7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

1/18

Agrarian Relations in Two Rice Regions

of KeralaJoan P Mencher

The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of agrarian relations in the two main rice

regions of Kerala, Kuttanad (a low-lying area covering parts of Alleppey, Kottayam and Quilon Districts) and Palghat, in order to examine one, forces interfering with production and, secondly, the elms

relations that serve to impede a more equitable distribution of food and other commodities. The paper

describes some of the striking contradictions in each area, and offers some tentative predictions for theirfuture development.

Introduction

THE condition of the agricultural

labourers in Kuttanad and Palghat,

despite over 40 years of agitations, at

present is far from good. Though hours

of work have improved and the official

wages has increased, their living con-lotions are st il l deplorable. As the

thinks of the labouring force have swel

led because of (1) population increase,

(2) movement into agriculture of work

ers unable to make a living in other

industries (such as coir), (3) disposses

sion of tenants and poor farmers, (4)

the tendency of landowners to skimp

on agricultural operations such as we

eding to save labour costs, and (5) the

gradually increasing use of mechanisa

tion, there has been an inevi table

decrease in days of employment.

In a number of ways Kerala stands

apart from other parts of Indi a. To

begin wi th Kerala had a traditiona l

patt ern of dispersed settlement, wi th

large Nambo odir i or Nayar houses

isola ted in spacious dispersed com

pounds and surrounded by the houses

of people of other communities who

worked for the high-caste landowners,

ts traditional socio-economic structure

in many ways resembled that of feudal

Europe. The area is known to have had

a long history of maritime trade dating

back to at least the first century A D.

Even in the sixteenth century it was

deficit in rice, the main foodgra in.

"This part of India produces but little

rice, which is a principal article of food

in these parts, as wheat is with us;

but it procures abundance of that and

all other kinds of provisions from other

count ries " (Castaneda, 1582:34 7), It

is noted that the extensive exports

more than paid for the imports of rice.

There are three other impo rtant

characteristics of Kerala wh ic h are

relevant to this paper. First, it is wellknown that the level of literac y in

Kerala is th e highest of any India n

state, though this varies considerably

from district to district (from approx

imately 44 per cent in rural Palghat

Dist ri ct , to close to 71 per eent in

rural Alleppey District). Second, Kerala

has been highl y poli tici sed, at least

since the 1930s. In connect ion wi th

this poli tic al involvement and aware

ness, union activity has been pronounced

in the southern regions since the 1930s,and in the central regions since the.

Jate 1960s. Third as in the sixteenth

century, it continues to be deficit in

rice. While the rice shortage has been

alleviated .slightly by the use of tapioca

in the southern parts, and more recently

in the central regions, tapioca has not

been a completely unmixed blessing

since it has brought about an increase

in childhood diabetes among the poor

est group of people.1

Till recently, the

diet of the poor included some fish;

but due to the increased availability ofrefrigeration plants, refrigeration trains,

lorries and ships which can carry the

fish out of the state for higher profits,

fish has become too expensive for the

poor, at least in areas not directly on

the toast or backwaters. It is striking

that among the agricul tural labourers

studied in our diet survey, only four

out of 29 households consumed sub

stantial quantities of tapioca. The eon-

sumption of tapioca is apparently more

common among people living directly

on the coast, such as fishermen, and the

urban poor of South Kerala.

Though rice is grown throughout the

state, the two main rice regions provide

for most of the rice which is consumed

in the state (apart from import from

elsewhere). 35 per cent of the total

paddy area is in the districts of Palghat

and Alleppey. whereas they account

tor only 18 per cent of the total popu

lation, Furthermor e, the three eastern

taluks of Palghat are the main double

(and sometimes triple) cropped arers.

It is from these regions, in addition toimport s from other states, that the

urban population of the coastal towns

gets its food. It was for this reason

that we decided to concentrate our

investigations in Palghat and Alleppey

(the largest part of Kuttanad is in Al-

leppy), and also because that facilitated

the obtaining of district-wise data from

government sources.

Historical Background

Prior to the eighteenth century the

socio-economic and poli tic al structure

of most of Kerala was quite similar,

though (here were a number of regio

nal variations. Apart from checking the

expansion of the Zamorin to the south,

and interfering seriously with the Arab

control of coastal shipping, the arrival

of the Portuguese and later the Dutch

did not seriously disturb the traditional

socio-economic system. This system

consisted of a many-tired hierarchy of

land rights, similar to those of medieval

Europe. The highest level was occupied

by a jenmi (the hereditary 'owner' of

the land, who traditionally could not

sell it) usually belonging to one of the

very wealthy Namboo diri Brahman

[Hams, or one of tho rul ing famil ies,

or some special categories of Nayars.

Temples were also jenmis holding large

estates. Under the jenmi there might

be a variety of tenants, under whom

there were sub-tenants, sub-subtenants,

etc. A given parcel of land migh t

consist of only one layer a jenmi

and a number of bonded agricultura.labourers or it might have up to

five layers. This was especially true it

Palghat where sub-infeudation was a

common practice. Perhaps the majority

of land was he ld in a three-layered

structure, with a jenmi, a Nayar

kanamdar (holder of higher-level ten

ancy rights), and an Izhava verumpat-

tam (lower-l evel) tenant, the actual

cultivation being done by untouchable

agricultural labourers who were agrestic

slaves. Thi s was cert ainly the case in

Palghat and the evidence for Travan-

core prior to Marthanda Varma seems

to indicate a similar pattern, though it

is less well-described in the literature,

since it changed rapidly beginning in

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

2/18

Annual Number February 1978

the late eighteenth centu ry. In the

Travancore area, Syrian Christians often

were both kanamdars and verumpattam

tenants.

Many important changes took place

in the land tenure system of each of

the three regions, Travancore, Cochin

and British Malabar, in the years preceding the formation of the State of

Kerala in 1956. According to Varghese

(1970). by the end of the nineteenth

century, Travancore had almost shifted

over to a region of peasant proprietors

(that is, the state had control directly

or i ndir ectl y of 80 per cent of the

cult iva ted lands, and almost all the

arable and uncultivated waste). Cochin,

on the other hand, was a tract with

a little under half of its lands officially

categorised as peasant pr opri etor ship,

and the remainder with nan-cultivating

or absentee landlords (jenmis) under thecomplex tradi tiona l system of subin

feuda tion. (One should note that the

term 'peasant proprietorship', as used by

nost writers, is rather misleading, since

it includes not only people with two

acres of land on which they work them

selves along with hired help, but also

people with several hundred acres, all

worked by hired wage labour.)

By the mid-1950s, accordi ng to a

survey by Varghese (1970:161-2), about

40 per cent of the households in Kut-

tanad were landless, 20 per cent wereowner-cultivators, 33 per cent were ten

ants, and about 7 per cent were rent-

receiving households. According to the

1951 census for Palghat tract of Malabar

District (which included most of the

irrigated part of the present Palghat

dis tric t), 58 per cent of the people

belonged to agricultural labourer house

holds, 25 per cent belonged to tenant

households, 8 per cent were owner-

cultivators and another 8 per cent were

rent-receiving households. Varghese's

figures for Malabar show a much lower

percentage of agricultural labourerhouseholds and higher percentage of

tenant households, but this may have

been a feature of his research design,

Mnee he was primarily interested in

studying land tenure relations, and not

agricultural labour, and thus did not

focus on the irrigated tracts.

However, there is no question that

there was a difference between the

two areas. Malabar was clearly an area

with a complex tenancy pattern. This

had existed in Travancore as well, but

had been eliminated at the end of the

eighteenth century. When Marthanda

Varma annexed the territories of al l

the Nayar chieftains in his domain,

the state asserted its sovereignty by

converting almost all of their land to

state or sircar lan d. As a result, the

state became the biggest jenmi; by

1812, it owned 2/3 of the lands. This

accounts for many of the differences

between the two areas.

It is interesting that capitalist penetrat ion of agriculture started earlier

in Travancore than in Malabar. There

are a number of reasons for this. The

usual explanations that have been given

are (1) that land could be taken directly

from the state of Travancore, whereas

in Malabar it would have had to be

rental from traditional jenmis; (2) the

better development of transpo rt and

communications in Travancore, though

with this explanation begs the ques

tion, which came first, the chicken or

the egg? Anoth er explana tion is that

capitalists found it easier to invest inareas of ind ire ct rule tha n in areas

where the British were ruling directly.

