Rural Reconstruction

The implication of the phrase 'Rural Reconstruction' is that the Indian Village once possessed a structural organisation as a socio-economic unit and that it has become dilapidated and needs renovation or re-building. Is this implication true? No one who has any acquaintance with the history of the village communities in India, can deny that the entire fabric of our village communal life was built upon genuine co-operative principles. In the production and distribution of agricultural wealth, all the competent members of the village community used to co-operate in a real spirit of co-partnership. The members of the joint-family of the farmer; the hereditary farm-servants handed down from generation to generation, much in the same way as the land itself; the village artisan who toiled day in and day out to make and mend all the agricultural implements and vehicles for transport required by the village; the shepherd who tended the village cattle and herded his flocks for manuring and enriching the fields; the sowcar who advanced small capital and credit in the form of seed or money for agricultural operations; and the village priest who prognosticated the weather and fixed auspicious times for all village enterprises - these and many others contributed their share to the task of production of national wealth, which consisted and still consists chiefly of agricultural produce. They did so with a living faith in mutual interest in a common purpose. When the crops are ripe for harvest, we find once again, every man and woman and child, who contributed labour and capital for production, walking to the threshing floor to receive his or her due share from the produce. They received their share, more with a feeling that they divided the profits arising from a common enterprise, than as wages for hired labour paid by outside employers. It was from the net produce that remained after such division that the State or the intermediate landlord took his share, call it tax, revenue, economic rent, or competitive rent, or what you will. We may not have had organisations for associated purchase and sale, for the village communities were then more or less in a state of economic self-sufficiency. But they were well-organised for other forms of real co-operative endeavour, such as the maintenance and repair of irrigation sources and clearing channels, the upkeep of village commons like pastures, forests and burial or cremation grounds, keeping breeding bulls, preservation of drinking water and so on. The State also looked to the village community as a whole for the fulfilment of the obligation of the cultivator of the soil to the Ruling Power. The headman or the village leader paid the entire revenue of the village to the collector of the tax or rent, and distributed it in accordance with the common undertaking of the villagers over the individual fields in a just and equitable manner. In many parts of the country there prevailed a system of periodical redistribution of fields of the entire village among the owners, so as to adjust all inequalities and secure equal opportunities for beneficial production. The villagers were not required to dance attendance at Jamabundee camps of Revenue Officials or to employ petition writers or interpreters to approach officials who do not understand their language or the conditions of their rural life. Above all, the decision of matters affecting the ryot most did not rest with one or two men who were not controlled by public opinion. The very social institutions which are now proving sources of embarrassment to national development, were once real factors which conduced to progress, affording basis for division of labour and efficient management of the common affairs of village communities.

The story of industrial production by a simple system of organised cottage industries of our once prosperous villages unfolds the same interesting chapter in associated effort put forth for the purpose of the satisfaction of the common economic needs of the community. We may not have had institutions for production and supply, organised on the present Western models, which largely owe their origin to the stress of internal and external competition. Our artisan classes and small producers grouped themselves into, so to say, trade-guilds and believed more in the efficacy of co-operation than of competition.

All this has changed with the imposition of the foreign revenue and industrial policies on our rural economy. The ryotwary revenue system with its incidents of individual responsibility, cash rents, and periodical re-settlements, was opposed in spirit as well as in operation to the ideals of communal responsibility, joint holding, associated effort in production, sense of mutual interest in a common enterprise and the impelling forces of village public opinion. The most distressing chapter in the history of land tenures in South India is that which deals with the destruction of the ancient village community. Just as the new revenue system destroyed the age-long co-operation in the production of national agricultural wealth, the new industrial and commercial system destroyed the age-long co-operation in the production of our industrial wealth. The displacement of the indigenous product by the foreign article and the consequent suppression of our home manufactures, disbanded the hereditary groups of our artisan producers, who in order to supply the finished commodities required to satisfy the simple needs of their fellow villagers, toiled with an abiding faith in the maxim of ‘Each for All and All for Each’.

