CHAPTERS

Conclusion

Substantial changes have occurred in the agrarian structure of rural India

in the aftermath of green revolution. Initially the technology was introduced in

some selected pockets of the country, but it spread over to many other regions in

due course of time. However, the pace and trajectory of agrarian change has not

been the same everywhere. The wheat producing areas have benefited more than

. the rice producing areas and so the green revolution experience of Punjab does not

necessarily apply to other parts of the country. However, in an overall context, the) availability of work throughout the year and a growth in the wage rate gave a new

lease of life to the agricultural labourers. The rate of their migration from drought

prone zones to irrigated zones increased phenomenally and it gave the structure of

rural labour market a new shape. The initial seasonal migration that subsequently

led to a permanent settlement of some of those migrant agricultural labourers in

some of the areas brought a change not only in the labour market but at the same

time in the social structure ofthose areas also. By focusing on this particular issue

in an Orissan situation, this study examines how a bunch of migrant agricultural

labourers became landowners over a period of time and transformed themselves

into small and marginal peasants.

With the construction of Hirakud dam and the subsequent flow of water in

161

the canal, farmers of Hirakud Command Area got an opportunity to grow second

crop in their land. When the green revolution package came during the mid-1960s

and its implementation took place, it required more labourers for cultivation and

the local labour market could not provide adequate labour force. This short supply

encouraged the local labourers to demand more wages, and to counter them in this

regard the landowners started looking for alternative sources. During the initial

period they got it in the labour force from the neighbouring state of Chhatishgarh

(then a part of Madhya Pradesh) and later on the recurrence of severe drought in

Balangir and Kalahandi districts of Western Orissa compelled many people from .,--

a number of villages to come and work at Hirakud Command Area. There are also

several instances of even the landlords going to these drought-prone areas and_

motivating the people to go and work in their farms. Initially a few people came to

work as the seasonal agricultural labourers but then the landlords gave them travel

expenses to bring more and more labourers from their villages. These people then lJ motivated their kinsmen and neighbours to go with them and gradually the chain

migration increased.

The study indicates that not all the migrants were agricultural labourers at

their places of origin, rather one-third of them weLe marginal peasams and one.--..

fifth of them were tenants and sharecroppers. Out of all the peasants, some have

sold their lands, some have leased-out but hardly get any share from the lessees,

and some have already abandoned theirs. So far as the homestead land and house

is concerned all the respondents were having their own at their native places.

However, an overwhelming majority of them have abandoned it and only a few

could manage to sell theirs. After migration, employment was not an immediate

162

problem for the migrants since due to the scarcity of local labour the landlords

engaged them in their farms. Another reason has been their willingness to work

even for lesser wage than what was then the prevailing rate in the villages.

Having got the cheap labour force for cultivation, the landlords wanted

these migrant labourers for a long time. Their sufficient skill in agricultural works,

willingness to work for fewer wages, obedient and clientelestic attitude wooed the

landlords and therefore instead of employing them on seasonal basis they started

patronizing them for a permanent labour force. The migrants were asked to settle

down at the places of destination with their families af!d given immediate shelter

either in the cattle sheds of the landlords or in the makeshift arrangements, which --

the landlords themselves did till the migrants erect their own huts either in the

plots given by them or in the government lands. The latecomers got help from

their fellow migrants who had migrated before them and initially e!t~ staxed in

their houses for a few months till the construction of their own houses or sought --- _.

the help of the patron landlords of these earlier migrants. Since all the migrant ------------ -labourers got the patronage of one or the other landlord, their establishment in the

villages did not face many hurdles. Moreover, the landlords being economically

rich and socially approved elites of the villages came to the rescue of the migrants

during their troubled times especially to counter the hostility of their counterparts

from the host society.

Thus, having been loyal to their respective patrons, the migrant labourers

worked under the local landlords for several years. From the study it is found that

almost all the migrants have begun their careers by entering into one or the other

form of labour attachment with the landlords. Such an arrangement for them not

163

only provided a security of livelihood but at the same time also helped in earning

the good will of the village elites in order to secure a permanent stay. That is why

apart from the heads of the households (HoH), other members of the families also

in a majority of the cases have initially entered into labour attachment before their

families owning land. Most of them have also had long-term attachments to their

respective employers without changing many a times because it has enabled them

the easy access to credit facility from the employers during their need, which they

get extremely difficult from the institutional sources.

