Chapter Four

DATA BASE, METHODOLOGY AND AREA· OF STUDY

DATA BASE AND METHODOLOGY

The study is based on the data collected by a sample survey conducted in the two

taluks of Mandya district of Karnataka. Secondary data sources provided by State

officials of concerned Departments have also been used. The disaggregated data of the

42nd round of the NSS regarding access to PDS has been used. To enrich the study,

special interviews with concerned officials were also conducted.

For the purpose of primary data, two taluks were selected namely, Nagarnangala taluk

and Mandya taluk of Mandya district representing rainfed and irrigated regions

respectively. One village was selected from each of the taluks for the purpose of

intensive study. There were three main reasons for selecting single viiiage from each

taluk. First, prior to selecting the village, a general survey was conducted in about ten

villages in each taluk by gathering information on cropping pattern and other

characteristics at the village level. There was a homogenity to a large extent in the

agro-climatic as well as socio-economic characteristics in all those villages. Second,

it was contemplated to closely study the social behavior of the households and also the

102

social networking across the different sections of the households. Third, the survey

required two rounds of interviews of the same households. The rainfed village was

selected based on its diversified activities. The rainfed village has varied activities

besides agriculture, horticulture and livestock rearing which are also important In

addition, it has a fair price shop, milk dairy and various government sponsored

schemes such as Integrated Child Development Schemes(ICDS), Watershed

Development Program, Dry Land Developmen~ program(DLDP), Integrated Rural

-Development Program(IRDP) and Jawahar Rozgar Yojana(JRY). The irrigated village

was selected giving importance to high level of irrigation and high percentage of

agricultural labourers in addition to the basic facilities available.

The information gath~red from the primary survey refered to the agricultural year July

1993-94 i.e., 1st of July 1993 to 30th June 1994. Initially the proposed sample size was

400 households. However 382 households were actually surveyed hecause rainfed

village had only 84 households compared to the irrigated village having around 298

households. The households were catogarised according to size of ownership holdings.

The categories are as follows:

(i) landless - no ownership of land.

(ii) marginal fanners - less than 2.5 acres

(iii) small farmers- 2.5 acres to 5 acres

(iv) large farmers- 5 acres and above

103

The data on PDS was collected from Department of Food and Civil

Supplies,Government of Karnataka. The other secondary data were obtained from (a)

Taluk office; (b) Bureau of Economics and Statistics; (c) ICDS centre; (d) Karnataka

Food and Civil Supplies Office; (e) Department of Horticulture; (f) Dry Land

Development Board office; (g) commercial Banks and Co-operative Societies and

(h)National Sample Survey Organisation.

The present study had also made use of the and Schedule 25.1 of 42nd Round of

National Sample Survey data for the year I 986-87, regarding utilisation of public

distribution system. The NSS data has a sample size of 2021 households in rural

Karnataka spread over all 19 districts including Mandya district. The survey data

provides information on utilisation of PDS for all the commodities distributed through

fair price shops, namely, .rice, wheat, bajra, jowar, other cereals, sugar, kerosene,

palmolien oil and eloth. For the present study the items have been restricted to cereals

only. This data provides mainly two sets of information. First, per capita per month

quantity and value of each commodity and sources of purchase. Second, the reasons

for not purchasing wholly or partly from PDS.

The analysis of utilisation of PDS and the reasons for not purchasing from PDS is

carried out by categorising the households according to regions, social group and

104

consumer expenditure groups. The 19 districts in the state have been grouped into four

NSS regions, which are, coastal and ghat region, comprising of Uttara Kannada

districts; inland eastern region, comprising of Chikmagalur, Hassan, Kodagu and

Shimoga districts; inland southern region, comprising of Bangalore, Kolar, Mandya

and Tumkur districts; and inland northern region. comprising of Bellary, Belgaum,

Bidar, Bijapur, Chitradurga, Gulbarga and Raichur districts. The households have been

grouped into four major categories, viz., scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, neo­

buddhists and others. The economic groups include four categories viz., casual labour,

self employed, salary/wage earners and others. Similarly the households have also been

grouped into seven categories based on monthly per capita household expenditure.

They are, 0-40, 40-60, 60-85, 85-125, 125-200, 200-300 and above 300.