The most outstanding feature in our rural economy to-day is the poverty of the ryot. The evidence tendered before the Royal Commission on Agriculture leaves no room for doubt that the economic inefficiency of our, cultivators has already resulted in low agricultural production. Recent writers on the Indian food problem have conclusively shown that the amount of produce raised from land per head of population is not adequate to meet all the economic needs of the people. Sir Visveswarayya, comparing Japan with India, draws attention to the fact that Japan maintains a rural population of 56 millions on a cultivated area of 17 million acres, that is with 1/3 of an acre per head, while British India finds it extremely difficult to maintain an agricultural population of about 200 millions on a cultivated area of roughly 225 million acres, that is with 6/5 of an acre per head. Sir Visveswarayya also estimates that the average production in British India, including irrigated crops, on the normal pre-war basis is about Rs. 25 per head, whereas in Japan, it is estimated to be about Rs. 150 per head. It cannot be doubted that this low agricultural production involves under-consumption. Another implication of low agricultural production is that the unit of product raised from land in this country is smaller than the unit of product got from an equal area of land in other countries. Shah and Kambata in their interesting volume on ‘The Wealth and Taxable Capacity of India’ have given tables comparing the unit of product in India with that in other countries in respect of various crops. Let us take two food crops, rice and wheat, and two commercial crops, cotton and oil-seeds and see how they compare,

United States France Egypt India

Rice ... 19.6 … 27.2 15.7

Wheat ... 8.6 16.5 17.1 6.5

Cotton ... 1.4 ... 2.7 1.1

Oil seeds ... 4.4 3.8 8.7 3.0

For every 85 lbs. of ginned cotton which an Indian acre yields, a Nile-fed Egyptian acre yields 450 lbs and an average acre in the United States yields 200 lbs. According to the Indian Sugar Committee's calculations, India's out-turn of sugar is less than 1/3 of Cuba's, 1/6 of Java's, and 1/7 of Hawaii's. Broadly put, with one-half of the world's acreage under sugar-cane, India produces less than one-quarter of the world cane Sugar. The inability of the ryot by unaided individual enterprise to obtain improved machinery and vitalising manures, the steady impoverishment of the soil due to the increasing pressure on it, the stress of foreign competition and other economic factors whose tendencies require careful watching, hold out the distinct warning that if the problem of improving our production is neglected any longer, the ryot will be more and more seriously handicapped and his condition will soon become one beyond redemption. The effect of foreign competition even in the sphere of the ancient and hereditary occupation of agriculture is now by no means a negligible factor. Cotton grown in America, Egypt, Sudan and Mesopotamia, ground-nut grown in West Africa and castor from Java are powerful rivals to the Indian products. The Indian article is coming in for more and more condemnation for its inferior quality and is fetching a lower price than its foreign rival in the world's markets.

Not only in production but also in the matter of the disposal of the produce raised by him, the ryot is equally helpless. He is seriously handicapped by reason of absence of organisations which help him to come into direct touch with the consumers and he is daily compelled to sell his products for much less than their real value which the urban consumer pays to the middleman - the capitalist who intercepts the producer's legitimate profit. The loss under this head is no inconsiderate item on the credit side of the poor peasant's budget, The large differences between the prices in the harvest season and in later months, the village prices and urban prices, forward contract prices and open market prices, have a distressing tale to tell of the economic loss continually suffered by the agriculturist. Dr. Gilber Slater tells us that in certain crops like jaggery, pepper, areca-nut and cotton, the difference sometimes rises up to 100 per cent and even in the case of ordinary food-stuffs like paddy and pulses, it is disquietingly large. Thus the system of marketing pursued by the unfortunate Indian ryot is the most uneconomic imaginable. If we do not increase our output and offer our products in standardised and preserved forms, after improving their quality, they may be soon driven out of the markets of the world and replaced in the markets of the country as well by better and cheaper imports from outside. Indeed last year, the mill-owners in Bombay and Karachi were able to import American cotton of a superior variety at less cost than they had to pay for the inferior Indian variety. The practical annihilation of distance by the improvement of the world's communications and the consequent facility to import quickly, the perfection of the art of preservation and preparation for the market of the most perishable animal and vegetable products like milk-products and fruits by the latest scientific methods, and other advantages which the organised producers of other countries enjoy, are additional factors which undoubtedly operate to the economic disadvantage of the Indian producer who is financially weak and scientifically ignorant. An Indian guest of mine who takes bread and butter with his chota-hazri declined to touch fresh home-made butter for it was really uninviting in appearance and it had to be replaced on his table at the next meal by the preserved butter imported in tins from Denmark. In the Cosmopolitan Club of Madras salad prepared of country fruits is discarded as being unpalatable, and the salad made of the imported fruit which is preserved and tinned is the universal favourite among the members of the Club. What wonder then that the foreign product, standardised, preserved and prepared for the market should gradually replace the indigenous product! The economic implications of the process are absolutely disquieting to contemplate. We hardly know where our agriculturist is drifting and with him the nation.