Not only did they invest in the high

lands (in tea estates), they also stimu

lated the Kerala Christians in the ir

land reclamation efforts in the lowlands

(see below). Interestingly, the Bri tis h

seem to have kept the Nilgiris as a

kind of preserve for their recreation,

and did not stimulate investment in

tea estates in the hig her parts of

Malabar (Brockway 1977).2

Palghat

Palghat District, along with the rest

of the former Malabar District and the

northern part of the former Cochin

State, was much more affected by the

land reforms of the twentieth century

than the Kuttanad region. In the early

years of this century the main focus

of rural agitation in Palghat was for

tenancy refor m. Thou gh much of the

agitation was led by the Nayar kanam-

durs, who held land primarily from the

temples or from big Namboodiri fami

lies or high-ranking Nayars, they werehelped in their agitations by the lesser

tenants. Under the British these konam

tenants had been denied the security

which they had held under traditional

practi ce. The r esult of these agit a

tions was that permanent tenancy was

given legal sanction, fi rst in Travan

core, next in Cochin in 1914, and in

the 1930s in Malaba r. In Malabar,

permanency of tenure came late, and

involved more agitation because of the

stand of the Bri ti sh. Thi s land legis

lation was also involved with agitations

among the Nayars themselves for theright to part iti on their landhoidings

held by the formerly indivisible matri-

lineal household, and by Na mboodir i

Brahmans for the right to partition their

land. Once the law was passed giving

fixity of tenure and regularising the

amount that had to be paid, the agita

tion to give some sort of security to

all tenants started. Thi s agitat ion at

first did not aim to change the jenmisystem, but rather to give some sort of

security to various groups of tenants.

Most of this agitation was led by the

educated middle-class Nayars and a

small section of middle-class Izhavas.

It was clear that the middle -sized

kanamdars and verumpattadars were

the ones who wo uld benefit most

from this sort of agitation. What made

the situa tion most complex was that

in Malabar and Cochin, even the same

household might have held land under

a number of different types of tenure,

and might have in addition rented itout to others on different types .

tenure.

In the early 1970s, the Kerala land

reform b i l l was finally passed and as a

result of several Supreme Court deci

sions, not only permanency of tenure

but actual ownership rights were given

to the lowest rung of tenants in the

former hierarchy. What the agricultural

labourers ended up with was at most

5-10 cents of land in and around their

small house-sites, on which perhaps one

or tw o trees mig ht be planted. Most

of the former landlords lost all their

land, apart from that which they had

managed to get back from tenants

during the 20-odd years preceding the

land reform bill. In many instances it

did not matter, since the former jenmis

or their sons were highly educated, and

had alternative sources of employment.

However, this also impoverished many

formerly well-to-do families.

Among the new landlords'the

former tenants there are basically

three groups. The first consists of those

who had worked on small pieces oftenanted land. Though large in number,

their holdings only account for a small

amount of the land being cultivated.

The second gro up consists of those

who held portions of 5-10 acres of

paddy land and who now, after the

land reforms, are doin g qui te we ll .

(Five to ten acres of double-dropped

paddy land in the Palghat region can

provide a household with means for a

very comfortable standard of li vi ng ,

inc ludi ng many of the attributes of

modern life such as electricity, proper

bathrooms, children in college, private

doctors, etc.) In addition, a new class

of well- to-do farmers have emerged

350

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

3/18

Annual Number F eb rua ry 1978

These in clu de the few former fermis

who were cultivating their own land,

but the majority are former Izhava ten

ants wh o held a considerable amount

of land, often from more than what

was held by the old -ti me landlo rds,

and often under a variety of types of

tenancy. Mos t of these new ri ch were

also politically astute, and had on paperpartitioned their land in such a way

as to avoid land ceil ing limi ts. In a

few cases, husbands and wives, even

when not divorced, had separate houses,

so that they would be considered as

belonging to different households. This

pattern is particularly prevalent in the

irrigated parts of Palghat, Alathur, and

Chi tto or taluks. These new ri ch also

include former jenmis who had ma

naged to hold on to sizeable pieces of

land by taking it back for self-cultiv

ation in the late 1950s or early 1960s,pid some medium-size cultivating

households that belong to the former

jenmi class, mostly Nayars and Nam-

boodiris.

A third group of people in the ranks

of the middle-sized and large 'new

fanner" class consists of Nayars who

made money from professional activi

ties in Kerala or elsewhere (including

Malaysia and Burma) to buy new

lands, or to buy back form er jenmi

lands in their ancestral village or thatof their wives. On the whole they

align themselves with the other new

landlords politically and economically.

Tables 1 and 2 give the basic break

down of socio-economic groupings in

Palghat as well as in Alleppey. Because

of the differences be twee n the tw o

regions specifically, the feudal-type

relations which persisted until quite

recently in the Palghat region wages

had remained quite low there until the

last 10-15 years. Not only wages, bu t

the general position of the agriculturallabourers has been one of extreme ex

ploitation. Though a considerable

percentage of labourers had supported

the Communist Party from the 1930s,

it was only after the state's reorganisa

tion that the Communist Party started

slowly organising the agricultural

labourers into unions, and it was really

only after the second Un it ed Fron t

ministry came into power in the mid-

1960A that the unions began to be

something of a force in the district.

Despite this, it has been a continuousuphill fight to raise the wages of the

agricultural labourers, and to eliminate

some of the extreme excesses to which

they had been subject and which still

continue in some pockets even today.

Because of the slow but persistent

activity of the unions, the daily wage

rates as well as the harvest wage rate

increased significantly in the peri od

from 1965 un ti l 1976. Un ti l 1975 the

main unions in the Palghat area were

led by the CPI (M ), thou gh there were

a few small CPI unions as we ll . In

1975, the Congress also started orga

nising the labourers, especially in the

area near the border of Trichur Dis

tr ic t of the former Cochin State. In

October 1975, the new minimum wage

law was passed It singled out Palghat,

and provid ed special wages for the

labourers there. Since the mi ni mu m

wage was higher than anything being

paid, it gave the labourers something

to work for. Furthermore, though

strikes had been outla wed under the

Emergency in June 1975, the new Act

provided for registering permanent

workers in the panchayat

It also provided for there the setting

up (though the date was not specified)

of some sort of a provident fund for

these permanent labourers. In Palghat,

permanent labourers get more days of

work per season than casual labourers.

For thi s reason, from the labourers'

point of view, there are many advant-

ages to bei ng registered w it h the

panchayat as a parti cular landowner's

permanent labourer. In addition, therewas the hope that they could also

ultimately take advantage of the pro

vident fund.

On the other hand, the landowners

have not been at all happy about the

new agr icu ltu ral wages Act . Ther e is

a provision in the Act exempting house

holds owning less than one hectare of

land. Wha t is striking is that many

small landowning households and even

large landowners partitioned their lands

even further in 1975, in many cases

showing it against the names of minorchildren. Still other devices have

been resorted to by some landowners

to evade the Ac t. Accor ding to one

union organiser;

There is a provisio n in the Ac tthat a farmer can dismiss alabourer if he brings loss to thefarmer. But there is no defini tionof loss in the Act. So, if a labourerslips on a bund in the rain andsome of the paddy in the bundlehe is carrying gets separated fromthe hay due to the fall, the farmer

can say he brought a loss of oneor two measures and dismiss him.We have had so many cases liketha t

There are a number of other ways tocreate a case against particular labourers to get them dismissed if the land

lords are dete rmine d to do so. They

have not always been successful be

cause of the unions.

What was striking to us, working in

this region in the autumn of 1975 and

the winter of 1976, was the extent of

Marxist and other union activity. While

strikes were illegal during the Emergency, in this area, at least during the

first year, there had been, if anything,

an increase in the pace of agricultural

union membership drives and attempts

to educate the labourers. Furthe rmore,

while strikes were illegal, work stop

pages were not. In those pockets where

the labourers were really well-organised,

they were able to take advantage of

the permanent labour system to pres

sure the landowners to pay the mini

mum wage according to the wages Act.

Elsewhere, there contin ued to beconsiderable variation in what was

actual ly bei ng pai d to labourers. On

the basis of informal interviewing in

the district, we concluded that the

crucial variable was and still continues

to be labour organising. No t only were

the Marxists left relatively free to

organise the labourers, but the other

unions (the small CPI unions and the

growing but still small Congress unions)

have been vying with one another to

see how many people they can get

registered in each panchayat as perma

nent labourers.

On the whole, one had the feeling

of people fighting and moving forward

in the Palghat area in a way that was

missing in Kutt anad . And despite the

extent of antagonism between landlord

and labourer, there was much less

sharp polarisation one-and-a-half years

ago between the landless and the small

landowners than in Kut tan ad, thou gh

the larger land-owners in Palghat

certai nly saw the labourers as the ir

main prob lem. In our inte rview s in a

number of villages, the bigger landlords

almost uniformly complained about the

cost of labour, and the fact that the

labourers were not so obedient now

adays. It was only as an after tho ugh t

that they would then complain about

the high price of fertilisers or pesti

cides. These tensions between the

landlords have increased markedly in

the past two years, and have come to

inc lud e at least some of the smaller

landowners. This is discussed below.