Special interviews were conducted with the officials and members of - (a) Zilla

Parishad (b) Department ofHorticulture (c) Department of Agriculture (d) Department

of Sericulture (e) Mandai Panchayat (f) Departrilent of Food and Civil Supplies (g)

Department of Rural development (h) Agricultural Research Centre -V.C Farm,

Mandya (i)Regulated Market G) Commercial Banks (k) Rice millers (I) Co-operative

Societies (m) Fair price shop (n) village dairy.

105

AREA OF STUDY

District of Mandya

Mandya is an agriculturally well developed district after Vishveswaraya canal came

into existence in 1930. Irrigation accounts for 36.4 per cent of total land cultivated in

the district and highest in the state. However there is a considerable amount of

heterogeneity in terms of physiographical characteristics such as water res~urce, soil

conditions and climatic conditions within the district.

Mandya district is situated in the southern part of Kamataka(Map 4.1 ). It has an area

of 4691 square kilometres and has a population of 14.18 lakhs as per 1991 census. The

net sown area is 55.23 per cent of total geographical area with a cropping intensity of

1.15. Mandya district is divided into seven taluks (Map 4.2). Two taluks are relatively

less irrigated namely, K.R.Pet and Nagamangala with 32.79 per cent and 9.13 per cent

respectively compared to 55.58 per cent of Mandya taluk. The other taluks have

irrigation level close to the district average.

1. Land Classification:

From the Table 4.1, it is observed that despite having a higher geographical area, the

net sown area in Nagamangala taluk is substantially lower compared to Mandya taluk.

106

-~·

Lti .... <( t--~ tJ1

. ·.

. . . . ·. · .

..... ··~ ,......... ~ ... ·· .. ·. ··- '" ·, .. . • . ·

·. . . · .. . .· ... ... .·

. • ~ . .. .. ·. . .... .. ,. ..... . . . . ...

:-. .. . : . . . ·.

.. . . ..... ...

. . ·. . . . ..

. ·' ,._ ·' .

-... .. : . .

·' .. "

:

..

,,. .... ~· . . . .

'·· ·.

• ... # ·~~~~"·. tl : •••• - •••• ...

"t ......

... ..... , I

I

, . .. · . I

-. --. • ..

~·,·'··I,.# . . . ..

· . ' , ; • .. ·,

. .

. .. .... .

... .. . . .. .

-• . ".. . -·· . . . ....... . . : ..

..

I

I

The main reason is presence of barren land, cultivable waste land and fallow land

which accounts for nearly 40 per cent of total geographical area in Nagamangala taluk

compared to only 12 per cent in Mandya taluk. Thus, there is a considerably high

proportion of land in Nagamangala taluk which cannot be put to agricultural use.

Table 4.1 Land Classification in Mandya District, Nagamangala Taluk and Mandya Taluk 1990-91

(Area in Hectares)

Item Mandya DistriCt Nagamangala Taluk Mandya Taluk

Area %GE Area %GE Area %GE

Geographical 498244 100.00 103885 100.00 71512 100.00 Area

Forests 23765 4.79 2516 2.42 1507 - 2.11

Land put to 60553 12.17 9251 8.91 8956 12.52 Non-Agricultural use

Barren & 21683 4.35 6886 6.63 3993 5.58 Uncultivable

Cultivable 39686 7.98 26478 25.49 2320 3.24 Waste

Permanent 41292 8.29 495 0.48 6815 9.53 Pasture

Trees & Groves 3214 0.66 822 0.79 201 0.28

Current Fallow 14079 2.85 3366 3.24 562 0.79 Land

Other Fallows 15138 3.06 4872 4.69 1799 2.52

Net Area Sown. 278204 55.85 49199 47.36 45419 63.51

Gross Cropped 326337 1.17* 56316 1.14* 56016 1.23* Area

'-lote: ;: - Cro m ntens1 pp g ty Source: District Statistical Office, Mandya, Kamataka

108

2. Cropping Pattern:

The major crops produced in the district are paddy, ragi, jowar, sugarcane, groundnut

and pulses(Table 4.2). From the Table, it is observed that ragi and pulses are the major

crops cultivated in the rainfed taluk. It is also observed that, area under ragi increased

marginally five percentage points. However, the area pulses decreased substantially

from 41 per cent in 1985-86 to 20 per cent in 1990-91. The area under paddy, jowar

and other crops shows marginal increases. Compared to the rainfed taluk, paddy and

sugarcane are the major crops folfowed by ragi and pulses. From the Table an increase

in the area under pulses is observed. However, there has been a decrease of five

percentage points in the area under paddy between 1985-86 and 1990-91.