India can nevertheless live and can only live by producing more raw products than what it consumes. It is a debtor country. The capital sunk in almost all its industrial and commercial enterprises, in its railways and irrigation works and electric power schemes, is external capital. It has to pay interest on all that capital. The services for which it has to pay are largely foreign. The annual drain under home charges alone may be computed roughly at 35 million pounds or 50 crores of rupees. Wherefrom does India get all this money to liquidate its recurring liabilities every year? There is only one way by which it can find it, namely, producing more than it consumes and exporting more than it imports, in other words, maintaining a favourable balance of its visible trade. But the low degree of our agricultural production is such that our rural and labouring classes are as a matter of fact underfed. In spite of it we export on an average a tenth of our annual raw products which constitute about 9/11 of our total exports. We manufacture little in comparison with other countries and so we have to pay for our imparted goods by the export of our raw products. When the quantity of the raw products which we can thus spare for export is very small, we have necessarily to curtail our wants and be satisfied with a very low standard of life. This low standard of life leads to further economic insufficiency. We are thus moving in a vicious circle. Rural poverty leads to low agricultural production and low agricultural production leads to rural poverty. The entire problem therefore centres round the improvement of agriculture as an industry and bettering the economic condition of those who depend upon it for their sustenance. Agriculture is a unique and universal industry in India. It practically produces all the materials which we as a simple people require to satisfy our wants, namely food and clothes. It produces the raw materials required for most of our industries. The Poet says:

Nature, a mother kind alike to all,
Grants her blessings at labour's earnest call.

The economist adds his comment that the call of the labourer in order to be earnest must be skilled, informed, organised and economically efficient as it should be in the case of all industries. Nevertheless, Agriculture is not treated like other industries in the matter of finance and organisation. The secret success of industries in countries which are competing, with us to-day lies in finance and organisation. Let me quote one sentence or two from a writer on Agricultural Co-operation who pleads for the extension to agriculture of the same facilities which are afforded to the other industries. ‘We have fed them (other industries) with large supplies alike of money and information and intelligence. We have replaced slow and sparing hand-labour by the rapid and creative output of the engine and the loom, multiplying harvests while increasing their bulk. We have introduced perfected machinery, we have removed anochronic shackles and insisted upon full freedom of practice. We have recast all the organisation of the industry, arranged our commerce so as to enable our men take advantage of even the slightest turn of the market, of even opportunities which may offer even an infinitesimal gain. All these things presuppose a greater command of money. And to provide that money, we have developed a system of credit (Banking) which places at the disposal of the trader or the manufacturer funds almost without limit.’

The writer then proceeds to ask two very pertinent questions. We congratulate ourselves upon the amazing growth and development of our banking, our trade and our industries. But what resources have we not placed at the disposal of those callings? Could we treat agriculture in the same way as other industries? ‘Is it not at any rate conceivable that, what with production cheapened and facilities afforded for taking advantage of the market and for acquiring those useful implements, that helpful machinery, and that forcing ‘power’ which modern invention has made accessible, we might make it fare as other industries fared.’

The organisation of rural credit and the problems connected with it are complicated and vast and require separate treatment. The Indian ryot suffers from some hardships also, other than those of a financial character. The increasing pressure on the soil, with the growth of the population, without a corresponding increase in the available area of cultivated land, the laws of inheritance and other factors have led to excessive fragmentation of holdings. The holdings are uneconomic in their character and capital sunk in their cultivation will not yield an adequate return. The extent of this economic evil can be illustrated with reference to the ryotwari tract in the presidency of Madras. Roughly, the total extent of land held on pattahs in that area may be put at 46.5 million acres. The total number of land-owners holding them being 13.62 millions, the average extent of a holding amounts to a little less than 3.5 acres. As the ratio of wet and dry land is 1: 3, we may approximately fix the extent of ownership as one acre wet and 2.5 acres dry. It is to be noted that this is only the average extent and that those who own holdings of less extent should be very large indeed.

As per the quinquennial census of1920-1921, the following is the number of pattahs paying a revenue of Rs. 30 and under. Out of the total number of 48.61 lakhs of pattahs, so many as 44.4 lakhs bear an assessment of Rs. 30 and under:-

Re.1and less Single ... 5.08 lakhs of pattahs

Joint ... 3.77 " "

Over Re. I and Single ...16.79 " "

under Rs. 10 Joint ... 9.26 " "

Over Rs. 10 and Single ... 5.74 " "

under Rs. 30 Joint ... 3.76 " "

Total ... 44.4 " "