An ad diti onal factor perhaps complicating the picture in Palghat (and

I would suspect also in the area around

Trichur) is that at least some of the

former jenmis who lost their land as a

result of land reform have become quite

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

4/18

An nu al Numb er Februar y 1978ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

5/18

Annual Number Feb ruary 1978

bitter, and though they have not joined

the C PI( M), give strong support to

the ''Congress le ft ". As one man put

i t :

Look at us, we have lost everythi ng. Ami now we are starving.Yet look at Y, he was my tenantbefore. Now he has a new carand lives like a kin g. He hasalso built a new house with allfacil ities. And the labourers wha t have they got? Now theirwage is more, but they are notpaying. Those former tenantsknow how to extract work fromthe labourers. No t lik e us. Weused to give them presents formany occasions, and help with somany things. They call this social

ism, making us poor and the formertenants ric h. This is not socialism.Somehow, it would have beeneasier to take even i f we werepoor, if they had helped the poorand not simply created a new classof rich. If they want socialism,let it be real socialism.

People habouring such sentimentsclearly will not go out to fight for thelabourers, but they wi l l not opposethem either.

Tine perception of the labourers of

the changes in agrari an re lations are

not consistent, and depend in many

ways on the particular local situation.In the two villages where we collected

detail ed materials, we fo und certain

str iki ng differences. In the fir st vill age,

where today there are no very large

landowners and only a handful of

medium size ones and where previ

ously the jenmis were especially power

ful we find that of those labourers

answering the question about differen

ces in the behaviour of the landlords,

the majority claimed that the new

jenmis behaved better than the old

landlords, though even here close to a

third claimed that previously the

relationship between the landlord and

the labourers was more cordia l. In the

second village, where the former jenmis

had been mostly absentee land lord s,

and where there are quite a few house

holds of former tenants with large

holdings, only a few labourers claimed

that the old landlords were worse. The

majority either claimed that the pre

vious landlord-labourer relationship was

more cordial, or else commented on

new improvements in thei r conditions

such as the reduction in hours of work

brought about by union activity.

For their part, the new landowners,

especially those who have experienced

a major improvement in their life style,

tend to see the labourers as the enemy,

as wan ti ng to take everyt hing away

from them . They fear that their new

found prosperit y may be short-li ved.Having experienced such prosperity,

they are resentful of the government's

unwillingness to provide price supports,

or subsidise the cost of pesticides and

fertil isers. Yet , the only ones the y can

take it out on arc the labourers.

The following quotes from individuals

interviewed during our Palghat study

wil l perhaps illustrate the human im

plications of the preceding discussion.

First, a few quotes from 1975-76:

A well-to-do cultivator: For the

past so many years we were cultivators. Previously, we di d not haveas muc h as we have now . We camehere 32 years ago. At tha t time th ejenmi of this land told us that hecould look alter that land better, sowe should move and look after thisland. We have 30 acres here, and10 in M and another 5 we are notcultivating because it is waste land.We have about 25 permanentlabourers here and 15 in M. Thi syear I am doing less of the hybridseeds because when you take intoaccount the costs of fertilisers, etcand the extra labour, it is not worthit even if the yie ld is bett er. If wesell the paddy for less than Rs 1,000per cartload it is difficult to manage,and this year it is seven or eighthundre d rupees. Last year it wasRs 1,250. The government has in tr oduced a new wages bi l l . If theyinsist that we should pay at such ahigh rate then they must keep theprice of paddy up. It is true thatwe get more and more yield, butprices are higher than ever and mostof the fanners are in debt. Mychildren are all educated and working . We also parti tione d the landway hack in 1962. The governmentwants to take one acre of land and

give it to a poor person and form asociety. But it won't work. Nobodyis responsible in co-operative farming. So. it won't work. Simply goand write report in the night, thatis all.

A landowner who is also a Marxistworker: This year we are giving5 and 6 measures. Acc ord ing to thenew Act it is 6 and 7, bu t i t ispossible to give only this much.Four years back it was 4 and 5.That next house, he is having troublewi th the labourers. For 3 years, heis the troub le maker. Of coursebecause I am a sympathiser with the

party I wi ll say that. In everythingtie is like that. After the land reform, he is not giving anything tothe landl ord . He has 25-30 acres ofgood double corp land. See, whatyou require is good behaviour withthe labourers. Even it

1you pay less

than what is prescribed, they won'tmin d. If you behave harshly wi ththen), even if von give more it isnot enough. In the beg inn ing I waspaving more because I am an activewor ker. We were, the first to give1: 10 when the rate was 1: 16. Wemust not be harsh with the workers,and if they do something wrong, wemust inst ruct nicely. We give themfor the full day's work even if thereis only half day needed.

A former jenmi who still has 10acres ; It is true that the tenantsgot the land from us. But it is notbenefiting the labourers in any way,Even the good that we were doing

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

6/18

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

Annua l Numbe r February 1978

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

7/18

Annual Number February 1978

for the labourers t he new landlordsare not doing. The ol d jenmis evenin the middle of the night used toextend help to the labourers by wayof cash if need be, but the presentlandlords are not like that. They willsay do your work and earn yourwages. They will not give loans.And if the labourers refuse to work,

then the male and female membersat thei r families [the new lan downers familie s] wi l l enter the fieldsand work. In this village somelandlords have had trouble withlabourers. After harvesting, beforeentering the field they would nottalk of any fixed terms or anything.After the harvesting was over, whenthe bundles were on the bunds andmay be it was raining or something,or even the o wner was not instation, only his wife or son supervising, they would demand increasedrate. Thi s used to happe n. It wasthe w ork of the pol iti cal parties.They are extracting Its 3 from the

labourers now for registering themwi t h the panchayat. They tell themthat there are so many facilities andthat they can have this and that,'They are the ones w ho create; allsorts of problems in the agriculturalfield . The work ers do not care aboutall of these facil ities . Wh at theywant is work all 365 days of theyear. They do no t even care ii theyonly get Rs 4 per day it they getwork through out. The governmenthas to take steps to help the workers,not by increasing wages, but bysetting up factories or cottage industries where they can get work whenthere is no work in the fields. In

the old days I used to give 2-1/2measures, now it is 5. But thevolume of work they do is less. Evenif the labourers are wi ll in g, theunions wi ll not let them work as before.

A landowner who manages 18acres of double-cropped paddyland: [tie was a tenant formerly.Since 1970, he is not paying rent,though he gives small amounts tothe former jenmis so that when hehas to pay compensation he won't bepaying too much.] Fiv e years before, we did not have car, now Ihave that . No fri dge before,

now we have that. Now I amconstructing an overhead tank forhousehold purpose. I also haveadded a new section to my house.Even the labourers are better off.Then they worked from morning toevening and only got 10 : 1. No wthey work less and get 6 : 1 . Theyget more paddy. 1 get along we llw i t h labourers. I pay them wel l.So they themselves realise that thelabourers of the neighbour house getless, so they keep quiet and do notbother me. [ No me ntion of lessdays.]

A landowner with 18 acres of pad

dy fields and a large rubber estate :See. there is no work now in myfields. The labourers are str iki ng,so no wor k. I was prepar ed to givethe prescribed wage but they worktoo slow. They know they w il l getthe 8 and 7 wages but they are not

prep ared to wo rk. Th ey say 8 hoursof wo rk; come at 7.30, go at12.30 , back at 1.30 and go at4.30. But they are doi ng onl y thework of half that. Last year theytransplanted in 30 cents in one day,thi s year only 10 cents. I have 23permanent work ers. If I cal l one,all the 23 want to work together.

Usually these 23 people wi l l harvest23 plots in a day. But this year all23 wanted to work together. Thevdi d only 60 cents in all . [Bu t don' tthey get a share for harvest?] Yes.but they want to get me. I start edgiv ing 6 : 1. They don't wan t todo it on time, so that I wi l l get someloss. [La ter on we were tol d tha t

. the workers are doin g thi s becausehe is calling them only for transpla nti ng and harvesting . He doesnot do any weeding, and uses thesociety for pesticides. . , So to spitehim. they are foll owin g this go-slowtactic. This shows the lack ofunderstanding. In another field

nearby there was a 16-day str ike .Finally the landlord had to take themback at their terms. No w they arecutting hack on the labour]

Previously I had 19 women weeding . They wo ul d not pu ll the Weedsalong with the roots, but simply pullhaphazardly and the roots wo uldbreak and in no time the weed willgrow once again. If 1 need 5 womenthe first time I will need 8 nexttime . So now, I supervise' the wo rkcarefully and have less weeds.

