Chapter - II
METHODOLOGY
(A)
THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO FAMILY FARM AND FERTILITY
The
conceptualisation
of
analysis
of the debate on
family
transitional
societies.
In
our problem arose
the
farm and its
following
out
of
an
survival
in
section
we
have
presented an analysis and the ensuing framework for our study.
unit of Production and Consumption : The Family Farm
It was Chayanov 1 ,
a Russian economist who argued that it
was an efficient, competitive agricultural production unit based
on a distinctive behavioral logic. The goal of production was
determined by the consumption needs of household (dependent on
its demographic structure) rather than by the desire for profit.
The willingness of the family farm unit to forego profit and
even to accept a return on labour lower than the market wage in
crisis period, enabled the family farm to compete with large
scale capitalist units.
Chayanov's views were directly opposite to the views of
Marx 2 ,
Lenin)
and
Kautsky·.
Marx's
impatience
with
the
A.V. Chayanov (1966), The Theory of Present Economy,
in B. Kerblay, D. Thorner and R.E.F. Smith (eds.),
Illinois : Homewood.
2
Karl Marx (1977), Capital, (New york: International).
12
backwardness of peasantry and his belief in technologically
progressive nature of capitalism were well known. Lenin, too,
elaborated this view of peasant agriculture and forecasted its
extinction under capitalism.
In the course of his argument,
Lenin cited capitalism's more efficient scale of operation and
its use of more advanced technology. For Lenin, peasantry was
a social class specific to feudalism,
rather than production
units with a different logic that might enable them to compete
under capitalism5 •
Kautsky's analysis showed the tendency of family farmers
to become "proletarianised" and their farms to be absorbed by
more efficient large production units.
complex
transformation
of
peasant
He emphasized on the
agriculture
including
situations in which small farms could survive as a source of
labour for capitalists farms 6 •
Neoclassical economic theory also assumed that the family
farm will be eliminated because of its weaker position with
regard
to
"economies
of
scale",
a
postulate
based
on
the
classical work of Adam Smith. According to this thesis large
units of production were generally expected to be more efficient
3( •••
3
continued)
V.I. Lenin (1977), The development of Capitalism in
Russia, (Moscow: Progress Publication).
For Kautsky, see J. Banaji (1988), Summary of
Selective Parts of Kaustsky's. The Agrarian Question
in F. Buttel and H. Newby, eds., 39-82.
5
Lenin, Ope cit.
6
Kautskys' arguments came in Banaji, Ope cit.
13
than small units because of the possibilities for the task
specialization, the capacity to engage large scale equipment and
managerial talent more efficiently, and the ability to utilise
by-products of the principal production activity. The analysis
is
applicable
equally
to
both
agricultural
and
industrial
production and presupposes that both large and small scale units
were observing the same behavioral logic : the logic of profit
maximisation 7 •
Seme
neo-classical
economists
have
questioned
the
applicability of this analysis to agricultural production. John
Stuart Mill believed that agriculture was not susceptible to so
great
a
division
of
occupations
as
many
branches
of
manufacturers, because its different occupations cannot possibly
be simultaneous 8 •
From a different perspective Patnaik g (1979), de Janvryl0
(1981), Buttel l l (1980) and Buttle and Newby (1980) were among
1
8
g
Adam Smith (1937), An Inquiry into the Causes of the
Wealth of Nations, (New York: The Modern Library).
J.S. Mill (1948), Principles of Political Economy,
(Boston: Little & Brown).
U. Patnaik
Chayanovian
Fundamental
6(4)
10
II
(197~),
"Neo-Populism and Marxism: The
View of Agrarian Question and its
Fallacy", Journal of Peasant studies,
: 375-420.
de Janvry (1981), The Agrarian Question and Reforms
in Latin America, (Baltimore : Maryland : John Hopkin
University Press).
F.H. Buttel (1980), "Agricultural Structure and
Rural Ecology : Towards a Political Economy of Rural
Development", Sociologia Ruralis, 20(1/2) : 44-62.
14
the economists whose arguments,
family
farms
were
unable
to
reflected the position that
compete
under
capitalism.
For
example, de Janvry suggested that this demise can be marked by
the
tendency
of
peasantry
to
become
semi-proletarianized,
retaining small plots of land for household consumption in order
to supplement their main source of livelihood, wage labour 12 •
A number of· studies drew on the Chayanovian view that
family farm had a distinct behavioral logic that explained its
persistence under capitalism. Studies showing this persistence
emphasized the non-capitalist nature of production unit 1l • From
this perspective some analysts argued that the multi-income
character of the household economy was
not evidence of its
disintegration but, rather, part of its survival strategies that
served to sustain the unique organization of family farm.
While
adversely
economy
Chayanov
affected
through
emphasized
by
its
"vertical
that
family
disintegration
concentration"
farm
into
of
could
the
be
broader
agricultural
production (and not through competition with larger farms). Many
researchers
have
elaborated
on
the
mechanism
of
vertical
concentration under capitalism, pointing to tenancy, debt, wage
labour and contract
farming
as
some of the means
by which
12
de Janvry, op.cit.
13
For example T. Shanin (1974), "The Nature and Logic
of Peasant Economy", Journal of Peasant Studies, 1 (12) 63-80, 186-206.
15
capital extracted surplus value from the family farm. Thus the
family farm may persist but at the same time become proletarianized and perhaps impoverished 14 •
On the other hand Friedmann argued that where the family
labour farm persisted, it did so because it adopted the logic
of "simple commodity production "15. Through specialization of
production for the market and the combination of both household
and wage labour, the' peasant production unit was transmuted into
a farm that is fully integrated into the market economy. Family
farmers, according to Friedmann were not peasant producers who
were exploitatively integrated into the capitalist economy, but
rather they repressnted a viable adaptation to the new economic
environment of capitalism. Friedmann through a series of papers
traced the relationship between family and wider economy and the
kinship relations within the family16. Her theory was a variant
of
Marxist
concept
of
development
of
capitalism
with
the
14
N. Reinhard (1988), Our daily ~read : The Peasant
Question and Family Farming ~n Colombia Andes,
(Berkeley: University of California press.
15
H. Friedmann (1978), "World Market, State and Family
Farm : Social Base of Household Production in the Era
of Wage Labour", Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 20 : 545-586.
