GROWTH OF AGRICULTURE DURING BRITISH RULE

INTRODUCTION
What are the causes of this intense poverty and these repeated famines in India? Superficial explanations have been offered one after another, and have been rejected on close examination. It was said that the population increased rapidly in India, and that such increase must necessarily lead to famines; it is found on inquiry that the population has never increased in India at the rate of England, and that during the last ten years it has altogether ceased to increase. It was said that the Indian cultivators were careless and improvident, and that those who did not know how to save when there was plenty, must perish when there was want; but it is known to men who have lived all their lives among

these cultivators, that there is not a more abstemious, a more thrifty, a more frugal race of peasantry on earth. It was said that the Indian money-lender was the bane of India, and by his fraud and extortion kept the tillers of the soil in a chronic state of indebtedness; but the inquiries of the latest Famine Commission have revealed that the cultivators of India are forced under the thralldom of money-lenders by the rigidity of the Government revenue demand. It was said that in a country where the people depended almost entirely on their crops, they must starve when the crops failed in years of drought; but the crops in India, as a whole, have never failed, there has never been a single year when the food supply of the country was insufficient for the people, and there must be something wrong, when failure in a single province brings on a famine, and the people are unable to buy their supplies from neighbouring provinces rich in harvests. Deep down under all these superficial explanations we must seek for the true causes of Indian poverty and Indian famines.It is, unfortunately, a fact which no well-informed Indian official will ignore, that, in many ways, the sources of national wealth in India have been narrowed under British rule. India in the eighteenth century was a great manufacturing as well as a great agricultural country, and the products of the Indian loom supplied the markets of Asia and of Europe. the East Indian Company and the British Parliament, following the selfish commercial policy of a hundred years ago, discouraged Indian manufacturers in the early years of British rule in order to encourage the rising manufactures of England. How the devastated the Indian Agriculture is discussed in the next few pages.

INDEX Topic
History of Indian Agriculture Agriculture during British Rule Cotton Boom Impact on Agriculture Conclusion Bibliography and Webliography

History of agriculture in Indian Subcontinent

Indian agriculture began by 9000 BCE as a result of early cultivation of plants, and domestication of crops and animals. Settled life soon followed with implements and techniques being developed for agriculture. Double monsoons led to two harvests being reaped in one year. Indian products soon reached the world via existing trading networks and foreign crops were introduced to India. Plants and animalsconsidered essential to their survival by the Indianscame to be worshiped and venerated.
1

The middle ages saw irrigation channels reach a new level of sophistication in India and Indian crops affecting the economies of other regions of the world under Islamic patronage. Land and water management systems were developed with an aim of providing uniform growth. Despite some stagnation during the later modern era the independent Republic of India was able to develop a comprehensive agricultural programme. But Indian agriculture suffered a great during the British rule.

Agriculture during British Rule

Revolutionary changes had occurred in the agrarian property relations towards the end of the 18th century. This was over a period of time, followed by a commercial revolution in the agricultural sector. Commercialization of agriculture became prominent around 1860 A.D. This brought about a change from cultivation for home consumption to cultivation for the market. Cash transactions become the basis of exchange and largely replaced the barter system. Various factors led to the commercialization of agriculture during the British rule in India. The chief factor was the colonial subjugation of India under the British rule. India was reduced to the supplier of raw materials and food grains to Britain and importer of British manufactured goods. Many commercial crops like, cotton, jute, tea, tobacco were introduced to meet the demand in Britain. Better means of communication (equipped with rapid development of railways and shipping) made trade in agricultural products feasible, especially over long distances. The emergence of grain merchants was a natural adjunct to this and
1

History of agriculture in the Indian Sub Continent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_the_Indian_subcontinent (accessed on 12 October,2013 at 12.29 pm)

greatly facilitated agricultural trade. Monetization of land revenue payments was another important casual factor for agricultural commercialization. Further, increasing demand for some of the commercial crops in other foreign countries gave impetus to commercialization of agriculture. The American Civil War also indirectly encouraged commercialization of agriculture in India: the British cotton demand was diverted to India. The demand of cotton was maintained even after the civil war ceased because of the rise of cotton textile industries in India. Coming to the impact of the commercialization of agriculture Normally speaking, it should have acted as a catalyst in increasing agricultural productivity. But, in reality this did not happen due to poor agricultural organization, obsolete technology, and lack of resources among most peasants. It was only the rich farmers; who benefited and this in turn, accentuated inequalities of income in the rural society. A significant feature of commercialization of agriculture in India was the substitution of commercial non-food grains in place of food grains. George Byn records that between 1893-94 to 1945-46, the production of commercial crops increased by 85 percent and that of food crops fell by 7 percent. This had a devastating effect on the rural economy and often took the shape of famines.2 Regional specialization of crop production based on climatic conditions, soil etc., was an outcome of the commercial revolution in agriculture. Deccan districts of Bombay presidency grew cotton, Bengal grew jute and Indigo, Bihar grew opium, Assam grew tea, Punjab grew wheat, etc., Another important consequence of the commercial revolution in agriculture was linking of the agricultural sector to the world market. Price movements and business fluctuations in the world markets began to affect the fortunes of the Indian farmer to a degree that it had never done before. The farmer in his choice of crops attached greater importance to market demand and price than his home needs. The commercialization of agriculture had mixed effects. While it assisted the industrial revolution in Britain, it broke the economic self-sufficiency of villages in India. Nonetheless, the new development was not without any benefits as it provided for a national economy and also brought about regional specialization of crops on an efficient basis.