A cultivator who is managingabout 70 acres and Juts over 100permanent labourers: In Palghat

the fanners are downtrodden. InKuttanad they can employ any number of laboure rs, bu t h ere we canonly employ our permanent labourers. Even for harvest we can onlyuse our permanent labourers. Forone acre, it used to take 20 peopleone day, but with new high-yieldingvarieties they only do 70 cents. Nowwe are using trac tor . We onbecausecat tle for 3-4 acres where it iswaterlogged or something out ofevery 20. Nowadays the men onl ycome for ploug hing at 8 in themorning; previously they used tocome at 3 in the mor ning and toplough as if it was their own land.

Previously they used to sing andwor k. Now , if they sing someonewi l l tease them.

A group of agricultural labourersin the presence of Congress labourunion officials: I have no permanentwork now. Wh enev er I am calledI go. T here are tw o per manentlabourers there now. I was wor kin gfor them for the last 3 years, butnow I say I am not a perm anentlabourer. Thi s year I wen t for hisweedin g wo rk. Then I was d oin ghis household, sweeping the compound, cleaning the cow-shed,carrying water from the river when

there was no water in his well. WhenI entered the field to do the weeding, it was not possible to pull outeach weed. Then he called mesaying I need not go there . Th epaddy plant was so tall it was difficult to weed. He started hur ryi ng

me to finish the work . I di d notsay anythi ng. He pai d me cash forweedin g Rs 3.50. For trans plan tin g also I get only Rs 3.50.[Several other workers came up andsaid they too were get tin g onlyRs 3.50 for weeding or transplanting.]

Discuss ion with a group of labour-

ers in the second study villageHere we are getting 6:1 pathambu(share) and 4 and 5 as wages. Bu tat X (2 miles away) they are getting6 and 7. They are perma nentworkers a nd they argue and get.Here, the cultivators are not makingus permanent. When they heardthis permanent system coming, theydismissed us. We have giv en ournames to the panchayat, bu t st il lthey tell us to go away. Here theunion is not as strong. There mus tbe unit y among the workers. It isnot here. In Wa rd I, that side theyare getting more from last 3 years.Once the transplanting is done the

agriculturists do not weed. Theylook the othe r side. In cases wehave registered, they bring in falsepoints and take case against thoselabourers who mentioned theirnames.

Women Maixist Organiser, whois also an agricultural labourer:I am get tin g 6 measures du ri ngseason, and 5 at othe r times . Fo rharvest I am ge tt ing 0: 1. Seineworkers have not joined the unionbecause they are scared they wi l llose their job, and the relationshipwill worsen between them and theiremployers. If we ask for more moneythe culitvator gets angry. Otherwise,they are more friendly. My employermakes me do some work along withprescribed work such as shopping,grinding, taking paddy to the mill,without giving anything extra. Eventoday I had to clean some rice anddi d not get anything for i t. In ol dtime it was the same. Fir st ti mewe went for weeding he gave 5measures, second time he gave 4.When 8 people go for harvestingone is kept in the house for house-work. The other 7 have to giv e ashave to this 8th woma n. [W e askif they did n't protest.] No, if the ywon't agree it won't work. They

are afraid they wi l l lose. We mustall stand together b ut some areafraid.

Union Leader: The only way isto get them all to unit e. St il l, manylabourers are afr aid. If one personasks for i t , th e other 5 must alsostand by it . If one woma n asks forsomething and the other 7 womendo not share their wages with her.there wi l l be a change. If yo u arestrict, he has to give her the wages.They are sayin g tha t when 4 of usunite, and ask for more, the othersact as if they are not in the groupSo the cultivator will say thatLakshmi is the troublemaker and getr id of her. If everyone is as one,then it won't be like that.

Dis trict Congress Co mm it te eUnion Organiser and a Youth Congress Leader; We must organistthe workers. It is we who pu

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

8/18

Ann ua l Numbe r February 1978 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

356

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

9/18

Annual Number February 1978

through the wages b i l l , but if thelabourers do not come forward whatcan we do? We must organisethem, to demand the new wage.Actually, ultim ately the land mustgo to them at least one acrefor each labouring household. Youask how that can be. We say bylegis lation . You need only add oneclause to the present Act not allow

ing absentee landowners. An d then-wi ll be enough land. We are fighting for that. Even we must fightthe feudal and reactionary people inour own Party. But we wi l l succeedin the next 10-15 years.

It may be useful to add here a few

quotes from interviews during the mon-

toon season of 1977, in order to

understand the changes that have occur

red :A fairly large-owner, If

everyone else gave the IRC wage,then I wou ld give. But , generally noone is givin g. It is not possible,

because costs of cultivation are toomuch. All the ministers know wecan't give and are not giving. [Onlya few days earlier several Ministershad mad- statements that the TRCwage was being implemented.] Thelabourers are not demanding nowbecause if they do, they wi l l get nowork, so they accept what they aregiven. We have to cut on operations,or work in order to try to bringlabourers' wages within the limit wewere giving previously. Previously,I used to weed one more time, nowI am not doi ng. I used to hir ewomen to cut grass on the bunds,but not any more. Li ke that, many

small operations.Another large Landowner complained

about the price of paddy, and said

that even if cutting back on operations

meant a somewhat lower yield, it was

preferable; anyhow the cost of paddy

was so low, so what was the use:'

Among the labourers, the following

were among the comments made to us

during 1977:Some Marxist labourers : If we

work we get the prescribed wage.-,,only they are giving less days ofwork. Those cult ivato rs who do

give weeding work do only one-ball.They say it is enough if I get one-half yield. My landlord is now doingthe straw work himself, simply notto give to us. before we got 1 or2 days of work from tha t. He can.afford it . . .

Some other labourers working fora Marxist landowner : We aregetting 0 and 5 measures now. previously 7 and 6 But , some othersare giving even less now . . . somegive 5 and 4. For casual labourthey give cash only. Some are givingas little as Rs 2.50 or 3, SOME Rs 5.But we must work or we will starve.

Some agricultural labourers work

ing in pouring rain near the roadside : This Maharaja called for worktoday. We do not know what weare getting, but for past 4 days nowork . Our childre n are cry ing from

hunger, so we, must wo r k. . . Theunion is not doing much If I don'tcome for work for lower wages,others will come. So only my childrenwill starve.

These passages illustrate perhaps

more graphically than the words of any

outside observer the flavour of the dis

agreements and tensions among the

different contenders in the rural scene

in Palghat. as well as some of the ways

these have become more focused

during the past two years. It is clear

that some feudal-type features remain,

and that there is a long distance to

travel for those involved in organising

the poor. Some sections of the labourers

are becoming more and more militant,

and are getting the support of not only

the Marxists but all the Congress left,

not an insignificant group in the party

in Kerala. It should be noted that

they, along wi th their ally the CPI .made a considerable dent in the Marxist

strongho ld of Palghat in the recent

assembly elections, securing 7 out of

11 seats. On the other hand, it was

quite striking (in July 1977) how-

organised the landlords had become,

and how strong they are in their deter

mina tion to br ing down wages. The

falling price of paddy has partly spark

ed this, but also the influence of Kut-

tenad leaders could be noted. Even in

1976, one landowners' association leader

had told us that they were having

'consultations' with Kuttanad agricultu rist s. The results of this consulta

tion could clearly be discerned.

Kuttanad

As noted above, the major part of

Kuttanad is in Alleppey district, with

smaller parts in Kottayam and

kulam district s. The Kuttanad area

stands out in marked contrast to Pal-

ghat because of the early capitalisation

of agr icu ltur e there. as wel l as the

early development of labour unions.

Agriculture in this area is vastly dif

ferent from any other Part of Kerala,

or for that matter any other part of

South Asia. It is hard to document

what it was like prior to the nineteenth

century, but from the nineteenth cent

ury on, it assumed its special distinc

tive pattern, as vast areas of land be

low sea level were gradually drained

and brought under cult ivat ion. In the

area known as Kut tanad, two- thir ds of

the total area is taken up wi th rice

lands. Un ti l fair ly recently, there were

practi cal ly no roads in the area, all

communication being by boat. The drygraden lands in Kuttanad are of limited

extent, as these lands have been raised

in patches from the low wet lands over

the years the sca rci ty, of land for

habitation having prompted such trans

formations . It should be noted tha t

on this 'habitable land' there is a im

putati on density of wel l over 10,000

people per square mile, These lands

have an eleva tion of only 3-4 feet

above the main water level, and they

are generally submerged dur ing the

monsoon floods. Large Nayar taravads

were bu il t about 0-8 feet from the

ground. They could not, however, build

rnul tist orie d buildings because they

would have collapsed. Among the poor,

houses tend to become islands in the

monsoon, and in many cases people

have to spend days or even weeks on

thei r roof-tops. There are only two

crops, rice and coconut. We shall only

discuss rice cul tiv ati on, since this is

the occupa tion that absorbs most of

the population.There are three main types of land

in Kutt anad. The largest area the

karappadams are old reclamations,

extending over an area of 102.000 acres.

