A STUDY ON FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE TOWARDS AGRICULTURE IN THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN THE STATE OF ASSAM
Loading...
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
A lack of approach towards agricultural activities can be observed in the
rural areas of Assam despite having economic crisis at the household level. While the
notion of disenchantment of farmers towards the profession and the likelihood of many
farmers willing to leave agriculture has caught steam in the country, considering how
important agriculture is to the lives and livelihood of rural population in Assam the
present study was taken up to develop insights into the reasons behind decline in
preference of the farmers in Assam to continue performing agriculture as their primary
livelihood activity. This study proposes that farmers’ psychologically constituted
attitude, values and goals towards life domains shall help us understand the foundational
basis of preferences and choices of farmers to engage in agriculture as a profession and
for fulfillment lifestyle goals under changed circumstances to perform agriculture as a
livelihood. The present study was conducted in five districts across Assam, viz., Jorhat,
Morigaon, Barpeta, North Lakhimpur, and Cachar. Data was mainly collected through
personal interview channels, and employing psychometric assessment techniques -
Likert-scale and Q-methodology. Multi-stage purposive and random sampling
techniques was used to draw out a sample of 400 respondents proportionately from
three stratums based on age categories. A purposively drawn sub-sample of respondents
was used for Q-study. Cluster analysis and factor analysis were used for interpretation
of the data. Other appropriate analytical tools were also used for analysis of data.
The study revealed that although food production was simply seen as a
means to meet a minimum level of subsistence through collective action of family
members during phase 1, the farmers did not face economic crisis at household level.
Farming was more about maintenance of traditional rural/agricultural values, than
economic rationality and modern technological innovations had very little importance
in farming. Farming was mainly constrained by damage due to floods, lack of policies
to safeguard farm household economy against crop loss and access to for credit
channels.
While there was shift in preferences among expanders, contended
believers and potential escapees during phase 2 to utilize their farm holdings for
earning a real income from farming most others preferred to farm at subsistence level.
Family remained central to the management of farms and farmers drew comfort from
being part of his private social world, while many started to see farmers being viewed
as inferior section of the society. Farmers became aware that the resources that were
accessible and affordable to them would not be enough for a settled life in farming.
Farmers were unhappy with the prices of farm produce and the smaller farmers felt that
they were relegated to poorer section of the society. Although there was increase in use
of modern technologies in farming, the quality planting materials were costly and the
situation in marketing did not allow farmers to get a remunerative price. Access to
irrigation and credit was also limited. Role of extension was passive and improvements
in mechanization was not achieved. Damage to crops due to floods remained a primary
concern for the farmers.
Economic rationality in food production took over the idealistic values of
being a farmer embedded in the traditionalist rural/agricultural culture during phase 3.
Leaving aside the potential escapees, it appeared that the others view their farm
household enterprise to be of considerable importance for their livelihood, although
their livelihood strategies differed. For the expanders maintenance of traditional and
cultural values in farming and opportunity of self-expression in farming occupation
was as important as economic rationality in farming. They enjoyed better wellbeing
and status and saw prospects of expansion of their farm business. Otherwise oriented
towards commercial cultivation, some of the contended believers have been quite
selective in making changes to their farming systems during phase 3. Although some
contended conservators prefer to be commercially oriented, for most of them food
production at subsistence or semi-subsistence level seems quite the preferable choice.
Being oriented towards farming at subsistence level, the continuing bottomliners
believed that farming must be carried out with collective action of family members.
The symbolic status of owning agricultural land and performance of work tasks,
preserving their lands for the future generation and working hard in the land to grow a
good crop no longer ensures economic rewards in farming. Change in the institutional
life-world within which the farmers are embedded, threatened the traditional values in
farming and forced the farmers to question their self-worth. Unsatisfactory
performance of extension service, credit and insurance, non-existence of storage
facilities, intuitional support in marketing constrained progress of farmers. Irrigation
and mechanization improved, while modern quality inputs were easily available. The
growth in non-farm employment, within and outside rural areas, made family farming
more attractive.
While only 8.95 per cent farm households reported to have off-farm
source of livelihood during phase 1, 72.50 per cent of households indicated that they
had off-farm sources of income during phase 3. While potential escapees had at least
one off-farm source of income during phase 3, the contended believers less frequently
had an off-farm source of income in their household (56.25%). While 93.68 per cent
farmers reported that they were highly dependent on agriculture for livelihood during
phase 1, only 49.75 per cent reported that their dependence on agriculture was high
during phase 3. While majority of potential escapees (69.64%) reported to have very
low dependence on agriculture; majority of expanders (67.05%) and contended
believers (65.18%) reported that they were highly dependent on agriculture during
phase 3. Although there are fewer households in phase 3 that get their principal income
from cultivation than in phase 1 and phase 2, majority of farmers (68.75%) still get
their principal income from cultivation. Other off-farm enterprises (10.25%) was the
most utilized form of employment for principal income by the farmers during phase 3
next to cultivation, followed by salaried employment (9.50%), and other wage
employment (7.5%). Other off-farm enterprises (37.50%), salaried income (25%), and
other wage employment (21.42%) were the most prominent principal sources of
income for the potential escapees. Only as few as 5.50 per cent of the farmers reported
that they were dependent on single source of income for livelihood during phase 3. As
many as 38.50 per cent of farmers reported that they depended on three sources of
income, while another 16.50 per cent farmers depended on four or more sources of
income during phase 3. Other sources category of income was frequently utilized by
the expanders, potential escapees and contended believers. Salaried income was an
important source of income for potential escapees, expanders and contended believers.
The contended conservators can be frequently found to be either a wage labour in nonfarm
or operating a petty business while the continuing bottomliners are more likely to
be involved in wage labour - nonfarm or in blue collar jobs.