Commercialisation of Agriculture in British rule, http://dialogue.hubpages.com/hub/Commercialisation-ofAgriculture-during-British-Rule-in-India (accessed on 12Otober,2013 at 1.10 pm)

Cotton boom
Before the 1860s, three fourths of raw cotton imports into Britain came from America. British cotton manufacturers had for long been worried about this dependence on American supplies. What would happen if this source was cut off? Troubled by this question, they eagerly looked for alternative sources of supply. In 1857 the Cotton Supply Association was founded in Britain, and in 1859 the Manchester Cotton Company was formed. Their objective was to encourage cotton production in every part of the world suited for its growth. India was seen as a country that could supply cotton to Lancashire of the Ametican supply dried up. It possessed suitable soil, and cheap labour. When the American Civil War broke out in 1861 a wave of panic spread throughout cotton circles in Britain. Raw cotton imports from America fell to less than three percent of the normal: from over 2,000,000 bales (of 400lbs each) in 1861 to 55,000 bales in 1862. Frantic messages were sent to India and elsewhere to increase cotton exports to Britain. Bombay, cotton merchants visited the cotton districts to assess supplies and encourage cultivation. As cotton prices soared Export merchants in Bombay were keen to secure as much cotton as possible to meet the British demand. So they gave advances to urban sahukars who in turn extended credit to those rural moneylenders who promised to secure the production. When there is a boom in the market credit flows easily, for those who give out loans feel secure about recovering their money. While the American crisis continued, cotton production in the Bombay Deccan expanded. Between 1860 and 1864 cotton acreage doubled. By 1862 over 90 per cent of cotton imports into Britain were coming from India. But these boom years did not bring prosperity to all cotton producers. Some rich peasants did gain, but for the large majority, cotton expansion meant heavier debt. By 1865 the dreams were over. As the Civil War ended, cotton production in America revived and Indian cotton exports to Britain steadily declined. Because of this the farmers were highly indebted now.

Impact on Agriculture
Agriculture was the main stay of Indian economy. Nearly eighty percent people adopted cultivation either as principal or as secondary occupation. About seventy percent of national income came from agricultural sector. Agricultural productions constituted mainly food-grains and such other crops like oilseeds,

fiber crops, sugar cane required for domestic consumption. Moreover, agriculture had special importance in self-sufficient village economy. However, the British Rule changed the nature and structure of Indian economy. Land was heavily assessed for revenue; a new class of landlords emerged; deindustrialization led to overcrowding of land; increasing rural indebtedness put the peasants in poverty; a large number of intermediaries caused low productivity and finally the impoverishment of the peasantry was accelerated. Under these circumstances Indian agriculture could not sustain the pressure from the growing dependence on land, the increasing Government dues and the exploitation of unscrupulous landlords. The consequence was inevitable. Agriculture became stagnant and personality acre yields declined. There were various factors contributing for stagnation of agriculture. It began with the land revenue policy of the Company. Ownership of land was vested with non-cultivators where as the actual cultivators had no claim over land. The Government became the rent receiver; the Zamindars were rent-collectors; and the peasants were mere rent payers. The Government did nothing for agricultural development. The rent-collecting Zamindars had no interest in agriculture. Finally, the cultivators had no resources for investment to improve agriculture. Moreover, the cultivators lost interest to bring about improvement in the land which they did not possess. The land cultivated by him was not his property and the benefit coming out of agricultural improvement would be reaped by the absentee landlords and moneylenders. To them, agricultural improvement meant payment of more rent and no cultivator came forward to invest in fear of extra payment. Thus, agriculture declined steadily. India handicraft industries were closed down and local markets were no more profitable for the Indian traders. Within short-time, agriculture was left as the lone source of employment and thus got overcrowded due to migration of working persons from non -agricultural sectors. Further, uncontrolled population growth added extra pressure on land. Thus, people competed among themselves for a plot of land and were exploited by rack-renting of the landlords. The system of subletting the right to collect revenue created a chain of intermediaries and led to subdivision and the fragmentation of land into small holdings. As a result per capita land was very low and income from land could not meet the livelihood of the cultivators. All apart, every one wanted to be a rent collector instead of being a cultivator for which subletting and subleasers increased. Thus, fragmentation of land into small holdings and excessive overcrowding reduced yields per acre. Indian cultivators adopted primitive techniques in agricultural production. They hardly used better cattle and seeds, more manure and fertilizer and improved