They vary from one to seven feet be

low the water level. The second type

of area is known as the kayal, These are

new land reclamations w hic h lie at

10-20 feet below sea-level. Thi s area

is divided into contiguous blocks called

padisekharams bounded by canals, rivers

or other part itions. They vary from

10 to 2,500 acres. In some of these

large padisekharams, especially the

newer ones, there are no houses at all,

the labourers having to come and go

by boat each day. In some of the older

ones, especially the one known as 'R

block', there are numerous houses on

the bunds and even on the so-called

drier portions. The thi rd kind of land

is known as kari land. These are

swampy areas wi th black peaty soi l

high acidit y. About half of one of

our sample villages consisted of kari

land.

The main system of cul tivati on isknown as punja cultivation (Pillai and

Paniker. 1965:28-31). A punja field is

submerged under water du ri ng the

larger part of the year. One of the

features of punja cultivation is the

bunding and baling out of the water

before the fields are recovered for

culti vatio n. Cul tiv atio n occurs after

dra ining the fields, though one does

occasionally see the start of ploughing

on fields even before they have been

ful ly drained. Thus, one may see the

head and shoulders of a man and the

heads of bullocks moving along in thewater, and one knows they are

ploughing.

The basic system of cul tivati on is

357

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

10/18

the same in the karapaddams and koyal

and kari land, hut pumpi ng out is

harder in the ease of kayal lands

because t hey are so far below sea-

level . Cult iva tio n can start after the

southwest monsoon subsides in October

or so, thoug h sometimes plo ugh ing

starts in late August or early September

if the rains subside. The crop is usually

harvested in March in order to avoid

the incursion on of salinity from nearby

lakes. Most of the padisekharams are

fai rty large. The reclamations were

real ly quit e remarkable, feats. For the

most part they were carr ied out by

entrepreneurs with the help of a large,

pauperised agricult ural labour class.

The reclamations of the kayal lands in

Vembanad Lake at the tur n of the

century, which we know more about,

represented very risky investments: but

because of the low cost of labour, if

a man did succeed in reclaiming land

from water, he could reap incredible

rewards. The cost of reclaiming land,

according to Pillai and Paniker (1965:

19). was much lower than the going

price of rice fields, which was about

Rs 500 to Rs 700. This new invest

ment paid rich dividends, the entire

initial investment could be reimbursed

from the net income of one or two

croppings, if all went well.

Because of the nature of the land,

it is necessary to earn- out cultivation

operations differently. Thus, within any

given padisekharam, it is necessary

that all of the main operations be

carried out at approximately the same

time. Everyone owning land in a given

field wi ll have his lands ploughed ,

seedlings planted and transplanted and

the crop harvested on the same days.

Only the days of weeding may vary,

and that too only by a very few days.

Again, because of the peculi aritie s of

Kuttanad agriculture, the majority of

farmers owning land in the same field

tend to use the same or a similar kind

of seed, as opposed to most other riceregions of South India (including most

of Kerala) where quite different vari

eties of seed have always been grown

on adjacent fields. The result of this

pattern of cultivation is that there may

be a huge demand for labour for a

few days in a given locality, followed

by no work for a long period of time.

Apart from harvesting, where a share

is given, labourers have been paid in

cash for quite some time in Kuttanad,

It is beyond the scone of this paper

to go into the history of labour agitations and labour struggles in Kuttanad,

but organised struggles date back to

famous Punnapra-Vaya lar police firing

of 1946. Serveral authors have dealt

with the question of agricultural lab

our in Kerala. (Mencher 1973, Gopalan

1959. Oomanen 1971) Pil lai and Pani-

ker (1965:118) point out that reclam-

ation-cu m-farming in the Kuttana d

developed against a predominantly

feudal backgrou nd. They note that

"both demanded the services of large

numbers of labourers. The landowners

who in earlier days were mostly caste

Hindus were loath to work in the fields

and employed hired labour". Much of

the new reclamations wore done by

Chris tians . They had also been the

former tenants who had become land

owners as a resul t of land reforms,

whic h occurred earlier in Travancore

than elsewhere in Kerala. The divorce

between ownership of land and work

in the fields was as comple te as in

Palghat. From early days the labourers

were drawn from a few untouchable

castes (including, in more recent times,Chr ist ian converts from these same

castes). The rela tionship between the

attached labourers and the landed pro

prietors was feudal: the entire family

of the worker was attached to the

landowner.

With the expansion of the cultivable

land early in this century, there was a

massive increase in the demand for

labour, especially du ri ng the harvest

season. Agricultural labourers from

surroundin g districts regularly migrate

into the Kuttanad area for a period of

four to six weeks, li vi ng as a floating

population and part ici pat ing in the

harvest. To the ranks of these workers-

have been added, in the past few years,

coir workers (the coir industry right

now is in a bad shape and workers are

often out of work or badly paid), am]

fishermen , inc lud ing the ir wives, who

find that they can supplement thei r

catch of fish by get tin g a few large

measures of paddy from harvesting.

The depression in the fishing industry

cansed by large-scale motori sed fishing,and the general modernisation of that

industry with a focus on exports, has

hit the average fisherman badly.

Panikar has noted that it was almost

inevitable that in this area union acti

vit y woul d develop. He notes that

agricultural labourers compare very

unfavourably wi th other classes or

labourers, having no regular employ

ment, no fixed hours, no compensation

in case of death, etc. Acc ord ing to

Paniker, "Demands for wage increase

among the agricultural labourers mustbe considered as a desperate effort to

ensure a minimum annual income for

their family where employment is so.

limi ted and uncertain. Union activ ity

among the agricultural labourers deve

loped earlier here than elsewhere, in

large part, because of the proximity to

Alleppey and development of labour

unions in the coir industry as well as

among the tea workers" (1972:37-8). The

present author has discussed this in

greater detail elsewhere (Mencher 1973.)

Paniker also notes (1972:35) that therehad been a steady decline in the real

wages of agricultural labourers in Kut

tanad from 1944-45 to 1967-68, des-

pite increases in the money wages, duo

to increases in the price of paddy .

From 1907-68 on there was some in

crease in real wages, so that in 1970-

71, the paddy equivalent of the daily

money wage of a male agricult ural

labourer was just 8.7 per cent above

the 1944-45 level . If anyt hing , the

labourers are earning less today than

they did in 1970-71. despite the fact

that the official wage in Kuttanad is

higher than that stipulated by the

Agricultural Wages Act of 1975. From

the labourers' point of view, this is

due more to the expansion of the work

force than to inflation. Nowadays

during the harvest season, the workers

measure the amount of time employed

in minutes, not in hours or days. Over

and over again, women wou ld talk

about getting 45 minutes or one hour

and 20 minutes in a day for harvesting

a field. Thi s wou ld always be accom

panied wi t h tales of the number ofdays they had spent wanderi ng around

looking for work, and the problems of

there being too many workers. In some

instances this has been partly countered

by an additional crop being cultivated,

but as is shown below, only a small

proportio n of the land available for

cul tiv ati on during the second season

(the season tha t corresponds to the

first and main growing period in the

rest of Kerala and in most of India) is

actually being cultivated. The main

reason being given for this situation isthe poor price of paddy.

The extreme development of capital

ist fanning in Kuttanad and adjacent

areas led to strong pol itic all y active

agric ultura l labour unions from the

1930s to the 1960s, and even up to

the early 1970s. Indeed, a plethora of

unions, led by the Congress, the CPT,

and the CPT(M) grew, though clearly

the majority of unskilled workers be

longed to the CPI (M) union . It also

led, to the development of a total ly

new set of social relations of produc

tio n, whereby there was very li tt le

attachment of ind ivi dua l labourers to

any particular piece of lanil, or even

358

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

11/18

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY An nu al Numb er February 1978

to any part icul ar loca lity . Thus, one

now finds vast hordes of labourers

descending on an area at harvest time,

and very little of personal ties existingwith the land.

