But what is scarcely known is that notwithstanding the vastness of land under tillage, so little land is cultivated in proportion to her population. Mulhall’s figures for the year 1895 clearly demonstrate the point. Acres per inhabitant in 1895 Great Britain Ireland France Germany Russia Austria Italy Spain and Portugal U.S.A. India 0.91 3.30 2.30 1.70 5.60 2.05 1.75 2.90 8.90 1.0

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES 473 That since 1895 the situation, however, has gone from bad to worse figures eloquently bear out: 1881 1891 1901 1911 Bengal .. .. .. 1.5 0.8 1.12 .... Bombay .. .. .. 1.7 1.6 1.41 1.3 Madras .. .. .. 1.3 0.3 .68 .79 Assam .. .. .. ... 0.5 .78 .85 Punjab .. .. .. 1.2 1.3 1.05 1.11 Oudh .. .. .. .81 0.7 .73 .75 N. W. P. .. .. .. .... 0.8 Burmah .. .. .. .... 1.5 1.08 1.09 Central P. .. .. .. 1.67 2.4 1.8 1.79 B. India .. .. .. 1.04 1.0 0.86 0.88 Now, what does this extraordinary phenomenon mean ? A large agricultural population with the lowest proportion of land in actual cultivation means that a large part of the agricultural population is superfluous and idle. How much idle labour there is on Indian farms it is not possible to know accurately. Sir James Caird who was the first to notice the existence of this idle labour estimated in 1884 that, “A square mile of land in England cultivated highly gives employment to 50 persons, in the proportion 25 men, young and old, and 25 women and boys. If four times that number, or 200, were allowed for each square mile of cultivated land in India, it would take up only one-third of the population.” 24 Out of the total population of 254 millions in 1881 nearly two-thirds were returned as agricultural. Allowing, as per estimate, one-third to be taken up, we can safely say that a population of equal magnitude was lying idle instead of performing any sort of productive labour. With the increasing ruralization of India and a continually decreasing proportion of land under cultivation, the volume of idle labour must have increased to an enormous extent. The economic effects of this idle labour are two-fold. Firstly, it adds to the tremendous amount of pressure that our agricultural population exerts on land. A quantitative statement will serve to bring home to our mind how high the pressure is: Mean density per square mile in 1911 Oudh and N. W. P Bengal Madras Punjab Bombay Assam Berar and C. P. Coorg British Burma of Total Area 427 551 291 177 145 115 122 111 53 of Cultivated Area 829 1162 785 453 444 766 360 792 575 24. India, the Land and the People, p. 225.

474 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Such high pressure of population on land is probably unknown in any other part of the world. The effect of it is, of course, obvious. Notwithstanding what others have said, this enormous pressure is the chief cause of the subdivision of land. It is the failure to grasp the working of this pressure on land that makes the law of inheritance such a great grievance. To say that the law of inheritance causes sub-division of land is to give a false view by inverting the real situation. The mere existence of the law cannot be complained of as a grievance. The grievance consists in the fact that it is invoked. But why is it invoked even when it is injurious ? Simply because it is profitable. There is nothing strange in this. When farming is the only occupation, to get a small piece of land is better than to have none. Thus the grievance lies in the circumstances which put a premium on these small pieces of land. The premium, is no doubt, due to the large population depending solely on agriculture to eke out its living. Naturally a population that has little else to prefer to agriculture will try to invoke every possible cause to get a piece of land however small. It is not therefore the law of inheritance that is the evil, but it is the high pressure on land which brings it into operation. People cultivate the small (piece not because their standard of living is low as Prof. Jevons seems to think 25 but because it is the only profitable thing for them to do at present. If they had something more profitable to do they would never prefer the small piece. It is therefore easy to understand how the universal prevalance of the small farms or petit culture is due to this enormous pressure on land. In spite of the vehement struggle that our agricultural population maintains in trying to engage itself productively as cultivators of a farm however small, it is true that judged by the standard of Sir James Caird a large portion of it is bound to remain idle. Idle labour and idle capital differ in a very important particular. Capital exists, but labour lives. That is to say capital when idle does not earn, but does not also consume much to keep itself. But labour, earning or not consumes in order to live. Idle 25. Opt. cit. Introduction. The Impression that Prof. Jevons leaves on his readers is that agriculture suffers in India because of the low standard of living. That a higher standard of life once established will necessitate a large holding because people with a high standard of life will prefer to migrate rather than accept a small holding. As his argument that holdings and standard of life are related is likely to mislead his less thoughtful readers, a word of comment is necessary. A standard of living is merely a level of consumption fixed in habit. But what determines the depth of a particular level of consumption? Undoubtedly the level of production. We may grant the truth of the statement that a rise in the standard of living works as a stimulus to higher production but it is foolish to expect mere wish to be father to the deed. It is actual production alone that can support rise in the standard and not wish, generated though it be either by “travel or education”. If Prof. Jevons means that an opportunity for increased production, leading to a higher standard of life, will disfavour small holdings we are one with him. But he can make himself more intelligible by dropping standard of living and only arguing for increased production; that increased production leads to a rise in standard will be granted by all; but the reverse cannot be maintained Prof. Jevons seems to do, for it may lead to production or predation. To speak of raising the standard of life without speaking of increased production is to give expression to a pious wish, if it does not lead to mischief.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES 475 labour is, therefore, a calamity ; for if it cannot live by production as it should, it will live by predation as it must. This idle labour has been the canker of India gnawing at its vitals. Instead of contributing to our national dividend it is eating up what little there is of it. Thus the depression of our national dividend is another important effect of this idle labour. The income of a society as of an individual proceeds (1) from the efforts made, and (2) from possessions used. It may be safely asserted that the aggregate income of any individual or society must be derived either from the proceeds of the current labour or from productive possession already acquired. All that society can have today it must acquire today or must take out of its past product. Judging by this criterion a large portion of our society makes very little current effort; nor does it have any very extensive possessions from which to derive its sustenance. No doubt then that our economic organization is conspicuous by want of capital. Capital is but crystallized surplus ; and surplus depends upon the proceeds of effort. But where there is no effort there is no earning, no surplus, and no capital. We have thus shown how our bad social economy is responsible for the ills of our agriculture. We have also proved how our entire dependence on agriculture leads to small and scattered farms. How a large portion of our population which our agriculture cannot productively employ is obliged to remain idle has been made clear. We have also shown how the existence of this idle labour makes ours a country without capital. This being our analysis of the problem, it will be easy to see why the remedies for consolidation and enlargement under the existing social economy are bound to fail. Those who look on small holdings as the fundamental evil naturally advocate their enlargement. This, however, is a faulty political economy and as Thomas Arnold once said “a faulty political economy is the fruitful parent of crime”. Apart from the fact that merely to enlarge the holding is not to make it economic, this project of artificial enlargement is fraught with many social ills. The future in the shape of an army of landless and dispossessed men that it is bound to give rise to is neither cheerful from the individual, nor agreeable from the national, point of view. But even if we enlarged the existing holdings and procured enough capital and capital goods to make them economic, we will not only be not advocating the proper remedy but will end in aggravating the evils by adding to our stock of idle labour; for capitalistic agriculture will not need as many hands as are now required by our present day methods of cultivation. But if enlargement is not possible, can we not have consolidation? It can be shown that under the existing social economy even consolidation is not possible. The remedy for preventing sub-division and fragmentation