16
H. Friedmann (1978), "Simple Commodity Production and
Wage Labour in American Plain", Journal of Peasant:
Studies,
6(1)
71-100;
her (1986),
"Household
Production and the National Economy : Concepts for
the Analysis of Agrarian Formations", Journal of
Peasant Studies, 7(2)
158-184 and her recent
(1986), "Patriarchy and Property", Sociologia Ruralis,
26(3); 186-193.
16
Chayanovian legacy of applying non-capitalist concepts to the
analysis
between
of
peasant
households.
"forms of production"
Her
and
analytical
distinction
"mode of production"
was
critical. The term "forms of production" was used to refer to
the minimal unit of productive organization. Family farms or
enterprises were conceptualized as forms of production based on
the unity of property and the labour involved in commercial
commodity
productio~.
Family farm/enterprise have two distinct aspects
(1)
Relation of production; and
(2)
Relation in production.
"Relation of production" entailed a contradictory unity of
property and labour. In "relation in
productio~"
(or the labour
process) the role of kinship and patriarchy came into play. The
division of labour, the pattern of kinship domination, struggle,
and cyclical life of enterprise, were all shaped by gender and
generation. Based on the above, Friedmann typified production
as :
(1)
Capitalist production;
(2)
Simple commodity production; and
(3)
Household production.
(1)
Capitalist Production: It involves two classes, one which
owned the means of production and another which labours, the two
are connected through wage relations in which an entrepreneur
17
purchases labour power from other in order to set in motion his
means of production.
(2)
Simple Commodity Production: When household production is
specialised and competitive as well as means of production and
subsis:tence
purchased,
Specialised
household
obtaining
an
is
it
simple
production
important
part
of
commodity
depended
the
means
production.
on
the
market
of
production.
Friedmann's simple commodity production presupposed capitalist
production.
(3)
Household Production: It was what interested us directly
as this had involved only one class which, both owned means of
production and provided the labour power too, to set the means
of production in motion; relationship of production within the
enterprise were not based on wage contracts, but on kinship.
Therefore, the basic characteristics of the household production
were
(a)
Household had their own internal organisation;
(b)
Their own labour force;
(c)
There
was
only
one
class
which
owned
the
means
of
production; and
(d)
Household acted as a unit of production, consumption and
also distribution.
This was in direct contrast to a capitalist farm where the
organization was based on class divisions between those who
18
owned the means of production and those who sold their own
labour.
In
a
household
production,
kinship
and
patriarchy
dominated while capitalist production was governed by market and
its law of supply and demand. Property, then became central to
the organisation of household and in fact a vehicle for kinship
ideologies.
successor,
Timing
or
of
the
compensating
division
of
land,
others
or
even
designating
the
kind
a
of
technological investment to be made had the sanction of kin
groups. The mechanism of recruitment thus explained the unity
of
the
household
as
a
unit of production and consumption.
Friedmann's analytical notions were stimulating, though she was
speaking
becomes
for
a
more
capitalist society.
interesting,
if
we
Perhaps,
see
the discussion
Caldwell 17
vis-a-vis
Friedmann. Caldwell's theory was akin to Friedmann's "Simple
Commodity Production" with a difference that the former tried
to explain the "demographic behaviour" of families within the
frame
work
of
what
he
called
as
the
"familial
mode
of
production".
One can detect some changes in Caldwell's arguments over
time, but family and fertility have figured prominently in his
framework. Like Friedmann, Caldwell's view was also a variant
of the Marxist position that each mode of production had it's
17
J.C. Caldwell (1982), Theory of Fer~ili~y Decline,
Newyork : Academic Press and his (1976), "Fertility
and Household Economy in Nigeria",
Journal of
Compara~ive Family S~udies, 7(2): 192-253.
19
own economic and dependent demographic law. He focused on the
centrality of transformation in the nature of the family as an
economic unit in understanding the rationale behind the shift
from high to low fertility. Familial mode of production (such
as in traditional peasant economies) were marked by relation of
production
members
between
the
kin
that
of the decision-makers
endowed
in the
the
more
powerful
family with material
advantages. These advantages were derived from a net flow of
resources within the kin group from the young to the old. High
fertili ty
was
advantageous
to
the
more
powerful
or
senior
members of the group, and as long as internal relations of the
familial mode of production remained intact, fertility will not
be restricted. The decay of "familial mode of production" and
its replacement by "capitalist mode of production" prepared the
condition under which wealth flew no longer from the young to
the old and hence children were no longer seen by the parental
generations as an asset to be maximised 18 •
Inspired by both Friedmann and Caldwell, we believed that
the term "family as a unit of production and consumption" was
appropriate for large parts of rural India. This jibed well with
the prevailing socio-economic conditions in India and at the
same time provided us a conceptional framework which we can
employ to understand interplay of occupations and levels of
living on family size. One might say that the family as unit of
18
Ibid.
20
production and consumption was better because it did not take
from the analysis the impact of the larger earning and yet
focused on the household dimension.
Today,
in
India
rural
family
the
was
the
basic
organisational unit for many social and economic activities
including production and consumption. In this micro-economy, the
household organised and managed its resources, including human
resources,
i. e.
family
labour.
It was
often the
case that
individual family roles such as husband, wife and child, implied
and overlapped economic roles such as head (karta) helper and
servant. Except for a few tribal pockets in India,
~he
husband
generally directed and commanded the economic activity of the
family
which
in
rural
areas
was
mostly an
agricultural
or
artisanry while wife's primary role was in caring for the house
and rearing children,
she often made important and discrete
contribution to the family income. In the absence of any viable
and gainful system of education, rural children especially from
poorer households also are dragged into production activity of
the
family .
Traditionally older
(senior)
members maintained
control over the home economy as long as they were able to
organise and direct its resources and operations. The younger
generation did not become economically independent unless the
father passed on to them the infrastructures needed, or they
obtained themselves financial ability to acquire and run another
economic unit. This type of economy and family structures and
I. 1. t::.. r) ~ , - .
0,
1'f\~J,..
"
".
I
_.
THESIS
304.63409542
An81
Po
1111111111111111111111111
TH5008
,..,,)./
21
II'
:'
t:"
I
,
~
also
lack
of
alternatives
outside
limited
family
the
independence of rural youth in India.