techniques of production. As discussed earlier, the cultivators had little or no resource for improvement of agriculture. The Government deliberately neglected agriculture. Though the peasants shouldered main burden of taxation, very small part of their tax was paid for improvement and modernization of agriculture. The Government spent millions of rupees on the railways to protect and promote the British trade interests. On the other hand, very little was spent on irrigation and that was the only field of Government investment. The landlords took no personal interest beyond collection of rent. They exploited the cultivators by rack-renting to enhance their income and were unwilling to make any investment to increase income by increasing productivity of land. Thus, agriculture continued to be neglected grossly and stagnation of agriculture was inevitable. No less harmful were the effects of the natural calamities like floods, droughts and famines. Repeated occurrence of those calamities forced the peasants to give upon cultivation. There was no attempt to bring about any preventive measures against the natural calamities.3 During early years of the British Rule nothing was done to check or to regulate the flood water. No initiative was taken for providing irrigation that could have insured agricultural production against droughts or scanty rainfall. Failure of crops for two or more consecutive years took the dreadful shape of famine. Neither the Government nor the landlords paid any attention to prevent the devastation of the natural calamities. In India a good harvest depended on a better monsoon with adequate was uncertain, rainfall was irregular and natural calamities were inherent. The Government was apathetic, the landlords were oppressive and the cultivators were hopeless. Therefore, agriculture was left at the mercy of nature. Similarly, no improvement came in the agricultural technology. Agricultural implements were ordinary and old. Wooden ploughs were primarily used and cattle wastes constituted the manure. Use of iron ploughs was rare and an inorganic fertilizer was unknown. There was very little effort for creating educational awareness among technological advancement would have been an effective measure to increase productivity. But the technological stagnation fastened the decline in agriculture and ultimately poverty was perpetuated for rural masses more specifically for the peasants.
3

R Jhabbu, Essay on the Impact of Colonial Rule of British on Indian Agriculture, http://www.preservearticles.com/2012010920200/essay-on-the-impact-of-colonial-rule-of-british-on-indianagriculture.html (accessed on 12 October, 2013 at 2.03 pm)

Conclusion..
At the end of British rule this is what we were left with.

Little industrialization, low agriculture output, low figure of national income and per captia income, very sluggish economic progress, considerable unemployment and underemployment. These are some of the main characteristics of Indias social and economic situation just after independence. The status of Indian economy was poor, stagnant and backward. The Indian economy during British Colonial rule was primarily an agricultural economy. Almost 85 percent of the country s population lived in villages during that period and derived its livelihood directly or indirectly from agriculture. Despite being the major source of livelihood, the agriculture sector continued to experience stagnation and deterioration during British rule. State of Indian agriculture sector on the eve of independence was as follows: 1. Weak productive accumulation. 2. Unemployment and underemployment 3. Low levels of production and productivity. 4. Subdivision of landholdings. Indian agriculture was primitive and stagnant. The main causes of stagnation of agriculture sector was as follows: 1. Land Tenure system a. Zamindari system b. Mahalwari system and c. Ryotwari system

2. Commecialisation of agriculture 3. Partition of the country Thus, Indian agriculture became backward, stagnant and non-vibrant under the British rule.

Bibliography 1) Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Colonialism and Indian Economy Oxford University Press, first edition 2010 2) C. Rangarajan, Select Essays on Indian Economy, Academic Foundation New Delhi,2004,volume 1 Webliography 1) History of agriculture in the Indian Sub Continent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_the_Indian_subco ntinent (accessed on 12 October,2013 at 12.29 pm) 2) Commercialisation of Agriculture in British rule, http://dialogue.hubpages.com/hub/Commercialisation-of-Agricultureduring-British-Rule-in-India (accessed on 12Otober,2013 at 1.10 pm) 3) R Jhabbu, Essay on the Impact of Colonial Rule of British on Indian Agriculture, http://www.preservearticles.com/2012010920200/essay-onthe-impact-of-colonial-rule-of-british-on-indian-agriculture.html (accessed on 12 October, 2013 at 2.03 pm) 4) Dr.(Mrs.) Sengupta Vrinda, Agriculture on The Eve of Independence, http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:rjhss&volume=3&is sue=3&article=015 (accessed on 13 october 2013 at 12.12 am)