In the period following the formation

of labour unions, there was strongagitation for improving the quality of

work (shorter hours, etc) and increasing

the rate of wages, both in cash (for

seasons other than harvest) and in kind(at harvest time). And clearly, through

the long hard struggle, the rates of

wages have gone up. But this process

created strange bed-fellows. Thus, in1976, it was not only the landowners

who feared the loss of crops at harvest

time (when literally thousands crowd

into some of the larger fields at 8 amin order to begin the harvesting, which

might be completed two hours later),

but also the local labourers, who haveseen thei r earnings dim ini sh as thenumber of hours of harvesting dwindle

due to the pressure of numbers of

people. Both these groups seemed to

approve the system of passes handed outby people who owned land in a given

field and enforced by the police. Both

landowners and labourers accepted the

use of the police to supervise harvesting operations.

There are other peculiarities of the.

Kuttanad situati on: (1) the small land

owner with less than an acre of paddyland is as likely to see a vast army of

people harvesting his land as the man

wi th 30 acres. l i e cannot protest,

though he might try to get all of hisrelatives from far and wide to climb

down into his field when the siren

sounds, so that at least people he knows

can gel a share of the produce. (2) Itis rare to find permanent labourers who

work wi th a given landowner and

really know all of the details of cultiv

ation, budget, costs of production, etcas well as the landowner himself, such

as one finds elsewhere. (3) When theKerala Government, under pressure from

the OPI(M), set up three state farmson land confiscated from the wealthiest

large landowner-cum-businessman in

Kuttanad. it was run the same way as

before. 3,000 labourers were allot tedone acre of land each, but the farms

themselves were run by the Govern

ment, The 'owners' simp ly received

their wages for each day of work. Infact, the wages paid were sligh tly

lower than the prevailing wages, since

they were considered to be working on

their own land. Thi s setting up ofstate farms was done without the kind

of commitment that might have come

from the labourers, had it been run as

a co-operative with the labourers, and

not government bureaucrats, in deci

sion-making positions. Furthermore,

poli tica l considerations dominated in

choosing labourers for each of the state

farms. Since they were bei ng run as

capi tali st businesses, obviously thei r

first consideration was profit. Thus,

they decided not to plant a monsoon

crop in 1976 because the Government

felt that there would not be enough

of a profi t, even though it woul d

have prov ided extra employment for

the labourers. There was no protest

from the labourers about this decision.

In order to classify the parameters

of the present situation in the Kuttauad

area, I think it would be useful to

quote from some of the protagonists in

the situation:

Some labourers in the sample

village having half kari land : Nowall are working in the fields. Wemust go to other places, otherwise?we cannot liv e. We go to the otherside of the river, that is also thisvil lage. Then we also go to severalother villages, not very far away.We normally get Rs 7 and Rs 10as wages. Here we have to worksix hours continuously, and reallywork hard. There will be one amongus who will act as a supervisor, andalso the owner of the field will bethere. . .. But nowadays, this 'sixhours continuously', nobody gets.The number of labourers has increased so much, there wi l l be somany who enter the field. So weget work for two or three hours. orsometimes only one hour. Theycalculate at the rate of Rs 7 perday and give us accord ingly. Wehave to work even in the rain forsix hours. Here the landowners donot employ the same persons thesenext year also. They always changepeople, because then they are afraidthat the labourers will start fightingover their rights and all that.

A landowner in the kaval region:The land here is a problem. 1wanted only 10 women, but to selectonly ten from the local area is aprobl em. So I had to select 20.They work for three hours and go.Now there is not much problem forus, they listen, but a time willcome. . . political leaders wil l sayyon give them work, there is nopart- time work. What we need inKuttanad is absolute right to selectpeople to work and to fix theirnumber. . . . Whe n this Emergencywas declared, there was specificinstruction that if a cultivator askedfor police protection, he could getit. He could restrict the numberscomin g for harvest ing. We applied .But some 600-800 people came forharvesting. We wanted only 300.What to do? The police cannotsend them away. So there was atalk and a compromise made andwe took 450. St il l, at least not 600.It is easier in the kayal lands. Thereeven if 600 or 800 come we can

use them all. Here, there are onlysmall acreages to each person. Now,even for harvesting double thelabourers come. . . . [He goes oncomplaining about his problems withcultivation, with liv ing conditionsin the area, etc. He has to spend

Rs 10,000 a year for his children inboarding schools. And the price of

rice is low and the labourers demandtoo much.] The labourers behave insuch a way that we do not evenfeel like going to our fields. Theyare so haughty. . .. My son works ina bank now. We cannot depend onthe land anymore, so I 'allowed himto work. . . . The labourers come andenter the land and they decide howmany should harvest and so on. Wehave to stand on the bund andwitness the damage done by so manylabourers. . . ."

Some untouchable labourers livingon an island in the kaval area :We are only labourers here. Somespecial labourers of the culti vator

would get first preference. Othe rswou ld get only after that. So manytimes we had even to come backwithout getting work. When somany people come, they give coupons, to those who stay in theloca lity . Four persons for 10 tent s.Only alter the neighbours are giventhe coupons, then the others fromoutside get it . Altogother got about25 days, but there were days whenI did not get even one para ofpaddy, and days when I got onepara or more . In one day it maybe 15 minutes, sometimes 10 m i nutes, sometimes 20 minu tes. Butnever more than one para for a day.

Previously we have harvest even fortwo or three hours a day. Even lastyear it was much better. For weeding, we get about one to twomonths. It is for a ful l five hours,only sometimes it max not be. . . .Somehow we manage, sometimes wedon't even cook. sometimes wehave sumptuous meals. We don 'tget any work now for 15-20 moredays. Somehow, we manage w i ththe balance of last harvest's paddy.Now the floods will come and wehave to live on top of the houses.We prepare platforms and use tablesand benches and stay on top of thehouse.

A Government officer. Previouslythe farmers woul d cult iva te theirland using the money they got byselling paddy. Now they are get tinggovernment loans. I t they take aloan they will not use all of it foragriculture. When they harvest theydo not pay back in ful l. Then theyborrow horn others. That is whythey are so bit ter . They are simplysaying that the labourers are thereason for their bitterness. Actually,the consumer prices' have not gonedown , only the par tly ; pric e. So, ifthe wages are reduced the labourerswi ll not be able to live. The b igcultivators, what they do is after theharvest they sell the paddy and putthe money and make the labourerswork on credit. . . . It is true therewas brown hopper, hut it was notso bad as they say. Thei r aim is

359

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

12/18

Ann ual Numbe r February 1978ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

360

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

13/18

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY An nu al Numbe r February 1978

to hoodwink the labourers. Theysell the produce and tell the labourerthat they are in difficulty . Actua lly,they are not so badly off. Therelations hip between the employerand labourer is so bad that the employ er wants the labourer to bedowntr odden. So they br in g policeand threaten the labourers . . .. Some

of the rich cultivators are able toconvince Government that they arehaving a very difficult, time and allthat. It is not because of high wagesthat the cultivators are losing out,but because of the high price offertilisers and pesticides, I havesix acres, but I do not mind payingthe labourers their due wage, because I know that my problems arenot due to the hi gh wages. Most ofthe bigger cultivators in Kuttanadare Christi ans, they got their landdue to land reforms. Now that thewages have gone up they are forcedto share their good fortune with thelabourers. So they are more bit ter .

Because the labourers simply refuseto become slaves anymore. Theyare more educated these days. . .. Ifthe cultivator does some injusticethe labourer announces that andaccuses him of doing i t. Since theEmergency some of the cul tivator sare trying to reduce the levy, hidingpaddy in some poor person's houseafter bri bi ng him . Some labourerswill inform the authorities. Nowwe have to collect levy for thegovernment, from the big landlordsespecially, with police protection.Fifteen years back labourers used toget int o the fields at 7 am aridwork till 6-7 pm. And they would

get one rupee at the most, Nowthey work for only five hours andthat is another reason for the hostility, But sti ll, their liv ing conditionsare terrible. In monsoon theircondition is pitiable.

