THE RECENT PHASE OF INDIA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 pri^s. ^ Taking the"period 1^70-71 to 1983-84, which has peak harvest )^rs^send-^ that NDP at factor cost (at 1970-71 prices) \ originating in agncutture. Increased at ah average annual compound rate of2.1"percent.Tfiiswas certainly less than the rate of growth of overall population^ as well as of the work-force as revealed by the decennial censuses. kfereover, if we take ffie Nyork-fbrce engaged in agriculture, as shown bythecepsuses,ana&sum that the same rate of annual growth obtained Tbetweeh 1^81 land 19^3, as did over 1971-81,1^11 the real NDP originating 'in agriculture per head of the agricultural work-force, and hence by assumption of tlie agriculture-dependent population, was a mere 4 per cent higher in absolute terms in 1983-84 compared to 1970-71. This is a picture of virtual stagnation. When we additionally bear in mind the fact that within agriculture, the share of interest, rent and profits went up over this same period, according to official statistics, from 7.8 to lf.4 per cent, the proposition that the agricultural work-force did not see any improvement in its real income fronTwbrk, gets further strehgthened. Thus, what Dandekar argues as being true of the entire post-independence period, certainly holds for the 3 period since 1970-71 taken in isolation. Moreover, since in this latter period, growth in outpui was concentrated in a particular region, it follows that over large tracts of the country the bulk of the agricultural population got impoverished in absolute terms. 4. It may be argued, of course, that what is relevant for assessing real income trends is a deflation of money income movements, not by production prices, but by the price-index of commodities purchased. In short, the real NDP movements alone would not do; what is necessary in addition is an examination of the terms of trade movements. But, ' two points sliould b^ borne in mind in this context .-first, favourable terms of trade directly benefit only the surplus farmers. For the vast mass of agricultural population, which consumes very little by way of industrial goods, it is the^ share in real agricultural output, no matter what is happen- ,mgtot^e,termsof trade, that provides an index of. the level of living. TTermsof trade between sectors may enter in more complex ways into the level of living X)f the rural poor,^on ^Uch more later, but have little direct bearin^upon it. Secondly, even if we do look at terms of trade movements, we find that taking the postindependence period as a whole, the shift in terms of trade has been marginal. Between 1951-52 and 1963-64, there is very little change in the net barter terms of trade as worked out by R. Thamara^kshi.8 They improve in favour of agriculture in 1964-65. and reach a peak in 1973-74, after which (here is a sharp dedine. Between 1951-52 and 1970-71, Thamarajakshi's esUmates§how a 26 per cent impro-vementin the net barter terms of trade in favour of agriculture. Between 1970-71 and 1980-81, Kahlon—Tyagi estimates show a 13 per cent decline.9 These two estimates, having different base years, and hence look-