The proportion of family farms (household production units)
with large family sizes among peasant and artisan households
largely
created
families.
the
impression
that
the
poor
have
large
In countries with advanced capitalism the families
succumbed after a point of time when the economies of survival
heavily went against them and at the same time better options
were provided by a fast growing industrial sector. In the less
developed countries, especially India, where industrialisation
is limited and agriculture remains the major occupation for a
large
section
of
population,
family
farm
still
survived
withstanding the pressures of the market as well as scarcity of
resources or the means of production. It did so by the excessive
exploitation of family labour and by restricting its own needs.
In other words,
onsla~ght,
the very method it adopted to survive the
also made such production units very vulnerable. Its
survival or transformation then depended upon external pressures
and counter pressures which ultimately determined the survival
of various relations in production within individual production
uni ts.
On the basis of our present understanding,
then,
we
hypothesised that :
1.
Family size will vary with levels of living as determined
by economic status.
22
2.
Within each
level of
living
family
size tended to be
larger as long as the relations of production within the
kin groups were intact.
break,
When these
relations began to
family size declined as the pressure for family
labour reduced.
3.
Jointness of the family will be associated with larger
nuclear family size.
4.
The
logic
of
family
size
variation was
similar
among
agriculturists and weavers when seen within the framework
of relations in production at family level.
The objective of this study was to examine the extent to
which family size changed with respect to occupation and level
of living and sought explanation for such a change. Though the
study attempted to explore the dynamics that determined family
size, it was not possible to take up the whole range of factors
that influenced family size. Factors such as literacy, status
of women, cultural mores and access to health care may influence
family size but we have chosen for our study primarily three
factors which singly or jointly altered family size of the two
occupational groups under study,
the agriculturists and the
weavers. The reason for this was that literacy, status of women,
cultural mores and even access to health services were largely
dependent
upon
family
income
and
level
of
living.
It
was
assumed, therefore, that these would infact not interfere with
23
our results to any significant level. As already stated, these
three variables were:
(i)
Level of living,
(ii)
Relations within the family as a unit of production and
consumption; and
(iii)
Jointness of the families.
The following definitions have
Definitions Used in the study
been used in the study.
(1)
Nuclear
Family
Husband,
wife
and
their
unmarried
children were a nuclear family by 'family size' when we
meant the nuclear family.
(2)
Household': A household meant a group of people who have
a common
(3)
dwe~ling.
Household Size: The number of males and females living in
a
household
were
defined
as
household
size.
Thus
a
household may be a nuclear family or a joint family or an
extended family or none of these.
(4)
Joint
Family
When
two
or
more
(lineally)
related
kinsfolk (of the same sex), their spouses and offsprings
occupied a single housetead and are jointly subjected to
same authority or head, we called it as joint family.
(5)
The
Primary unit
Each
nuclear component of
a
family was defined as primary unit of joint family.
24
joint
{6}
Occupation: For the purpose of our study we began with
two kinds of occupations, viz. agriculturists and weavers.
Agriculturists included all those who live off land either
as hired labourer, or as marginal farmers, or as poor, middle
or rich farmers, provided they live in the village.
Weavers
included all
those who practice and depend on
weaving as their craft and live in the village either as skilled
loom-workers, contract weavers, independent weavers, ::;killed and
unskilled or as master weavers.
Levels of Living :
In our work we have examined poverty and
affluence as relative phenomenon. We had two basic occupational
categories - the weavers and the agriculturists. The household
of the villages under study will be divided into four groups
according to what roughly seemed to be their levels which also
reflected a commonality of work organisation, i.e. relations of
production.
For agriculturists the four levels of living have been
evolved on the basis of the degree of self-employment and land
ownership. For weavers, the ownership of looms and raw materials
and sale of skilled labour to owners of looms have served as an
index to classify them into four groups or levels of living.
We have also ascertained the distribution of other items
of wealth present in the families, e.g., livestock, luxury items
25
and
occupational
assets.
This
has
helped
in
checking
the
validity of our criteria. It should, however, be admitted that
we can never have a perfect matching of levels of living within
the two categories (as well as the relevance of comparison of
levels of living across occupations).
Classes Among Agriculturists : On the basis of landholding four
classes (levels of living) among agriculturists were identified
which also matched with a given relations of production. In this
categorisation, we have not included irrigation. The reason for
doing this was that the villages under study as shown in the
Appendix 4 were not lacking in irrigation. Also geographically,
Tanda tahsil,
the area of this study,
was
normal in ground
water. Thus access to water was essentially a question of means
which our levels of living already include.
Our assumption,
therefore, was that given the water situation in this tahsil,
the land criterion was sufficient to reflect levels of living.
1.
Landless and Marginal Farmers: Landless labourers needed
no elaboration except for the fact that they worked on
other's farm as agricultural labourers and were paid in
cash or kind. Marginal farmers included all those who have
possessed
land
upto
1
acre
and
operated
on
it
by
themselves with the help of household labour. We assumed
the landless labourers and marginal farmers as one joint
class because both of them essentially worked as labourers
on other's farms.
26
2.
Poor-Peasants: For the purpose of this study, all those
who
possessed
land
between
1.1
to
5
acres
have
been
classified as poor peasants. Most of them resorted to some
degree of wage labour.
3.
Small Farmers: For the purpose of this study, land owners
between 5.1 and 10 acres will be treated as small farmers.
These will be
families
which run the
family
farm with
their own labour.
4.
Middle and Rich Peasants: For the purpose of this study
all those who owned land more than 10 acres were treated
as middle or rich farmers. They employed large number of
agricultural labourers.
Classes Among Weavers
1.
Skilled Loomless Workers
(Karigars)
They did not own
looms. They were being employed by rich weavers. The wage
depended on the length, quality and time taken to weave
the cloth. In any case, wage did not exceed Rs. 200 per
week according to current wage-rates, 1993.
2.
Contract
Weavers
(generally 1-5)
(Bani
Bunkers)
They
had
a
few
looms of their own and depended on the
mahajans (middlemen) for the yarn. The transaction between
a
mahajan and a
weaver was
akin
to employer-employee,
though, rights and obligations arising out of it were not
enforceable in law. The mahajan supplied yarn, dye, starch
27
or
readymade dyed yarn to the weaver.