A cultivator who is also an organiser among the cul tivators : Weare pure ly an a gricul turali sts' associat ion. Ind ira Gandhi says thatthe land is for the labourer but wesay that, the land should remain withthe actual cultivator. Nobody isthere to help the culti vators. Here,the workers are gett ing more and

working less hours. To us whoproduce the foodgrains. governmentis not showing considerat ion. Evenwhen we have difficulties the labourers are not prepared to compromiseor to help. In one field we havedecided not to do the second crop,because the labourers wi l l not workone extra hour as we have askedthem. So they wi l l now get lesswor k altogether. In any case, theprice of paddy is low, so why cultivate an extra crop? Sti ll, I amdoing 20 acres of second crop. Theyw i l l earn 7 and 10. But , we arenot givin g the fu ll amount now.We ask them to work on credit. Wegive 8 and 5 and the rest will begiven after harvest .. . . Now theyare strengthening the bunds and all,so that people in Kuttanad can growtwo crops wi th security. But whatis the use, if we do that, the pricewi ll go down even more, We wi ll

produce as much as we can, but theremust be a guarantee from theGovernment side that they will giveus a percentage of our cost of cultivation. They should know. Theyare not growing the second cropon the Government farm becausethey say it is uneconomic. The business people can buy and sell at any

price, but we poor cultivators arecurbed. We are taxed in so manyways; the minister finally said letthe. landless decisions be with eachpanchayat, but in our panchayatit is not abolished. [He then wenton to complain about having to paythe ploughmen under the law, evenwhen he manages to rent a tractor]Ihey should help us, but Government is more concerned about thevotes of the labourers than aboutprogress in cul tiv ati on. I want towithdraw from this field, but thereis none to buy it . Nowadays morepoor people are buying land, they

buy one or two acres. But we arenet getting a good price, so I can'tsel l. Sometimes we are afr aid to goto the fields because of the labourdisputes. Only this Emergencybrought peace to this place. Therewere so many fights here. Thelabourers are well organised. Butnow, we cultivators are getting organised too.

Talk with one of the above cultivator's labourers on the same day :Today I only got three hours. Thatis all the work, I got four rupees.So, 1 boug ht one Ki lo of rice. Sowo will cat some kanji (rice gruelmixed with a lot of water) and somefried fish. For our entire family,only that four rupees. My husbandcould not get any work. We mustbuy rice dai ly. We do not haveanyt hing left after harvest. We arepaid in paddy at the harvest time,but then we must sell some in orderto buy other th ings. .. . Our fate isto sell the paddy at a lower priceat the time of harvest, and thenharvest we need to buy at higherprice. At least now there is somework. After this, it wi ll stop. Andno use asking for loans, becausecultivators won't give and shopkeepers also won't give. So wemostly wi ll starve. How can weexpect any thing? The shop peoplecannot supply to all labourers oncred it. They do not get things oncredit from wholesalers.

The fall in the price of paddy thatstarted in late 1975 has in part exacerbated the tensions, especially in theKutt anad area. Thi s price fall was theresult of a number of factors, includingmore favourable rains in Tamil Naduand a generally better harvest in thecountry as a whol e. Thus, in 1975-76,not only was the procurement price for

levy paddy low, but also the generalmarket pric e. This especially affectedthe cultivators since they had enjoyedexceptiona lly hig h prices in 1974-75,as well as in the previous two years,Many had expanded their way ofliving, with high expectations for the

future, many had bought cars, b ui lt

new houses, or sent children away to

schools and colleges in other parts of

the country. They had also used thei r

profits to invest in other money-making

businesses,

In addition, in 1975-70, some of the

cul tiva tors suffered losses due to the

'brown hopper' pest. Though there

seems to be a major disagreement

between government levy procurers

and culti vato rs as to how severe the

brown hopper menace was, it is clear

that it had been selective, and that

while some cultivators suffered a great

deal, the majority only suffered minor

damage. Nonetheless, it also served to

further harness the discontent of the

cultiva tors. What was stri king to us

going around in Kuttanad. was that the

first complaints made were uniformly

against (he agricultural labourers, butwhen asked for more details, cultivators

would readily complain about the higher

price of fertilisers and pesticides.

(They had gone up about threefo ld

during a period of six or seven years.)

It b clear that there is a tremendous

amount of tension and bitterness bet

ween the tenants and labourers. Ac

cording to one of the labour leaders in

Palghat:

Only if the culti vators and theagricultural labourers go forthwith the same opinion or attitude

towards cul tiva tion can there bepi ogress. - . . But now . the cultivator is not getting enough for hisproduce, so he is disappointed. Onthe other hand, the labourer is notgetting enough incentive to workmore hard and more sincerely inthe fields.... So the cult ivat ionsuffers. For the benefi t of thecultivat or and the labourer, thisland has to go to a common ownerinstead of individual farmers. Ithas to be some sort of co-operativefarming instead of individual holdings. When that comes in toexistence the worker has the con

solation that the result of his hardlabour does not benefit one individual but a common group even ifhe has to work hard .

In Kuttanad, in part because of the

earlier development of capitalist farm

ing and (as a concomitant to this) the

development of an active labour move

ment from the 1940s on, the polarisa

tion between landowner and labourer is

even more sharp than in Palghat

though Palghat is rapidly catching up.

From their respective vantage points,

what the cultivators say and what the

labourers say is equally true. At present(November 1977) there are culti vator s

in Kuttanad sitti ng wi th paddy from

the second harvest in the ir granaries

wh ic h they cannot sell because the price

is so low, and no one really wants to

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

14/18

Ann ual Numbe r February 1978 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

362

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

15/18

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

An nu al Numb er February 1978

buy the paddy to stock-p ile it. Yet atthe same time, there are also labourersgoing hungry.

In his note of dissent to the Kuttanad

report in 1971, Panikar noted that the

price of rice may fall when better seeds,fertilisers, pesticides, etc become

available. Subsidies given to farmers in

the region will also be withdrawn.

Labourers wil l resist the fall in real

wages by figh ting for higher wages.

Thus cultivation in Kuttanad will be

come less viable over the years. The

alternative he suggests (as opposed to

the one suggested above by the Marxist

labo ur leader) is peasant far min g in

the stri ct sense of the ter m: all owi ng

the present owners to keep only that

amount of land which they themselves

physically can work on, and distributing

the rest to the landless labourers who

work on the land . I wou ld agree w i t h

Panikar that redistribution of the land

woul d certainly a lter the situa tion in

the. Kuttanad area, but I do not see

peasant farming (in the strictest sense

of the term) as meaningful in the area.

Elsewhere (Mencher 1977). I have noted

that in the context of Ind ian rice

cultivation, the concept of the 'peasant

farm household' is mislea ding. Even

on the smallest parcels of land, there

are always periods of time when many

labourer s are needed. In the sample

villages studied in Kerala, as well as

others I have studied elsewhere, even

among those who own half-an-acre or

so of paddy land, there is a seasonal

requirement for outside help, even if

the owners themselves must at other

times go out as day laboure rs. In such

a context, while redistribution is cer

tainl y an imp ort ant step, it is clear

that it c o u l d only make sense if i t is

follow ed up immediate ly by genuine

co-operative farming.

Certain ly the produ ctiv e forces of

the society demand it , not on ly in

Kuttanad, but (as noted above) also in

the Palghat area. An d cert ainl y theagricultural labourers, are ready for it.

Howev er, it is clear that at present

this is a pol iti ca l hot potato. To begin

with, for it to work, absentee land-

ownership would have to be abolished.

It would not be possible for someone

employed in Bombay, or even in T r i -

vand rum, to continu e to own villa ge

paddy land (though they mig ht con

tinue to own houses for their retire

ment). But even many of the Mar xis t

leaders are absentee landowners. Thus,

at least some sections of the left le

adership wou ld not support such a

move whole-heartedly. Yet absentee

land-own ership has been one of the

most widely used devices to avoid land

ceilings. It would be necessary to have

some special provisions for elde rly

people or women with small children

who physically cannot work the land,

so that they can continue to own small

pieces of land. But such humanitarian

considerations need not stand in the

way of meaningful land redistribution

on the basis of land to the tiller.

However, the possibility of such

legislation being passed, even in Kerala

(despite its history of radical land re

forms) is not high. Actually, redistri

bution would be harder to carry out

in the Kuttanad area than in Palghat for

a number of reasons. As noted above,

in the Palghat area, the major part of

cultivation operations are carried out

by permanent labourers who have

worked for a given landlord year after

year, and who see themselves as associated wit h partic ular parcels of lan d.

(If the land is partitioned. the labour

ers expect to be divided among the

parceners. If it is sold, and the new

owners do not need them, they expect

to receive a share of the sale money.)

In addition, as a result of the land re-

lonn in 1970, the land has now gone

to the former tenants, at least some of

whom are making good profits. Ho w

ever, this is deeply resented by the

labourers: and this feeling exists even

where the 'new owners' participate in

cultivation more than the former jenmis

J would suspect that because Palghat

did not develop capitalist relations in

land until relatively recently, it could

in fact be easier in the future to mo

bilise the labourer s in Palghat in a

land-to-the-tiller programme, as co-

pared wi th Kuttanad. Furthermore, I

suspect that it wi l l be harder for the

'new landowners' in Palghat to fight

such a programme than it will for the

Kuttana d capitalis t farmers. To begin

with, in Kuttanad the landowners are

very familiar with every tactic of thelabour unions, Furthermo re' at least

in many areas, they can make use of

kinship ties to boycott the unions; this

is especially true among the Christian

landowners. In 1972, when the lab

ourers called a strike in an area near

Kutt anad , landowners called up all

the ir poor relations and some rich

ones too and got them to harvest

the crops.