To add to the excessive fragmentation of holdings which makes them uneconomic, there are other factors like the ignorance of the ryot which makes the task of moving him from out of his old and economically wasteful methods almost impossible. The ryot may be unable to benefit by the use of mechanical appliances and scientific manures, or by the construction of costly wells and tanks for irrigation, for he has no means at his disposal to aspire for such facilities. But he can certainly adopt methods which avoid waste of crop in the fields which is now a source of much loss to him, and he may put to more profitable use than he does at present, cattle urine, dung and bones; he can strive to improve the quality and price of his crops by being more careful in the selection of seed and by adopting a more scientific system of rotation of crops. It is ascertained by investigation that such a rotation of crops will not only partially solve the problem of manures, but will actually lead to bringing under cultivation about 51 millions of acres of land which are now left fallow. These and many similar things which lead to greater economy and profit, cost little or nothing. But the gross ignorance of the ryot and his illiteracy are real obstacles to his being persuaded to adopt them. Then we have the glorious uncertainty of our climatic conditions. The annual amount and distribution of rainfall are perpetual sources of anxiety to the poor Indian peasant. Out of the 222 millions of acres under crop, only 48 million acres are irrigated and the remaining 4/5 of the land is rain-fed and dependent on nature's whims.

These and many other causes have actually reduced the rural population to a state of utter economic inefficiency and, made them incapable of producing enough from their lands. The villager is literally groaning under the crushing loads of indebtedness and illiteracy which he carries on either shoulder:

" Bowed by the weight of centuries, he leans
Upon his hoe, and gazes on the ground,
The emptiness of ages in his face,
And on his , the burden of the world."

He is exploited mercilessly and starved for the barest amenities of life. He is left without rural leadership and guidance, with the exodus of the educated and intelligent middle-classes to towns and cities. Like a spring on which is placed a dead weight, he has lost his elasticity of spirit and is depressed in body and mind.

We cannot, however, succeed in our effort to improve the economic efficiency of the ryot by merely providing him with credit and facilities for production and marketing. The truth of the matter is, we cannot separate the producer from the man. Any scheme, therefore, for the amelioration of the agriculturist should take note of "the inseparable inter-relation existing between the social and economic activities of farm life, and try to correlate them." Nothing but a religious determination on our part to re-organise the village as a socio-economic unit will make progress possible. Western countries have awakened to the need for such re-organisation, and America and some European countries which were disillusioned by the Great War, are now actually engaged in active programmes of Rural Reconstruction. We, in India, cannot afford to look on any longer. There are, no doubt, a few schemes of Rural Reconstruction now in operation in our country, the most notable among them being, a department of Vishwa Bharati, settlements run by the Salvation Army, some Mission colonies in Northern and Southern India, the Ramakrishna Mission settlement, the Sadhakasrama of Andheri, the Devadhar Malabar Reconstruction Trust, the Bhil Seva Mandal, the Criminal Settlement at Bijapur, the Y. M. C. A. experiments, and the Bengal Co-operative Rural Reconstruction Societies. But these are only isolated efforts. In order to achieve our object, the work must be undertaken on a nation-wide scale. In order to train workers in South India, the Industrial and Co-operative organisations should depute enthusiastic young men to visit some of these centres of activity to gain first-hand knowledge of their operations. It is gratifying to note that the Servants of India Society is making preparations to organise Rural Reconstruction work. The province also owes a debt of gratitude to the Hon. Mr. A. Ranganatha Mudaliar for his scheme of Rural Reconstruction and for the generous provision he made for it from his salary.

It is not possible to compress within the scope of this article a detailed scheme of Rural Reconstruction and a plan of work to carry it out. I may, however, mention what I believe to be the correct principles that should guide us in our programme and to suggest an immediate plan of experimental work. I know of no better guide in this connection than Mahatma Gandhi. The most outstanding principle in his lessons in Nation-building is that the Political Reconstruction of India does not come about by gifts from our British masters, and that it can only be brought about by a reconstruction of our mentality so as to make us self-reliant. Similarly in the economic and social sphere, the village can be regenerated only by a reconstruction of the mentality of the villager. Charitable doles of money, or cheap money thrown into his pocket, whether by the co-operative society or by the Government, will only serve to make him more dependent and less self-reliant. If the financial assistance rendered to the ryot is not closely associated with the inculcation of co-operative principles, his position may become worse. That is why Wolff is never tired of emphasising that, 'the first step which the peoples' bank is bound to take is to make the improvident thrifty, the reckless careful, the drunkard sober, the evil doer well conducted, the unlettered capable of using the pen. In this way it has become a moralising and educating agency of the greatest value to the nation among whom it acts.'