After getting them established at the places o( destination, gradually the

migrants enhanced their economic conditions. T. he long-term attachment not only Jj helped them in settling down, but at the same time_also played a major role in the II ~ ---. ___ _

peasantisation process. Of course, the principal reason behind their becoming

landowners is the relentless effort put by all the family members in the formation

of capital, which gets reflected in their sources of income and expenditure pattern

even today. They always draw their incomes from a variety of sources including

both farm and non-farm activities by welcoming all the avenues of employment./

Besides hiring-out of labour, their income comes from domestic animals, various

skills and subsidiary activities. A significant number of households are found to

have possessed domestic animals and birds. Bullocks and he-buffalos, apart from

being used for their own agricultural works, are hired out to others for plough,

harrow and plank services on payment. Cows and she-buffalos produce milk and

milk selling is a great income generating activity since the Orissa Milk Federation ~

(OMFED) purchases milk from them everyday for its milk processing industry.

Goats, sheeps, chickens and ducks are reared to be sold in the market for meat. A

164

substantial amount of their earnings also come from various skill-based secondary

occupations and subsidiary activities. Some of them possess special skills like

carpentry, masonry, tailoring etc. and some others' incomes come from general

skills like brick making and country-tile making. The subsidiary activities include

different types of small shops, petty trades, vegetable selling and Hemali. All the

able-bodied members of all the households including women and in some cases

even children of ten years or more contribute to their family income through one

or the other form of occupations. Availing of the government welfare schemes has

also enhanced their capital base. However, the most .. important aspect of their

economic improvement is their expenditure pattern. They have always tried to

minimize the cash expenditure in order to save as much money possible, which

can be invested in land. The adoption of a home-produced food habit, avoidance

of intoxicants and restraining from the purchase of costly electronic gadgets are

some of the highlights of their cash-low consumption pattern. This characteristic,

apart from their entrepreneurial and innovative attitude, not only distinguishes

them from others but also has played the most crucial role in the peasantisation

process. And this is why not all the migrant labourers could transform themselves

into landowners; rather a few of them only harvested the benefit.

However, it is not to deny that patron-client relationship has played the

facilitating and boosting role in the peasantisation process in a number of ways.

Some of the respondents got the small patches of Bartan land from their patron

landlords as gifts out of compassion, some others got it registered in their names

by their long-term employers in order to escape from land ceiling and many of

them had the opportunity to purchase it in a price less than the prevailing market

165

value. Beside this, the landlords have also helped their clients in some other ways

like playing the role of arbitrator in land transactions where they are not a part, by

providing monetary help through lending money when their clients fell short of it

after getting an opportunity and lending animals and agricultural implements for

cultivation. Of course, a few exceptional cases do exist but in the overall context,

it is the constant effort being supplemented by benevolent patronage that has

played the most crucial role in the transformation of migrant agricultural labourers

into owner cultivators.

The ownership holding of the respondents shows that almost half of them

possess below two acres of land each and next to them, those who possess in1

between two to three acres constitute slightly more than one-third of the sample. It

is also found that in majority of the cases their landholdings come under Mal

category of land, which is not of a very high quality. Land under their operational

holding comprises of two categories: leasing-in land from others and keeping

others' land under mortgage. Keeping land under mortgage is not very popular

among the respondents due to the fear factor of getting it snatched away from

them in case the deal went wrong with a person especially from the host society,

since normally the transaction takes place between the two parties through oral

conversation without any pen and paper. But many of them (almost three-fourth

of the sample) are engaged in leasing-in land from others that shows the intensity

of their interest in farming. Only those who are skilled workers like carpenter,

mason, tailor etc. and do not get sufficient time to look after the agriculture, keep

themselves away from leasing-in land.

The crops grown by the respondent households is confined to paddy only,

166

which is the staple crop in the region and also commercially viable. Although they

practise modern agricultural methods by adopting high yielding variety (HYV)

seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the consumption amount is very limited.

This is because of their inability to take risk and invest a lot of money in it and at

the same time they hardly can afford the mechanization of agricultural operations.