It is true that the new owners in

Palghat are more likely to do this than

the former jenmis. Many of these newowners are Ezhavas and have worked

for years in the fields. Yet only a

small proportion of the labourers are

Ezhavas. Some of the small landowners

who might come out to help break the

unions belong to the high-castes and

are unw ill ing to soil their though

they are cutting back on agricultural

operations to put pressure upon the

labourers. In Malabar, there had been

a unity between the tenants and thelabourers against the traditional jenmis.

Now, new lines have begun to be drawn

between these former allies. The new

landowners and those former jenmis

who have managed to retain some land

are joining forces against the agricult

ural labourers who had ear lier been

the allies of the former tenants. In

those villages where the Marxist leaders

had been tenants, and had led the

agitation for land reform, a new prob

lem has come up. since these former

leaders are now landowners and do not

need the labourers to help them agitate.Indeed, now any agitation on the part

of the labourers could only be for

higher wages, or other fringe benefits

which are inconvenient for even smaller

landowners to accent.

The various electoral alliances which

the CPI( M) has made wi th rightist

parties have also hurt them with their

local constituencies. It was said by

several people that the CPI(M) would

have fared better in Palghat if it had

fought the election alone, intead of

forging alliances with the Congress-Oand the Jan Sangh. Even more than

what people said about the CP I( M)

being compromised , the alliance had

the effect of changin g the par ty's

orien tati on and polic y. Thus, in the

Kuttanad area in 1975-78. and by 1977

in Palghat, it was striking to hear how

much the CPI(M) union people defend

ed the landlo rds and discussed their

plight, instead of focusing on their own

grievances.

In the Kuttanad area, what impressed

me most was the feeling that the unions

really did not have an issue. The unions

in general (Marxist, CPI and Congress,

as we ll as RSP) were all concerned

about seeing to it that the customary

wage as paid in 1975 was con tinued

in 197(). (The new Law had stipu lated

a wage, of s 6.50 and Rs 9 instead of

the Kuttanad wage of Rs 7 and Rs 10,

but the Law had also stipulated that

if the customary wage was higher , it

should be paid.) Some landlords had

tried to lower the wage, and the unions

were fig htin g it. For the most part,

they had succeeded. But thei r mainfocus was on what they felt the go

vernment should do, i e, improv e the

coir indust ry so tha t those workers

366

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

16/18

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLYAn nu al Num ber February 1978

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

17/18

help the fishermen or find a cure

the brown hopper. A few of the lab

ourers were quite critical of the unions,

saying that they spent all their time

fighting one another. In any case, a

lack of direction was apparent in the

Kuttanad area, even though the lab

ourers were more educated, had been

in the vanguard of the agri cultu rallabourers movements, and had won

wage increases by ha rd and bit ter

struggles. It was almost as if they were

wai tin g for something to happen. In

contrast, the atmosphere was quite dif

ferent in Pal gha t This was largely

because lan d refo rm was new and

union activity, though not recent, was

st il l facin g many hurdles . Somehow,

there was a sense of the dynamic in

Palghat, though interestingly, it seemed

to be stronger in January 1976 despite

the Emergency than in July 1977. This

can be attr ibute d pri mar ily to the

strength of landlord organising.

It is clear that the two areas have

certain similarities and differences. In

the Palghat area, where the land has

only recently been transferred from the

jenmis to the tenants, and where there

has been constant agit atio n for land

reform for the past 40 years, there is

no reason to assume that it wi l l stop

now, though there may be a temporary

slowing down because of the ambivalence of the present leadership, As one

of the agricultural administration offi

cers, him sel f an absentee lando wner,

told me:

I t wi l l only be a few years beforethe land goes to those who workon it. The labourers have seenthe tenants get the lands. An d somany of the tenants like me andmany others do have other employment. We can live by our jobs.And--this is happening more and

more. The sons of better-o ff tenants are studying for jobs. Theydo not want this agriculture business. An d the labourers, they donot feel the tenants are entitledto the land. So, I give it 10, atthe most 15. years before thelabourers get the land.

When I asked him how he expectedthis to happen, he said by legislation,like land reform and the Wages Act.It is clear that the Wages Ac t waspushed by the CP I and the left inCongress as a way of trying to appearto be more left than the CPI(M), Fur

ther, I suspect that in February andMa rc h du ri ng the second harvest andelection fervourthe Congress labourunion workers, along with the Government Labour Officers, did push for theincreased wage actually being paid. At

peast that is proparry one of the fac-

tors accounting for Namboodiri

pad winning his assembly seat by only

2,000 votes.

In Kuttanad, where people have been

far less affected by the lan d reform

measures, there is even less reason to

expect a peaceful movement in the

direct ion of radical redistributi on of

the land, though I certainly agree withPanikar that agriculture is growing less

and less economical for the cultivators

in the area. Still, it is going to be a long

time before they give up their land.

If the price of paddy continues to stay

low, people who own sizeable portions

of land have three alterna tives: (1)

They coul d stop grow ing as much

paddy in an attempt to bring up the

price; they might get lesser yields by

not growing during the monsoon sea

son (which is risky anyhow), not weed

ing (which is becoming more common

place), and in general cutting back on

the use of labour. This is happening

more and more. (2) They could derid e

to opt out of agriculture. We did note

some land being sold by middle-sized

landowners. But the trouble is that the

price of land has fallen and there are

not many buyers, except for the occa

sional poor man who manages to get

a loan to buy lan d. If a lot of land

were sold in this way, it might pave

the way to eventual co-operative farming, since the new owners by them

selves cannot afford the new inpu ts.

(3) Alt ernat ively, the farmers wi th

middle-to- large holdings co uld go in

extensive ly fur labour saving devices

such as tractors, chemical weedcides,

and ultimately transplanters or h i p s t

ers. If this happens, it can only lead

to massive confrontations wi th the

labourer s, bu t it is har d to say who

wil l win. The use of these labour-saving

devices is already being talked about

in Palghat, and there are areas wheretractors are used for most of the

plou ghin g. Tractors were opposed vi ol

ently by the CPI(M) hi 1969-70, but

by 1975 the CPI(M) loaders were

favouring tractors even though unem

ployment among male agricultural lab

ourers was most intense, and the cost

of diesel had gone up by leaps and

bounds. The explanation given to me

was that ploughing being such terribly

hard work, the men preferred the trac

tor. I do not believe the explanation;

it is more likely that the landowners

had simply emerged victorious in their

battles against the labourers on this

one point.

Another possibility would be for the

Government to decide in favour el

increasing the buying price of paddy

and then selling it cheap to the poor

This would in. effect mean that the rich

are being subsidised.

N Krishnaji (1977) has noted that in

India, especially in Kerala, the effect

of government policy has unt il now

been to prevent the collapse of the

midd le peasantry (t he group ofte ndesignated as the backbone of any

radical or re voluti onary movement ). He

refers specifically to policies relating to

high support prices (not yet available

for rice), subsidised inp uts , extensive.

investment' in irrigation with only minor.

cesses from the beneficiaries, low tax

rates in agric ultur e, etc. At the mo

ment the middle peasants in Palghat

and Kuttanad are beginning to be driven

to the wall. They are still adopting the

strategy of trying to take it out on the

workers, but this can only cont inue for

a limited period of time. If the govern-'

ment decides to set a floor p rice for

paddy, this will save the middle peas-

ants. If not. it is possible tha t they

will begin to collapse. The really well-

to-do households will be able to wea

ther the storm, since many of them

have adequate storage facilities as well;

as alternative sources of income.

It is clear that what happens in the;

field of agrarian relations in the two

rice bewls of Kerala will depend notonly on the internal dynamics of each

region, but also on economic and poli-

tical decisions at the state and national

level and one migh t add, even at

the internat ional leve l. One of the

things which keeps, the Kerala economy;

from being 'free' is the extent to which

it is dependent on the sizeable monthly

remittances from abroad. This is especi-

ally true among the Christian popula-

tion in the south (including Kuttanad)

but also among Hindus and MusIims

There is no question that the amounts

which flow in influence political and

economic decision-making and these;

decisions will surely play a major part

in the direc tion of agrarian relations in

the years to come.

The question of collectivisation also

depends on the Cent ral Government

Even if Kerala should by some miracle

enact a really radical land bill which

abolished absentee landlords, gave land

to the til ler, and set up meaningful co-

operative farming, it could be thwartedby the Central Government. In this

connection, it must be noted that the

Kerala land reforms bi ll of 1969 re-

qui red two constit utiona l amendment

before the President of In di a could

7/29/2019 Capital View (1)

18/18

give assent to the : bill .

I have tried to describe the nature

of agraria