Thus
the whole
family started working as a unit of production.
3.
Independent Weavers: These weavers had purchasing power
and did not depend on mahajans for supply of yarn.
He
possessed his own looms and wove and sold clothes at will.
Family members, young or old, assisted in the process of
weaving. They also employed skilled loom-workers.
4.
Master Weavers: An independent weaver started advancing
looms on contract, purchases clothes and sometimes became
the yarn
supplier.
He
had
his
own
workers
for weaving,
starching and
members
assumed
supervisory
the
looms
and employed
dyeing etc.
or
Family
managerial
roles
including marketing.
Pattern of Production and Consumption in Family units : Based
on the pattern of production and consumption, the familial units
can be of four kinds :
unit of Production and Consumption Both: By this, we meant the
members of a household, which may be made up of single nuclear
family with
nuclear
their adult working children or more
family
with
adult
working
children,
in
than one
the
same
occupation, at the same site and sharing a cornmon hearth.
Uni t
of Production Only
When a family worked in the same
occupation, at the same site but did not share a hearth, it was
a unit of production only.
28
unit of Consumption Only : When one or more than one member of
a
family
(married or unmarried)
worked separately but still
shared a hearth, it was a unit of consumption only.
Neither unit of Production nor Consumption : When a family was
neither a unit of production nor consumption.
The above was to present a brief outline of things as we
go on with this thesis.
DESIGN
Study Area : Tanda tahsil is one of the four tahsils of district
Faizabad, which again, is one of the six districts of FaizaLad
division. According to the Surveyor General of India, the area
of the district is 4,511 sq. km 19 • It lies in the central east
of the state; to its east lies districts Gorakhpur and Azamgarh,
to the north districts Gonda and Basti, to the west district
Barabanki and to the south district Sultanpur. Rivers Ghaghra,
Tons, Gomti, Tirwa, Pikiya, Sarju and Tondsi pass through the
district.
It sustains a population of 23,82,515 giving population
density of 528 persons per sq. km. The total population of the
district constitute 2.15 per cent of state's population. It has
a sex ratio of 934, which is well above the state's sex ratio
19
Surveyor General quoted in District Census handbook,
Census of India (1981), Primary Census Abstract, Part
XIII-B, District Faizabad, op, P.I.
29
of
885.
The
district
stands
34th in the
area
and
15th in
population amongst the 56 districts of the state. There are
3,98,784 occupied residential houses and 4,15,914 households in
the district. An average household consists of about 6 persons.
Besides Tanda, the other tahsils of the districts are Faizabad,
Bikapur and Akbarpur (of which the last one is the 1argest20,
both in population and area). There are 2,789 villages and 9
towns in the district. Nearly 89.0 per cent of the population
reside in rural areas, while remaining 11.0 per cent in the
urban area. The average of urban population in Faizabad district
is lower than the state average as a whole (17.9 per cent)21.
The scheduled caste population in the whole district is
24.2 per cent while scheduled tribe is negligible. The literacy
is as high as 25.6 per cent in the district, about 38.2 per cent
amongst
males
and
12.2
per
cent
participation in economic activity,
amongst
i.e.
females.
The
proportion of main
workers to the total population is about 28.7 per cent; marginal
workers,
additionally constitute
0.7
per cent of
the total
population 22 •
Tanda tahsil lies in the north-eastern part of the district
on the right bank of the river Ghaghra, which separates it from
20
Ibid, pp. 1-2.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
30
the Basti and Gorakhpur districts. Akbarpur tahsil is on the
south and on the east is part of the Sagri tahsil of Azamgarh
district. The western boundary is formed by Pargana Amsin of
tahsil Faizabad 2l (see Map).
From the point of view of its physical characteristics the
tahsil
is
divided
into
two well
defined
areas,
beside
the
alluvial mahals on the bed of the Ghaghra. Bordering the river
is a narrow strip of upland villages, mostly well cultivated
though better at the eastern than at the western end. South of
this strip is a low-lying tract which became water-logged in wet
years, the western part being drained into Ghaghra by the Thirwa
stream but the stretch of countryside in the
neighbou~hood
of
Baskhari is drained with lots of difficulty by the Tonri and
Pikia streams. Consequently the variation of seasons are more
felt in this part than elsewhere. The eastern end of this tract
is an usur plain, the most barren part lying around the source
of Pikia. There are no regular forests in the tahsil 24 •
The Ghaghra forms the northern boundary for about 46 to 47
miles. The Thirwa flows east and forms the common boundary of
this tahsil and Akbarpur tahsil for some miles. It then turns
northwards
and falls into
Ghaghra
close to the town of Tanda.
23
E.B. Joshi (1960), Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers
: Faizabad, Government, of U.P., Revenue Department,
Allahabad.
24
Ibid pp. 38-39.
31
Map
o
s
,.,.
--- ---R
-(
LOCATION CF STLO'I'
AREA IN INOlA & UP
--
-- .. -
T
8
-4
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
W
N
®
Ell
PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
RAMNAGAR
MAHUWARI
HOSPITAL
-ROAD
•
BLOCK HEADQUARTER
•
TAHSIL flEAOOUARTER
I
1_ AINWA
1
\
I
(
(
(
2 - AURANGABAG
] - RASULPUR MUBARAKPUR
, - DAULATPUR MAHMOOOPUR
5- MUNDERA
6 - 1AINUDOINPUR
7 - PURA BAJGOTI
8 - NEWARI DURAJPUR
9 - BAL RAMPUR
KrM.
A2OT9l
'-_.I'
TAHSIL TANDA
LOCATION OF STUDY VILLAGES
/" ...
-®':t... . \'.~'
..
.,,,' /tJ
, J
,-.r"" ....
i Dslrlcl I
...
_
..
I )AHANGIRGANJ
,{®.
\
\
The Tonri originates in the swamps near Deshat and runs past
Baskhari. It follows the line of tahsil boundary and emerges
into Azamgarh district. The small stream known as Chhoti Sarju
forms the southern border of the extreme eastern end of the
tahsil where it falls into old bed of Ghaghra 25 •
The tahsil is well supplied with means of communication.