The next essential principle which reconstructors should bear in mind is, that their scheme should embrace all sides of the village activities, which are compendiously described in Horace Plunkett's classification of the ten principal needs of the farmer as 'business needs' and 'social needs'. Mr. MacNeil summed up the idea in the words, "Better Farming and Better Business would be a soulless thing without Better Living"*

The question of a suitable agency for the propagation of co-operative principles and carrying on the work of Village Reconstruction is one of supreme importance. A national government will have employed thousands of intelligent young men in this task of national reconstruction and turned their talent, which is now running to waste, to good account in the cause of the country. But as we are at present circumstanced, it is a vain hope. There is however no need for despondency. If the thousands among middle classes realise their responsibilities to the nation and resolve to contribute their legitimate share to the cause of nation-building, then India is certainly rich in human material. Let those who render this contribution remember that a regenerated village will repay their sacrifice a thousand-fold. Everyone will be benefited. Our educated men should cultivate a rural bias and should go to the villages to spend all the spare time at their disposal. The student should spend his vacation in the village. Men who retire from services and professions should settle down in their village. The lawyer and the doctor should spend their holidays in their villages. The holiday-seeker must make the country-side his pleasure resort. The cry of ‘to the Village’ must be carried to the door of every educated man. The village will then present a new life and a new aspect. Non-officials must equip themselves in large numbers for co-operative and rural propaganda.

Howshall we begin our work? My concrete proposal is that we should at once start with about six experimental centres on a modest scale. Let us select typical villages for our operations, one in the East Coast districts, one in Ceded districts, two in Tamil Nadu, one in Malabar, and one in South Kanara. The villages should be easily accessible by railway or road. It is desirable to select villages where well-managed co-operative societies are working and which are in proximity to the headquarters of a supervising union. If there is a local panchayat in the village, it is so much the better. We should plant in each of these villages at least one worker who is imbued with a thoroughly national outlook, patriotism and genuine love for village work, He must be one who can be trusted to act as the friend, philosopher and guide of the villager. The supervising of the work of a school for the village children, a plan of simple adult education, a village library for the literate, lessons in sanitation and rural hygiene, promotion of local cottage industries with special emphasis on the Charka and the like, will be his concern. If there is no panchayat in the village, let him take steps to have one established. He must put the villagers in touch with the agricultural experts and demonstrators to learn improved methods of agriculture. With regard to the promotion of co-operative activities, it is better to avoid the formation of numerous separate co-operative agencies. I agree with Prof. Kaji when he says, "I conceive it to be a dissipation of energy to try to run many different organisations in villages and to achieve village organisation piecemeal. The only sane course which appears to me is to promote General Utility Societies in villages which will be able to command the services of a few good honorary workers and achieve substantial results in many directions. The societies' managing committee and group of workers will be a sort of cabinet carrying on the administration of the little village republic." The cost of each centre will be roughly Rs. 1000 a year and it should be easy for the co-operation organisation to find Rs. 6,000 a year for this all important experimental work.

An alternative plan is to employ half-a-dozen Rural Reconstruction Supervisors who will cost about a thousand rupees each annually and place each of them in charge of a firka of, say, about 30 villages. They will be thus able to carry on propaganda in about 200 villages roughly. It is urged that the work of reconstruction which is carried on wholly by the villagers themselves does not require the presence of a worker permanently in the village, and that most of the time he will remain idle. The idea, therefore, of the alternative plan is to get as much out of the Supervisor as possible by way of propaganda and education.

I understand that local bodies are being encouraged to constitute a Rural Development Fund. Even if this scheme involves a slight 1ocal taxation, it should be accepted. If each Taluk Board levies an additional one pie of land cess, it will get 5 lakhs and the Government will grant an equal amount. Thus every year, 11 lakhs can be obtained by this means. While Imperial and Provincal taxation must be objected to at present, people should take kindly to local taxation for the reconstruction of their villages.

The task before us is indeed stupendous. The reorganisation of 8 lakhs of villages, inhabited by peasants and labourers who are weak, disunited, disorganised and illiterate, and who live in a state of chronic poverty and indebtedness, among most insanitary, depressing surroundings, is a venture which will truly stagger our imagination. But if we have faith in ourselves, there is no task which unity, associated effort, and steady constructive work cannot accomplish:

Step by step, the longest march
Can be won: can be won.
Single stones will form an arch
One by one, one by one.
And by union, what we will,
Can be accomplished still.
Drops of water turn a mill
Singly none, singly none.

*'Better Living Societies' are a noteworthy feature of the movement in the Punjab. There are 59 societies of this description with a membership of over 2,000. The plan is most popular and gives a lead to the informal groups of caste-fellows who were already trying to reform their ways. All classes and castes have joined these societies and resolutions have been passed in various places, restricting expenditure on ceremonies, penalising cattle-trespass, forbidding the sale of daughters and the giving of false evidence, and enjoining temperance and inoculation. Fines have been inflicted and realised for breach of these resolutions. Hygienic improvements are also effected by these societies.