Commercialization of Agriculture Essay

IntroductionThe British encounter had pro nary(prenominal)prenominal)nced and profound sparing stupor on India. The various stinting policies followed by the British guide to the rapid conversion of Indias rescue into a compound economy whose nature and structure were goaded by removes of the British economy. unmatchable important aspect of British sparing policy was commercializedisation of agribusiness. commercialisation of floriculture which can be defined as a process where tikes start producing in the main for bargain in distant grocerys, sort of than to meet their aver need for regimen for supposition or to bewray in local anesthetic markets, (Roy, 2007) has taken lay at several(predicate) clippings in response to divergent stimuli.In the Indian context though a number of commercial orders much(prenominal) as cotton fiber wool, tobacco and sugarcane were great(p) fairly extensively even beforehand the advent of British figure (Habib, 1982), since demean taxation had to be paid to a greater end often than non in property and the footings of these crops were much high at that time relative to the prices of fodder atoms, however, commercialization of horticulture at that time corresponded totally to the requirements of traditional receipts economy in which the main form of gross due happened to be an indistinguishable mix of tax, testimony and rent (Raj, 1985).No doubt the need to abide revenue in cash was the initial compelling force for the contending of awkward produce, the larger surpluses so extracted from culture, with give away a flow of goods and services in the ab issue-face leaveion in exchange, was basically an disablement to hike commercialization (Raj, 1985). then, commercialization of agriculture in pre-British full stop existed yet in its embryonic form. In true sense, therefore, agriculture of India got a commercial orientation during the British rule.Industrialization in Europe and commercialization of gardening in IndiaThe commercialization of Indian horticulture took calculate not to lam the industries of India because India was far behind in industrial development as compared to Britain, France, Belgium and many former(a) European countries of eighteenth blow. The commercialization of Indian market-gardening was done primarily to generate the British industries that it was taken up and achieved un slight in cases-of those art little products which were any needful by the British industries or could set somewhat cash commercial gain to the British in the European or American market. For example, several efforts were made to append the return of cotton in India to provide cutting and good quality cotton to the cotton- stuff industries of Britain which were ontogenesis fast subsequently the Industrial change in Britain. in that locationfore, cotton proveing discipline increase in India and its turnout change magnitude manifold wi th gradual lapse of time. indigotin and more than that, tea and c attainee plantation were encouraged in India because these could fix commercial market abroad. It was beneficial to the British planters, backuprs and manu positionurers, who were provided with luck to make huge profits by getting the commercialized sylvan products at, obtain away prices. The commercialization of Indian agriculture too partly benefited Indian tackrs and gold loaners who made huge fortunes by works as middlemen for the British. This debate they acted as conduits delivering the products from peasants to the British company from where it was taken abroad.Though markets and trade in untaught goods existed in sooner organized forms and on a large scale in the pre-British period but the market expansion in the British period label a qualitative and quantitative break. According to Tirthankar Roy, there were terce main qualitative changes.First, before the British rule, product markets were c onstrained and subject to imperfections, given multiplicity of weights and measures, backward and risky transfer systems, and extensive use of swap. British rule and the railways weakened these constraints. By doing so, it enab take closer integration of ecumenic, regional and local markets. turn, from the time of industrial revolution, a new inter subject field speciality began to emerge as a forget of trade. India specialized, in rude merchandises. Third, in turn, changes in the product market induced changes in nation, labor, and credit markets (Roy, 2007). The American Civil struggle also indirectly encouraged commercialization of agriculture in India the British cotton affect was diverted to India. The take of cotton was maintained even after the well-mannered war ceased because of the rise of cotton textile industries in India.The commercialization of India agriculture was initiated in India by the British with their direct and indirect policies and activities. Firstly, the new grease advance system introduced in form of unceasing settlement and Ryotwari Settlement had made agricultural arrive a openhandedly alike(p) commodity. The Permanent settlement by tolerant monomania right to the zamindars created a set of wealthy landlords they could make use of this ownership right by sale or purchase of land. Secondly, the agriculture which had been way of conduct kind of than a business attempt now began to be practiced for sale in national and global market.Thirdly, the policy-making unity established by the British and the resulted in rise of the unified national market. Fourthly, the beam of property economy replaced the barter and agricultural goods became market items and the replacement of tailored and tradition by competition and contract. Finally, the British policy of one way free trade also acted as decent encouraging factor for commercialization as the manufactured items in textile, jute and so forth could run acros s free entry in Indian markets, where as the manufactured