SUGAR COOPERATIVES 57 sion into cooperatives.10 The state government provides cooperatives strong financial support by way of initial share capital, cooperative loans and various subsidies.n Further, the cooperative factories pay no agricultural income-tax to the state government on the grounds that they are not run with a profit motive. Each cooperative factory is run by a board of directors, in which the grower members who arc elected periodically to the board constitute a majority. These directors are in most cases the rich landowning members.13 Here again it is revealing to note that the pioneering Pravara cooperative factory had a stipulation that the bulk of the representation on the board was to be reserved for members holding 10 or more shares of Rs 1,000 each, on grounds of ensuring the support and confidence of those contributing a majority of the share capital.13 The hold of the rural elite is further strengthened as the other directors nominated by the state government and the financial institutions do not interfere in the working of these cooperatives. The fact that the sugar cooperatives have become a close preserve of a limited number of shareholders and their families is admitted even in official circles.14 It is usually the rich peasants who grow sugarcancand reap fortunes. Apart from cultivating their own lands, they also take on lease lands at low rates from neighbouring small peasants for sugarcanc cultivation. The poor peasants cannot grow sugarcane as it involves high capital investment. And even if they do, they arc extremely vulnerable to markcc fluctuations. Some poor peasants who prefer to stay out are virtually forced into growing sugarcane because they are having bits of land next to that of the big growers. The real problem of the small growers is not so much the price received but the corrupt working of the cooperatives. The rich farmers, apart from being in a financial position to plant early, exert their influence with the cooperatives to ensure that their crop is cut and processed when ready. On the other hand, often the cane of the poor peasants is left uncut in the fields for months, thus blocking the land from being used for growing other crops. They are thus forced into a position of dependency on the cooperative leaders simply to have their cane taken away.16 Then again they are not paid their dues in time; in the payment also they fall prey to malpractices. For instance, the small growers arc not paid the full price on grounds that the sucrose content of their cane did not come up to the minimum stipulated percentage.