A sub-railway line connects Tanda with the main rail link at
Akbarpur.
Besides the local roads,
there are several others
which pass through the tahsil, providing communication with the
places far beyond, the chief one is the main road from Faizabad
to Azamgarh via Tanda which runs through Baskhari and leaves the
tahsil near Neori. Through Baskhari and Ramnagar runs the road
from Akbarpur to Kamharia Ghat. Another road leads southward
from Tanda to join Faizabad-Jaunpur road, there is a first class
metalled road from Tanda to Akbarpur. There are several ferries
over the
Ghaghra
connecting the
tahsil with
the
Basti and
Gorakhpur districts. There are iron girder bridges across the
Thirwa which connect Akbarpur with Tanda and also Tanda with
Mubarakpur 26 •
The word Tanda means a carvan and denotes that the place
is an encamping ground for the banjaras who ferried their goods
across
Ghaghra
at
this
place.
In
course
of
time
the
camp
expanded into a town and this was granted by Emperor Farrukh
25
Ibid p. 39.
26
Ibid pp. 388-390.
33
Siyar to Mohanunad Hayat,
family
Shaikhs.
of
appreciably
the representative of the Rasulpur
Since
particularly
then
because
the
of
town
had
growing
progressed
population
of
spinners and weavers, who acquired a widespread reputation for
the
excellence
of
their
work.
Sadat
Ali
Khan
was
greatly
interested in the prosperity of the place. Moreover, an European
trader, John Scott, who settled here contributed substantially
to the development of trade in cotton cloth. He held the entire
pargana as a
jagir and collected taxes till 1796, which then
constituted customs, excise, bazar dues, marriage dues and a tax
on looms. The jagir was then passed onto the hands of Ghazanfar
Ali of Rasulpur and Hasan Ali of Asopur,
son and nephew of
Mohammed Hayat respectively, but shortly afterwards then it was
placed under the direct management of the government and taxes
and land revenue were regularly collected. In the year 1800 the
area
was
leased
to
one
Qadir
Baksh
but
on
account
of
unpopularity his place was taken over by a government Darogha
and during his period two new taxes were introduced, one on
transfer of property and the other on mortgages. These sources
of revenue were discontinued during the time of Sadat Ali and
marriage tax were framed out at Rs. 320 per annum and continued
to be thus treated till the annexation in 1856 27 •
The market of Tanda is of considerable importance,
the
chief bazar days being Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays. It
27
Ibid pp. 386-388.
34
had long been famous for industries particularly calico printing
and
jamdani
which
once
had
great
export
value.
This
has
practically died out at present. However, Tanda still retains
its textile industry and is famous for its handloom as well as
powerloom clothes which are produced and exported in large
quantities and offered livelihood to a significant number of the
people of the tahsil.
Though Faizabad was not a primarily manufacturing area, it
had always been famous for its old cottage industries, notably the Tanda jamdani - a fine and expensive muslin - and several
other kinds of clothes. It was known for its artistic wood-work,
singardans being a speciality. Sugar refining was also one of
the prominent industries. Indigo factories were found in the
estates of the influential taluqdars, although their importance
had long ceased to exist. In fact, at one time, the industries
and manufactures of the district were of more importance than
of any other part of Avadh except Lucknow. Under the liberal
patronage of the nawabs of Avadh, artisan s and craftsmen s work
I
I
attained a high degree of excellence. It was with the decline
of nawabs and withdrawal of royal patronage that the decay of
local industries started 28 •
Tanda
population
28
tahsil
density
sustains
of
512
a
population
persons
Ibid p. 388.
35
per
of
sq.
489,833
km.
The
with
a
total
population of the tahsil constitutes 0.44 per cent of the sta.te
population. It has a sex ratio of 958 which is well above the
district
sex
ratio
of
934
and
state's
sex
ratio
of
885.
According to the census of 1981, the total area of Tanda tahsil
is 95,574.83 hectare. It has 78,879 occupied residential houses
and 80,627 households. An average household consists of 6.07
persons. Besides Tanda, other development blocks of the tahsil
are Baskhari,
Ramnagar and Jahangirganj.
Nearly 90 per cent
population of the tahsil reside in rural area, while remaining
10 per cent in the urban area. urban population in the tahsil
is lower than the Faizabad (11 per cent). In the whole tahsil
the scheduled caste population is 27.78 per cent of the total
while scheduled tribes population is negligible 0.008 per cent.
The literacy is 26.53 per cent in the tahsil of which 39.21 per
cent are males and 13.30 per cent are females 2 ' .
Regarding participation in economic activity, proportion
of main workers to the total population is about 27.30 per cent.
Marginal workers additionally constitute 0.99 per cent of the
total population of the tahsil. The census of 1981 reports that
there are 764 inhabited village in
Tanda tahsil and around 75
per cent of its population depend on agriculture 30 •
In an appreciable portion of the cultivated area of the
2'
Census of India, op.cit. All these figures are taken
from the census 1981.
30
Ibid.
36
tahsil, two crops are raised every year, on large areas rice,
peas
and
grams
are
sown very
conveniently during the
rabi
season. The narrow alluvial belt by the side of the Ghaghra
(which almost covers the entire northern boundary of the tahsil)
is the most suitable tract for raising two crops in a year. In
Tanda tahsil vegetable and tobacco cultivation is also common,
and as much as four crops produced during different periods in
a year 3l •
The three well known varieties of soil in the tahsil are
the light loam, the sandy soil and the clayey which contains
varying proportions of the two main ingredients, sand and clay.
As in the rest of district, the
three
harvests,
rabi,
kharif and
Tanda tahsil has the usual
zaid.
Rabi
is
the
spri!1g
harvest and includes wheat, barley, gram, arhar, linseed masoor,
sugar-cane, tobacco, potato, groundnuts, rapeseed and mustards.
Kharif is
ready
for harvesting in autumn and includes
such
varieties as rice, kodon, kakun, sawan, maize, juar, bajra, urd,
moong and til etc •. Zaid is
th~
crop which ripens between rabi
and kharif seasons J2 •
In matters of rainfall, Tanda seems to be close to normal
in the region. The data on annual rainfall for the eastern Uttar
Pradesh, which include district Faizabad as 991.6 mm. (actual).