goods did not pass water similar free access to European markets.Impact of Commercialization on Indian landIt is avocationing to note that though there is little controersy with regard to the role of British in initiating and promoting the forces which take to the commercialization of Indian agriculture, however, the nature of commercialization and its stupor on the Indian peasantry had been very(prenominal)(prenominal) controversial issue, both during and after the British rule. To the nationalists, it was not out of the free impart of the cultivators commercialization of agriculture was compel and celluloid (Dutt, 1906). This was so because the high pitch of revenue engage in cash compel lead the cultivators to sell large portion of the produce of their palm keeping an insufficient stock for their own consumption. On the some other hand the compound bureaucracy argued that it was the market force rather than the pressure of land revenue that was draw the farmers into the business of production for the market. The commercial crops were more profitable and this economic incentive led them to produce for sale and export, thus making it possible for them to increase per capita income.Furthermore, the imperialist historiography and the colonial bureaucracy viewed commercialization of agriculture, the expansion of trade in agricultural products and the rising agricultural prices as an indication of the growing successfulness of the peasantry. (Satyanarayana, 2005). On the other hand anti-imperialist historiography (both nationalist and radical Marxist) emphasizing the negative impact of commercialization of agriculture and the integration implied that agricultural production in India was to be determine by imperial preferences and needs (Bhatia, 1967). Moreover, other historians following the neo- breakical economic theory or with anti-imperialistic orientations (Marxists and non Marx ists) pose extended their support to either of the two.The commercialization of agriculture was a laboured and artificial process for the majority of Indian peasants. It was introduced nether coercion of the British and not out of the incentive of peasantry at large. The peasantry went for civilisation of commercial crops under duress. Most significantly the life of the Indian peasant was level(p) to the highly fluctuating national and international market. He was no longer a deciding factor in agricultural practices. Further, by making agricultural land a tradable commodity, the peasant lost his hostage feeling. High land revenue demand forced him to take loan from the bullion lender at high inte relievo rates. Failure to suffer debt in time meant loss of land to the money lender at high interest rates. It led to land alienation and increase in the number of agricultural laborers whose conditions especially in plantation industry was pathetic.He had to pay the land revenue d ue to the British government in time. Moreover, he had to grow commercial crop on a specified tract of his land under the oppression of planters. Also, Indian money lenders march on Cash advances to the farmers to cultivate the commercial crops and if the peasants failed to pay him back in time, the land of peasants came under ownership of moneylenders. The poor peasant was forced to sell his produce just after harvest at whatever prices he could get. This placed him at the money of the grain merchant, who was in a position to rate scathe and who purchased his produced at much less than the market price.It also resulted in reduced area under refining of regimen crops. The net result of this change was that Indian failed to produce even that much food crops which could provide even two entropy power meals a day to its population. The misery was further enhanced became the population of India was increasing every year, fragmentation of land was taking place because of the i ncreasing pressure on land and modern techniques of agricultural production were not introduced in India. temporary hookup the upper class and British industries benefited-from it, the Indian peasants life was tieto remote international market. It affected adversely the poor state of India it became difficult for them to get even sufficient food. This becomes ample from the fact that ill 1880 India had a surplus of foodstuffs to the extent of five jillion tons and by 1945 it had a famine of 10 million tons. George Byn records that from 1893-94 to 1945-46, the production of commercial crops increased by 85 part and that of food crops trim back by 7 percent. This had a crushing effect on the outlandish economy and often took the shape of dearths.Bhatia believes that the originally famines were localized, and it was only after 1860, during the British rule, that famine came to symbolise general shortage of foodgrains in the country. There were approximately 25 major famines spread finished states such(prenominal) as Tamil Nadu in the south, and Bihar and Bengal in the east during the latter(prenominal) half of the 19th century. smashing picture and Indian AgricultureA global economic depression broke out in 1929. However, the causes were more diverse and multi-pronged, with the come down in costs and economic deflation of the post-war period cosmos one of the main reasons. This deflation was caused by excessive manufacturing activities during the First World War. As a result, huge stocks of goods were piled up without existence used. Wartime expenditure had reduced the countries of Europe to a state of heavy debt (Manikumra, 2003). With the outbreak of the Second World War, India was required to provide the resources for financial backing the war expenditures, which amounted to nearly 38 million rupees from 194146.Government machine-accessible excessive magnificence in maintaining war related production, as a result of which a cosmopolitan system of supplying food to the urban areas at controlled prices was put in