Therefore their agricultural practice is a mixture of modern inputs with traditional

implements in a changing agrarian setting. For their agricultural operations, the

respondents mostly depend upon the family labour. But during the peak seasons

when family labour becomes inadequate, they try to get most of their works done

through the mutual exchange of labour at individual household level. Sometimes

they also get the labour service oftheir friends and relatives in the form of relative

labour to perform some of their farming tasks. This enables them to get the job

done at a very low cost in a smooth manner. Only during the extreme necessity,

they hire-in one or two daily wage labourers for a few days till the completion of a

particular operation.

Although the migrants have improved their conditions from labourers to

landowners, it is not well enough to be called as prosperous and they are still in l the clutch of poverty. Most oftheir houses are of kuchcha type with thatched roof

or it being covered by country-tiles. A few of them of course have the mixed type

houses built-up of bricks but the concrete houses are almost non-existent. Most of

the houses have two to three rooms and there is no separate room for kitchen.

Toilet facility is almost absent barring a few houses and open fields are used for it I Ponds and canals provide water for bathing purposes and drinking water is taken

from village tube wells. Among the agricultural and non-agricultural assets they

167

possess, small assets like axe, sickle; crowbar, hoe and spade are found in all the

households, but big assets like plank, harrow and cart are possessed by only a few

households. However, the possession of non-agricultural assets is very few among

them in general except the torch, which almost all the households have one. Cycle

is another asset owned by more than half of the households and most of those who

possess watch and radio have got them through dowry during their marriages.

The social life of the migrants at the places of destination shows that

members from a large number of households have entered into various kinds of

ceremonial friendships not only with persons from the migrant community but at

the same time also with persons from the host society. Of course, their friendships

with the native people is less as compared to the migrants but there are also more

than one-fourth of the total households from where the members have established

their ceremonial friendships with both the migrants as well as the natives. Marital

alliances after migration shows that most of them have chosen their life partners

either from the migrant community at the places of destination or from the native

places, and there are very few households from where marital alliances have taken

place exclusively with natives. The migrants' participation in the common village

festivals is very encouraging. However, in most of the cases it is confined to

subscription only although a few of them have actively participated by playing

some special roles assigned to them. So far as the relationship with the places of

origin is concerned, it is found that one or other member from half of the total

households pay regular visits to their native places every year, more than one­

fourth go occasionally but not in every year, and a few visit more than once in a

year. Those, who are born at their native places and have migrated later on, attach

168

some kind of importance to their places of origin; where as, those who are born

after migration and brought up at the places of destination, hardly find any sort of

attachment. Therefore, almost all of the respondent households barring a few want

to settle down at their present places of destination permanently.

Although it seems that near complete assimilation ofthe migrants with the

host society has already taken place, a close observation indicates something else. ij Despite having stayed for more than three decades, complete assimilation with the

natives is a distant feature. The natives still consider the migrants as outsiders and

so they are identified as the pardeshias, a derogatory term that means outsider.

Migrant settlements, situated at the periphery of the villages, are called pardeshia

paras. The first and second-generation migrants, who have the direct experiences

of migration, do not mind it much since they are habituated to it from the day of

their migration. But, some of the second-generation and the entire third-generation

migrants, who are born and brought up At the places of destination, never accept

the term for them and argue that they are parts of the host society by virtue of

their place of birth and at the same time they do not have any relationship with

their parents' places of origin. Besides this, the economic mobility of the migrants

over a period of time creates envy among the native people especially among the

labourers, who could not harvest the benefits, and so a kind of antipathy develops

among the local labourers towards the migrants. The factionalism among the elites

in the villages also makes them vulnerable and they find it extremely difficult to

take a side especially when their patrons are involved in it. The leaders of other

factions always threaten them to evict from the villages. Since they do not have

any organized pressure groups to protect their interests, their opinions are not

169

given due importance in the village affairs for the welfare of the common mass

and they are considered as the secondary citizens of the villages. However, despite

all these social discriminations against them, the migrants some how manage to

overcome the difficulties and live at their places of destination with the hope of a

better future in the years to come.

After summarizing the whole story in a concise manner, the questions that

do bear importance and need to be addressed in the context of the present study

are: i) how far migration plays an important role in the economic improvement of

the migrants? ii) why do the migrants prefer to possess land and go for cultivation

than any other occupation? and iii) what may be the reasons behind the landlords

patronizing the migrant labourers instead of their native counterparts? In order to

answer these questions from a sociological perspective, one needs to contextualize

the events, activities and their repercussions within a rural institutional framework

from the viewpoint of normative social order. Such an analysis is not only to fill

up the essentiality of one of the bypassed aspects of sociological research in the

area of green revolution but at the same time is also to inquire about the changing

nature of rural social structure as a result of large-scale rural to rural migration.