3l
Gazetteer of Faizabad, op. cit., p. 106.
32
Ibid pp. 111-112.
37
Normally, the region should have received 1,040 mm. of rain.
Monthly rainfall as recorded by meterological subdivisions in
1988 is reproduced below :
Table 2.1
Rainfall in District Faizabad in Milimeters
Actual
Normal
S.
No.
Months
lo
January
6.2
22.7
2.
February
6.1
17.7
3.
March
23.7
13.4
4.
April
10.7
7.0
5.
May
9.7
17.1
6.
June
124.6
96.9
7.
July
367.2
264.5
8.
August
338.1
307.7
9.
September
95.9
201. 3
10.
October
44.6
55.2
1lo
November
0.0
4.9
12.
December
14.5
6.5
991.6
1040.0
-------------------------------------------------------------Total
Source :
of India, Ministry of Planning, Statistical Abstract,
1989. Central Statistical Organization, Department of
statistics. pp.41-42.
Govt.
India
Tanda has a large number of cultivators and also a large
number of people who work in household industries. In terms of
percentage to the total main workers, the cultivators in Tanda
38
(59.90 per cent) rank higher than all India figures (41.46 per
cent) and even with uttar Pradesh (58.52 per cent). However, the
percentage for the cultivators in Faizabad is almost equal to
Tanda (63.05). The percentages for agricultural labourer for
Tanda, Faizabad and uttar Pradesh are 18.58, 17.77 and 15.98,
respectively.
These
figures
are
much
lower
than
all
India
figures (25.12)33.
On
the
other
hand
the
number of workers
in
household
industry is very high in Faizabad (4.29 per cent to the total
main workers) and indeed in Tanda tahsil much higher (8.19 per
cent to the main workers). Percentage wise the number of workers
in household
indu~try
in Tanda is nearly double that of Uttar
Pradesh, or Faizabad (3.70 and 4.29 respectively) or even all
India figures (3.45 per cent). The category of other workers,
however,
is
under-represented
in
Tanda
tahsil.
Another
fortitutious fact which aid our research is that the number of
scheduled caste workers in household industry in rural Tanda is
nearly the same as that of all India, Uttar Pradesh and Faizabad
figures. Thus, apart from the fact that household industry plays
prominent role in Tanda,
this tahsil seems to be average in
other respects.
The household industry in rural Tanda is represented by
weaving occupation in a significant proportion.
JJ
Census of India 1981, op.cit.
39
There is no
separate category in census which directly concerns weavers I the
history of Tanda on the preponderance of weavers as recorded in
the
district
Gazetteer
of
Faizabad
as
well
as
qualitative
explorations revealed by this study shows that weaving comprises
roughly 20 per cent households engaged in artisanry.
STUDY POPULATION
For
the
purpose
of
our
study
we
focused
on
both
agriculturists and weavers. We have therefore concentrated on
villages which have household industries as well as agricultural
households.
Table 2.2
Villages
S.No.
in Tanda Tahsil
Type of villages
Numbers
1.
Total number of uninhabited villages
2.
Total number of inhabited villages
764
3.
Villages having households with pure
agricultural occupations
504
Villages having households with a mix
of both household industries as well
as agricultural occupations
260
Total number of village in the tahsil
856
4.
5.
Source :
92
Census of India (1981), District Census Handbook, Part
XIII of Primary Census Abstract, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.
There are 260 villages which have a mixed population of
both agriculturists and weavers. These have been grouped into
two: those with household industries having less than 50 persons
and those in which such industries have more than 50 persons
40
engaged in it. The former are 233 such villages and the latter,
27. The latter group, i.e., villages with more than 50 persons
in
household
industries
are
further
divided
into
three
categories :
(a)
Villages
having
higher
number
of
agriculturists
than
persons working in household industries.
(b)
villages where the reverse of the above is true.
(c)
There is yet another category of villages in which the
number of persons involved in agricultural operation is
almost equal to the persons in household industries.
Table 2.3
Number of villages According to the Number of
Persons in Household Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------
S.
Blocks
No.
More than 50 persons engaged
in Household Industries
Predominantly
Agricultural
Predominantly
Household
Industries
Almost
Equal
Mix of
Both
Less than 50
persons engaged
in Household
Industries
1~---;~~~~---------------;---------3--------;-------------82----
2.
Baskhari
4
1
3
55
3.
Ram Nagar
4
1
2
49
4.
Jahangirganj
1
o
2
47
14
5
8
233
---------------------------------------------------------------Total
----------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
T'.lble. was based on the basis of figures available in the
D~str~ct census Handbook (1981) Part XIII-B of Primary Census
Abstract, Faizabad, U.P.
41
Table 2.44it
villages with High Cultivators but with Population Low
in Household Industries
Population
s.
villages
Blocks Total
No. of
Households
1.
Ainwa
Tanda
2.
Punther
3.
No.
Total
Popul
ation
Cultivators
Agricultural
labourers
Household
industries
484
3133
404
139
83
do'
294
1915
173
96
139
Khaspur
do
706
3902
451
320
186
4.
Mamrezpur
do
127
839
110
59
55
5.
DaulatpurMahmoodpur
do
256
1566
178
126
109
6.
AjmeriBaskhari 577
Badshahpur
3300
533
233
52
7.
Zainuddinpur
do
247
1573
234
68
86
8.
Hanswar
do
1191
7273
750
721
107
9.
Baskhari
do
1881
5250
508
127
128
Ramnagar 392
2176
365
96
59
10. Makrahi
11. Bemawal
do
181
1105
228
4
63
12. Hathiaraj
do
233
1884
259
108
168
13. Kaudhai
do
374
2484
296
182
200
333
1851
264
68
54
14. Rajepur
Saharyarpur
Jahangirganj
----------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
Table was based on the figures Printed in Dist:rict Census
Handbook, Census India (1981), Primary Census Abstract, Part
XII-B. District Faizabad; U.P.
42
In Table 2.2, the villages with more than 50 persons engaged
in household industries are of interest to us directly. It was
confirmed from the office of the Weavers' Co-operative Society,
Tanda that these villages were indeed of weavers. The number of
villages within these categories are 14, 5 and 8 respectively.
Table 2.5
Villages with Population High in Household Industries but
Low in Agriculture
Population
S. Villages
No.