place. The rural poor were not viewed as cosmos essential to the war effort and so the main burden of war support was passed on to them.With the Great Depression, agricultural prices worldwide started diping earlier than industrial prices. As a result, the manufacturing-agriculture terms of trade dark sharply against agriculture. A substantial redistribution took place from the mass of rural producers to urban classes. Thus the combination of the long term front of decline in per intellect production of foodgrains, a rise in per head production of marketable and the effects of deteriorating terms of trade created a set of pre-famine conditions in the sense that any substantial cuff to the economic system under these tidy sum was almost certain to precipitate famine in the absence of countervailing intervention. Taxes were jacked up and deficit financing by printing money was resorted to and money supply is estimated to have elevated five folds in the four age from 1940.As a result there was a war boom and profit lump. sieve price started an upward spiral from the remnant quarter of 1941, doubled within a year and quadrupled within eighteen months.Also, the colonial government from the beginning strongly pushed exportable production by forcible cultivation of poppy in the early 19th century and export of opium to China, culminating in the infamous opium wars and indigo mutiny. With time overt force became less necessary as the pressure of revenue demand transmitted down to the peasant cultivators as the pressure of rental demand and in the case of landlords paying the revenue compelled peasants to grow more commercial crops to sell and to commercialize food production itself. paucity Indian Agriculture strained by commercialization and Great DepressionThe fall in prices had been high in India compared to the rest of the world, the price of commodities manufactured in I ndia arise dramatically compared to imports from the conjugate Kingdom or some other country in the world. The Great Depression had a unspeakable impact on the Indian farmer. sequence there was a steady, uninhibited increase in land rent, the value of the agricultural produce had come down to dreadful levels. Therefore, having incurred heavy losses, the farmer was compelled to sell off gold and silver ornaments in his stubbornness in order to pay the land rent and other taxes. Farmers who were cultivating food crops had earlier moved over to cash crop cultivation in large song to meet the demands of the mills in the United Kingdom. Now, they were crippled as they were unable to sell their products in India due to the high prices nor could they export the commodities to the United Kingdom which had recently follow a protective policy prohibiting imports from India.An ex ante excess of investment over savings was converted to equality through forced savings extracted via food price inflation from the rural population. The consumption of food was then estimated at one and a half pound per individual and in 1945 it was 1 pound. Nearly thirty percent of the Indian population was estimated to be abject from chronic malnutrition and under nutrition. Thus, the commercialization of agriculture in India by the British was also one of the important causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people. This resulted in a combination of famines and epidemics claiming more or less 2.7 to 3.1 million lives.The most cited example is that of Bengal shortfalls. Romesh Chunder Dutt argued as early as 1900, and present-day scholars such as Amartya Sen agree, that some historic famines were a product of both uneven rain and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local tillage to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support British. The Great Famine of 187678, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died and the Indian famine of 18991900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died were the most mordant famines.The Bengal Famine resulted in approximately 3 million deaths. Generally the estimates are amidst 1.5 and 4 million, considering death due to starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengals 60.3 million populations. Half of the victims would have died from disease after food became on tap(predicate) in December 1943. Generally it is thought that there was serious hang in food production during that time which is coupled with continuing export of grain.However accord to Amartya Sen, there was no significant decrease in food production in 1943 (in fact food production was higher compared to 1941). The highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and half-size traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenter s, etc. The famine also caused major economic and social disruption, ruining millions of families.ConclusionSince colonial times, opinions would seem to have been divided betwixt optimists, for whom commercialization marked progress and a growing prosperity for all pessimists, for whom it marked regress into deepening class social stratification and mass pauperization and skeptics who held that it made very little difference and that its impact was generally absorbed by pre-existing structures of wealth accumulation and power on the land. However, capitalisation in the 21 st century is verbalise to create similar impact as colonial times, the only difference being that the later one was forced through oppressive policies, whereas the former would be market driven.The farmer in his choice of crops attached greater importance to market demand and price than o other factors. capitalism has mixed impacts on Indian agriculture. While it brings about liberalization and globalization t hat leads to trans-border handiness of agricultural products all over the world, it breaks the economic self-sufficiency in India leading to greater dependency on market forces. exporting of food products is one of the major reasons for inflation in India, it reduces the availability of agricultural products in India, increasing the demand and thus escalating the prices. flip-flop and liberalization has also made Indian agriculture vulnerable to global crisis. However, it provides for a national economy and also brought about regional specialization of crops on an expeditious basis. Hence, it is essential to learn from the lessons in the then(prenominal) and formulate policies to mitigate the negative impacts on Indian agriculture while being globally connected and liberalized.ReferencesAtchi Reddy, M., The Commercialization of Agriculture in Nellore districtEffects on Wages, Employment and Tenancy. in Essays on the Commercialization of Indian Agriculture, editors et. al. K.N.Raj, 163-83. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1985. Avineri, Shlomo editor. Karl Marx on colonialism and Modernization. Garden city 1969. Barber, William. British economic Thought and India 1600-1858 A Study in the memoir of phylogeny sparings. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1975. Bardhan, Pranab K. Land, Labor, and Rural Poverty Essays in victimization economicals. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1984.Bhatia, B.M. Famines in India, 1860-1965. sensitive York (1967)Beaud, Michel. A muniment of Capitalism, 1500-1980. newfound York Monthly Review Press, 1983. Bernanke, B.S. Essays on the Great Depression. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000 Bharadwaj, Krishna. A View on commercialisation in Indian Agriculture and the Development of Capitalism. The Journal of small fry Studies 12, no. 4 (1985) 7-25. Chaudhuri, Binay Bhushan. The Process of Agricultural commercialization in Eastern India During British persistA Reconsideration of the Nations of Forced Commercialis ation and Dependent Peasantry. In Meanings in Agriculture Essays in South Asiatic biography and Economics, Editor Peter Robb, 71-91. unused Delhi Oxford University Press, 1996. Dutt, R. C. Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, 1837-1901. capital of the United Kingdom (1906).Greenough, Paul R. Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal The Famine of 1943-1944. New York Oxford University Press, 1982.Habib, Irfan (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 1, c.1200-c.1757 New Delhi Orient Longman (1982).Ludden, David. agricultural Commercialism in Eighteenth nose candy South India Evidence From the 1823 Tirunelveli Census. Indian Economic and favorable History Review 25, no. 4 (1988) 493-520.. The Terms of Ryotwari Praxis changing Property Relations Among Mirasidars in the Tinnevelly District. In Studies in South India An Anthology of Recent look into and Critical Scholarship, Editor Pauline Kolenda, pp.151-70. Madras New Era Publications and the American Instit ute of Indian Studies, 1985.Ludden, David (editor). Agricultural Production and Indian History. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1994.Manikumar, K. A. A Colonial Economy in the Great Depression, Madras (19291937). Orient Blackswan. (2003). ISBN 978-81-250-2456-9.Mishra, Satish Chandra. Commercialisation, Peasant Differentiation and merchandiser Capital in new-fashioned nineteenth Century Bombay and Punjab. Journal of Peasant Studies 10, no. 1 (1982).Mokyr, Joel editor. The British Industrial change An Economic Perspective. Boulder Westview Press, 1993.Naoroji,Dadabhai. PovertyandBritishRuleinIndia.1901.http//www.historydiscussion.net/british-india/expansion-and-commercialization-ofagriculture-during-the-british-rule-in-india/640 (accessed on family line 4th, 2014) Raj, K.N. Neeladari Bhattacharya, Sumit Guha, and Shakti Padhi (ed.), Essays on Commercialization of Agriculture in India. Delhi Oxford University Press, (1985), p. viii.Rajasekhar, D. Commercialization of Agriculture an d Changes in statistical distribution of Land Ownership in Kurnool District of Andhra 9C.1900-1950). The South Indian Economy rural Change, Industrial Structure, and State Policy, C1914-1947, 78-119. Delhi Oxford University Press, 1991.Ray, Rajat Kanta. The Bazaar changing Structural Characteristics in the Indigenous contribution of the Indian Economy Before and by and by the Great Depression. The Indian Economic and Social History Review 25, no. (3) (1988) pp. 263-318.Robb, Peter. Peasant Choices? Indian Agriculture and the Limits ofCommercialization in Nineteenth-Century Bihar. The Economic History Review XLV, no. 1 (1992). Roy, Tirthankar. The Economic History of India, 1857-1947. New Delhi Oxford University Press, second edition (2007), p. 124.Satyananarayana A., Expansion of goodness Production and Agrarian Market. New Delhi Oxford University Press, second edition (2005), p. 182.Satyasai, K. J. S., and K. U. Viswanathan. Commercialisation and Diversification of Indian Agri culture. Economic and Political Weekly 31, no. 45-46 (1996) 3027-28. Sen, Amartya K. Poverty and Famines An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation. New York Oxford University Press, 1981.Shiva, Vandana. Ecology and the Politics of Survival Conflicts over Natural Resources in India. Newbury Park, CA judicious Publications, 1991.Tilly, Louise A. Food Entitlement, Famine, and Conflict. In Hunger and History The Impact of Changing Food Productionand using up Patterns on Society, Editors Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, 135-52. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1983. Wakimura, Kohei. The Indian Economy and Disasters during the Late Nineteenth Century ProblemsofInterpretationofColonialEconomy.http//srch.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/rp/publications/no10/10-06_Wakimura.pdf (accessed on September 6th, 2014)Washbrook, David. The Commercialization of Agriculture in Colonial India Production, Subsistence and Reproduction in the Dry South, C. 1870-1930. Modern Asian Studies 28, no. 1 (1994) 12 9-64.