4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
The ^ew agricultural strategy5 of subsidised provision of inputs has served to accelerate the trend in specific areas, rather than initiating it in any sense^ The mere availability of new inputs—including high-yielding seeds—is not a sufficient condition for their adoption. It is worth emphasising again that the crucial factor underlying productive investment by certain classes with investible funds is the secular expansion in the domestic market.
Some Observations in the Field
If productive investment and profit-oriented production are being undertaken, what is the class background of those who are doing so, what form does the productive investment take ? Are the conditions of wage-employment undergoing any change ? To what extent can a new capitalist class be said to be emerging ? These were some of the questions I had in mind while conducting a small survey for six months in 1969 in ten districts scattered over five states in India. It may not be without Interest to set down some of the qualitative findings relating to these questions. In all 66 relatively Jbig landowners were interviewed, detailed information being collected on every aspect of their economic operations.51 These landowners were from the following districts :
Tanjore, Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) $ Mysore and Mandya (Mysore), Guntur and Godavari (Andhra Pradesh), Puri and Sambalpur (Orissa), Kaira and Ahmedabad (Gujarat).62 In no sense was the survey representative : irrigated or otherwise relatively advanced districts were selected, one out of two districts in each state being under IADP.63 I asked to see the ^most progressive cultivators9 in each area, with the added proviso that they should normally be big landowners operating more than 20 acres.54 If nevertheless some very traditional landowners were included among the respondents, this reflects the backwardness of the area concerned.
In some sense, therefore, what follows is the most favourable picture it is possible to obtain of the recent developments.
, Of the 66 interviewees, only 6 were of landlord origin—those who had derived or continued to derive a major part of their income from land rent. A great many more, about 17, were, what I would term, dominant landholders : persons who for many years had cultivated the major part of their substantial holdings entirely with hired labour, though at a low level of techniques and productivity. They themselves performed no manual labour, but merely supervised. The distinction between the dominant landholder and rich peasant, who constituted the majority of respondents (35), is admittedly difficult to draw : the main criterion was to observe whether the peasant actually worked on the farm or not. The rich peasant, as he got richer, would tend to pass into the dominant landholder category. The remaining respondents, 8 in number, were ^rban entrants' : persons who either had no ancestral land or had an alternative major source of income, and who had taken up