1.
Sahjaura
2.
Blocks Total
No. of
Households
Total
Popul
ation
Cultivators
AgricuItural
labourers
Household
industries
170
1177
43
12
151
Aurangabad
do
(Iltifatganj)
614
4146
106
100
590
3.
Rasulpur
Mubarakur
235
1307
95
81
186
4.
Bhulepur
Baskhari 328
2840
103
24
333
5.
Newari
Durajpur
Ramnagar 322
1842
63
48
317
do
District Census Handbook, Census of India (1981), Primary
Census Abstract, Part XIII-B, District Faizabad, U.P.
Source :
We
Tanda
took
three
villages
from
each
category
using
the
stratified random sampling method. This was essentially to get
adequate
households
involved in weaving which constituted a
major household industry in Tanda tahsil (Table 2.6). While the
equal distribution of villages across the categories limited the
generalisability of the study, we hoped to compensate this by
acquiring better insights into the process at work in weaving
43
households along with the agriculturists. The villages which
have been selected are spread over all four blocks-four villages
from block Tanda, three villages from Baskhari; and one each
from Ramnagar and Jahangirganj
blocks.
For our study it is
imperative that the villages should have at least fifty persons
engaged in household industry. All the four blocks of the tahsil
have villages ranging between 139 to 250. All these are grouped
according to the
relative
numbers
of households
engaged in
weaving and agricultural households with the help of District
Census Handbook.
Table 2.6
villages with Population Almost Equal both in Agriculturists
and Household Industries
Population
s.
Villages
Blocks Total
No. of
Households
1.
Chintaura
Tanda
385
2262
2.
Mundera
Baskhari 406
3.
Ashrafpur
Kachhauchha
Pura
Bajgoti
No.
4.
5.
Indaipur
6.
Naipura
7.
Jahangirganj
8.
Balrampur
Total
Popul
ation
Cultivators
Agricultural
labourers
Household
industries
176
296
165
2514
317
7
227
do
993
5719
331
609
366
do
247
1211
161
67
96
Ramnagar 195
1064
100
57
67
71
521
69
11
57
Jahangir 369
ganj
2363
150
100
227
4142
207
95
176
do
do
767
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source
:
Census of India (1981),
District Census Handbook,
Primary Census
Faizabad,
44
U.P.
Abstract,
Part
XIII-B.
Tables
(nos 2.3,
2..'5
2. 4 Land 2.6)
show' the distribution of
population according to their occupation in the
nine study
villages. Population range from 1212 to 4146 persons each in
these
villages
which
are
accessible
by
road.
The
primary
occupations are agriculture and weaving.
Table 2.7
Finally Selected Villages after Random Sampling. Table shows
the Calculated .Percentages of Cultivators and Weavers
S. Name of
No. the
Village
Cultivators (as per
cent to total
workers' population)
Weavers (as per
cent to total
workers' population)
High Cultivators but Low in Artisanry
1.
Ainwa
63.40
9.90
2.
Daulatpur
Mahmoodpur
59.40
23.90
Zainuddinpur
60.30
23.90
3.
Low Cultivators but High in Artisanry
4.
Aurangabad
15.10
55.80
5.
Rasulpur
Mubarakpur
19.72
48.10
6.
Niwari
Durajpur
23.20
57.00
Almost Equal in Both Occupations
7.
Pura Bajgoti
24.50
23.00
8.
Mundera
31.90
35.80
9.
Balrampur
26.85
24.00
Source:
Percentage have been Calculated on the basis of Figures available
in District Census Handbook for each village See Census of India
(1981), Primary Census Abstract, Series XIII-B, District Faizabad
uttar Pradesh.
45
Household
Survey
To
acquire
the
required
information
as
discussed later, a complete census was attempted of all the nine
villages under study. A list of households was prepared on the
basis of voter's list acquired from respective Pradhans of these
villages. However, sometimes it was not possible to cover all
the households in the first round because of absence, migration
and at times non-cooperation. For every missed house a maximum
of three re-visits were attempted to maximise the coverage.
Table 2.8
Covered and Uncovered Households
Sr.Villages
No.
Total
No. of
Households
Covered
NonHouseholds Coopeand their ration
Percentages
Absentees
Migrated
Left
due to
Communal
Tensicn
1. Ainwa
484
300(62.0}
(6.s)
2. Aurangabad
614
230(37.4}
(55.6)
(4.4 )
(2. 6 )
3. Balrampur
767
250(33.9}
(37.0)
(9. 1)
(5.5)
4. Daulatpur
Mahmoodpur
256
200(78.2}
(IO.S)
(6. 0)
(5.0)
5. Mundera
406
275(67.7}
(3.3)
(11.0)
(8.0)
6. Newari
Durajpur
322
275(85.4}
(4.6)
(4.5)
(5.5)
7. Pura
247
l80(72.8}
(7 •6)
(6.4 )
235
200(85.2)
(9.8 )
(2•6)
(2.4 )
9. Zainuddinpur 247
l80(72.8}
(9 •2 )
(7.7)
(ll.3)
Bajgoti
8. Rasulpur
Mubarakpur
(13.2)
(l1.s) (20.0)
(20)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note.
Total No. of Households - 3578; Covered Households - 2090; Uncovered
Households - 1488; Agriculture Households - 1198; and Weavers Households 838. Later 54 households were eliminated. Figures in brackets are percentages.
46
Nature of Data Collected and Techniques
The
field work was carried out between March
1983
to
February 1984. We required information on a variety of household
facts such as occupation, kind of occupation, joint and nuclear
families,
family
size,
household
size,
consumption
and
production patterns, luxury items such as scooters, motorcycles,
cycles, guns, sewing machines, radio/transistors, live-stock,
occupational assets, landholding and irrigation system, number
of
looms
in a
house as well as
the spinning machines
and
relations of production and consumption etc. Additionally, we
included inquiry into infant mortality in a particular year and
also housing conditions,
number of rooms etc. A copy of the
schedule is given in the appendix (Appendix 1). Schedules were
personally administered by the researcher to the head of the
households.
In
addition
to
survey,
which
gave
us
quantitative
information, we had also attempted some exploratory case reports
of
families
with
different
consumption within the
transformation.