The present study, in this context, leads to find out the possible answers for the

above questions. Of course, being a micro level study and comprising of only 1 0

villages, findings from here cannot be considered as a generalization in the overall

context of larger India, but it certainly opens a door to find out such instances in

other parts of the country through further sociological investigations in order to

get a broader picture of it. Besides, although the study tries to make a comparison

between other castes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the peasantisation

170

process, it has its own limitations and caste dimension of peasantisation needs to

be addressed and understood under the framework of patron-client relationship in

a larger perspective across generations. But despite all these limitations let me try

to find out the answers for the above addressed questions.

The first question itself partially bears an answer to it. Yes, migration does

play an important role in the economic improvement of the migrants because it

makes them enterprising, provides them the energy and enthusiasm to overcome

all the difficulties and more importantly enables them to overcome the temptation J} of status consciousness. It is found that migrants never let any income opportunity

to go out of their hands whenever it comes and in whatever way. On the other

hand, local labourers sometimes refuse to perform some works, which they feel

may denigrate their status in the village among their kith and kin. For example,

even after possessing land the migrants have not withdrawn their women from

hiring-out of their labour to others in agricultural operations, where as, such a case

can hardly be found among the native peasants. The migrants never mind when

their cash-low consumption becomes a laughing point in the village, where as, the

native peasants always feel the pressure to live a specific way of life in order to

maintain their status, no matter how much it costs them. For instance, to perform a

marriage ceremony the migrants do not need to throw a big party to the villagers,

where as, it is not the case with their native counterparts.

Now coming to answer the second question, the migrants always prefer to

possess land and go for cultivation than any other occupation because in the rural

society land apart from being a source of livelihood also happens to be a source of

identification. It's a symbol of status; the more one possess land, the greater is his

171

status. In case of the migrants, it is of course a symbol of status but more than that

it provides them a security of stay at their places of destination or in other words a

permanency of residence. Once they possess land in a particular village, they feel

that they have already got a certificate of permanent stay there and it enables them

to resist the threat of eviction from their counterparts in the host society. Having

said this, however, it is not to deny that they never dare to go against the will of

the landlords in the villages who have their networks in the bureaucracy and play

a crucial role in the implementation of policies, at least at the block level. But it's

a different story and becomes clear in the answer to the third question.

The reasons behind the landlords patronizing the migrant labourers instead

ofthe natives are of two types: manifest and latent. Let's first look at the manifest

reasons. In the initial period of green revolution, there was a scarcity of labour,

which the local labour market could not provide. So in order to counter the local

labourers in terms of their demand for a hike in the wage rate, migrant labotlrers

were considered as a solution since they were ready to work even for fewer wages

than the prevailing rate. Besides in a later stage, migrants were preferred over the

natives in terms of tenancy, share-cropping and leasing-out of land because it is

almost impossible for a migrant to cheat or overpower a native landlord in paying

his share, where as, a native belonging to a numerically superior caste or having

the tacit support of the rival faction may dare to do so. However, the latent reason

behind the patronage seems to be "dominance without hegemony". The landlords

never want the migrants to move out of their villages or be perished out of sheer

suppression. They want them to grow but always being under their shadows. They

cannot do it with the natives because the natives have their roots in the soil of the

172

villages and so they will never allow the landlords to dominate over them. Instead.,

given a chance they may challenge the landlords and go against them, which in

turn may pose a threat to their existing power in the village. On the other hand, the

migrants always need the support of the native landlords in order to secure their

permanent stay. So they can be dominated easily without any sort of resistance.

There is also the least possibility of migrants forming an interest group of their

own and going against the landlords because competition is there even among the

migrants in getting the patronage. So on the one hand by patronizing a handful of

migrants, the landlords are able to divert their attention .from class formation and

on the other, by supporting the migrant community in general and their clients in

particular they are able to counter the pressure of the local labourers. By allowing

the migrants to "strive to survive", they are able to suppress the will of the natives

to "survive to strive". And in the process they not only restore their positions in

the villages but also exercise their dominance over the common mass.

173