Since
relations
of
production
and
family to understand the process of
we
were
interested
in
understanding
change, we had focused only on two categories of families, i.e.
those which were operating as units of consumption (only) and
those which were neither units of production nor consumption.
Our case reports focused on the historical experiences of
families and explored whether at any point of time in the past
47
they belonged to a different type of unit of production and
consumption.
These case reports helped us to understand the
processes of breaking up of joint families and pressures that
forced people to migrate out of villages. They covered both the
occupational groups. A total of twenty such cases were done,
five in each group of occupations with respect to the kind of
families. All these studies were done in few villages and they
were only exploratory in purpose.
Observation : During the field work the researcher had to keep
an eye and observe the following as well. The general atmosphere
of the villages under study, its power structure and economic
stratification, the functioning of various village, community
and governmental institutions and communal harmony/disharmony
etc. This was essential for one might chance upon a crucial link
between any of these factors
and the main objective of our
study. Notes were made on every such item as well.
However,
observation.
this
The
study
was
researcher's
not
based
intention
on
was
participatory
immediately
disclosed to the respondents. But it was often the case that the
usual distance between a
researcher and respondents did not
exist much as the researcher belonged to the same tahsil.
Secondary Literature : There was not much advantage in going
through the old village records except at times when a name was
missing in voter's list provided by the Pradhan (village leader)
48
Khatauni
of the village.
looked into,
households
(village record)
were
subsequently
in certain cases to find out the status of the
of
instrumental
immediate
predecessors.
in providing Khatauni.
Patwari
Area
The researcher
was
had also
looked into the weavers registers and records at the Weaver's
Co-operative Society at Tanda,
besides
such other secondary
literature as Primary Census Abstracts,
District Gazetteers,
registers
books,
at
Block
Development
Office,
journals
and
newspapers.
pilot Study : Schedules were pretested in Rasulpur (not one of
the study villages
but quite close to the researcher's
home
village). One hundred schedules, fifty in each occupations, were
tested on the villagers and then some questions were modified.
No major changes were required. The modified schedule has been
appended (Appendix no.l).
Rapport
Building
Any study of a
kind which involves
such
household inquiries as production, consumption, levels of living
or
even
more
acquaintance
villages
community
powerful
intimate
with
under
were
respondents.
study,
in
positions
questions
the
on
As
people
large
numbers
like
Pradhan,
family
it
was,
of
the
and
some
size,
in
all
require
the
nine
researcher's
of
Up-pradhan
them
or
own
were
sometimes
in
a
member of the Panchayat. Meeting these people and explaining to
them the purpose of survey made the task feasible, communication
was
never a
problem.
Initially 6-7
49
days
were
spent
in each
village visiting schools, post-offices and generally exploring
the atmosphere in the villages, housing pattern of different
castes, communities, finding out number of tube-wells, wells,
tanks, ponds, playing ground, panchayat buildings, irrigation
canals etc.
Survey Proper : In each village only when adequate rapport was
built, the survey proper was initiated. While administering the
schedules at the family level, it was ensured that the time was
convenient for the
respondents and the social norms of the
villages were not flouted or violated.
In addition to the survey,
qualitative information and
exploratory case-reports were developed through the interviews
of t.he head of the
families
and group discussions with the
family members. The researcher's own observation added to the
quality of the data. In addition to these, indepth interviews
were also conducted with the key persons of the villages such
as
Pradhan,
Up-pradhan,
Panchayat
members,
personnel
in
government jobs, traditional heads of the community, teachers,
para-medical personnel of the village and political leaders to
understand the problems faced by agriculturists and weavers in
maintaining
their
families.
In
addition
to
these
tools,
documents such as gazetteer, census, studies on Faizabad were
also consulted wherever required.
Limitations
The fact that we have taken only mixed villages
50
(occupation-wise)
and
even
amongst
them we
have
not
taken
proportionate representative sample limits the generalisability
of the study.
In assessing the economic status of the families on the
basis of the agricultural holdings,
quality of the land and
irrigation are not considered because, firstly, the landholdings
are fragmented and irrigation varied in quantity in different
areas as sources of water are different. However, in this area
water
levels
variations
are
are
not
sufficiently
considered
high
and
critical.
therefore,
This
in
any
those
case
rendered the assessment of our levels of living on the basis of
landholding somewhat limited.
Secondly,
conceptual
not
section,
we
have
as explained in the
collected
information
on
literacy status of men and women, accessibility, availability
and quality of health services or the impact of welfare inputs.
Data Analysis : The quantitative data collected was analysed on
the basis of categories developed in the conceptual sections.
After getting an idea about the religious and caste background
of population, these were superimposed with our data on levels
of living within the two occupational categories.
The
second
aspect
of
the
analysis
involved
studying
different levels of living with respect to the relations of
production
and
consumption.
Such
an
analysis
helped
us
to
explore the levels of living within the available occupational
51
categories. At each level of living then it was possible to
locate the families which were both units of production and
consumption, or units of consumptions only or neither units of
consumption nor consumption.
The third set of analysis largely attempted to compare the
two occupational groups.
The trend that emerged out of the
quantitative
then
data
were
discussed
and
some
possible
explanations were offered in the indepth qualitative analysis.
statistical Test of Significance
After calculating various group means, we also calculated
the statistical test of significance to see the significance of
differences in family sizes (between the differences of sample
means) for large samples. When the size of samples was greater
than or equal to 30 observations, they were defined as large.
The study was mainly concerned with the analysis of mean values
of different characteristics for a variety of sub-groups. Since
these means were only sample means, a single difference was not
sufficient
to
significance
methodology
evaluate
of
these
suggested
by
them.
The
differences
Croxton 34
statistical
was
et. ale
the
In
test
of
appropriate
this
test
of
significance we had two sample of size n 1 and n 2 and their means
and standard deviations Xl' Sl and X2, S2 respectively, then the
34
F.E.
Croxton,
Applied General
D.J.
Cowden
and
S.
Klein
Statistics, Ventice-Hall
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 537-566.
52
(1975),
of
India
difference
between
two
means
Xl
X2
was
statistically
significant when it exceeded 2.56.
a
=
The above mentioned method of testing the significance of
difference between two means had been carried out for all the
relevant combinations of means.
53