Nagamangala taluk is situated to the north of mandya taluk. There exists a strong

dichotomy between these two taluks. Nagamangala taluk is basically rainfed with less

than 700 mms. of rainfall annually( see, Appendix 3.1 ). The area cultivated under the

crop depends to a great extent on the rainfall pattern and the relationship is very strong

as observed in figure 4.1.

The soil is hard and rocky. Ragi, jowar and horsegram are the major crops of rainfed

areas. Niger, castor, cowpea and field bean are secondary crops normally used for

multiple cropping along with ragi. The cropping pattern has remained unchanged over

109

tn Cl)

300.00

250.00

200.00

.~ 150.00 "C c:

100.00

50.00

0.00

.-i N r- r-0'1 0'1 .-i .-i

Rainfall and Area under foodgrains - Nagamangala Taluk.

M ~ U"l \D r- r- r- r-0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 .-i .-i .-i .-i

!\

/\ Rai.rlfall

f ! I

I ~ !

r-r-<1'1 .-1

co r-0'1 .-i

0'1 0 .-i N r- co co co 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 .-i .-i .-i .-i

Years

Figure 4.1

Area under F:codgrain

M ~ U"l \D r- co 0'1 0 .-i co co co co co co co 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i

N 0'1 0'1 .-i

a period of time as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4 2 Crop~ng Pattern in Na~amangala Taluk and an(!ya Taluk - 19 0-91 iin hectares

Crop Mandya Taluk Nagamangala Taluk

Mandy a Distnct

Paddy 13508 4771 72632 (29.74) (9.69) (25.51)

Ragi 8152 27363 103955 (17.95) (55.62) (36.52)

Jowar 173 1890 6542 (0.38) (3.84) (2.29)

Millets 146 339 503 (0.32) (0.69) (0.18)

Pulses 9689 10053 57663 (21.33) (20.43) (20.25)

Sugarcane 12811 176 29829 (28.21) (0.36) (10.47)

Groundnut 551 296 11657 (1.21) (0.61) (4.09)

Others 389 4311 1965 . (0.86) (8.76) (0.69)

Total Area 45419 49199 284746 Sown (100) (100) (100)

Note : l'I ures m the bracket denote rcenta es. Source: lristrict Statistical Office, M~dya, K.Sarnataka.

Horticulture is practised with irrigation facilities - mainly pumpsets. It has been

declared as a drought prone area by the government. The infrastructure made available

in the_taluk with regard to agricultural development includes Agricultural Producers'

Cooperative Marketing Society, which have trading and storage facilities. In addition,

the taluk has a Primary Land Development Bank, Regional Rural Banks and Primary

111

Cooperative Societies.

Mandya taluk is an agriculturally well developed region. The annual rainfall in the

taluk, though lower than the state average, is not of much importance. due to fairly

high level of irrigation(Table 4.3). The high level of irrigation from the canals makes

it possible to cultivate paddy and sugarcane on a large scale in mandya taluk, followed

by ragi (see, Table 4.2).

Table 4.3 Source wise Irrigation in Mandya District - 1993:94 (in Hectares)

Mandya District Mandya Taluk Nagamangala Taluk

Source Area Percentage Area Percentage Area Percentage I

Canals 86471 83.17 21476 86.14 398 9.15

Tanks 8353 8.03 1612 6.47 3296 75.80

Wells 6633 6.38 1467 5.88 567 13.04

Borewells 986 0.95 16 0.06 23 0.53

Other 1526 1.47 360 1.44 64 1.47 Sources

Total 103969 100.00 24931 100.00 4348 100.00

~ource: Utstnct Statistical Uttice Mand• a Kamataka. y '

Jowar is cultivated in comparatively smaller proportion and is used as feeds. With

increase in sericultural activities, mulberry is also cultivated. For agricultural

development, the infrastructure is fairly well developed. This is mainly by the virtue

of Mandya also being the district headquarters. There are Cooperative Societies,

112

Regional Rural Banks and other Commercial Banks. In addition there are two sugar

industries, one regulated market, one milk processing unit and one sericulture chaky

centre. The short term crop loans provided for cultivating sugarcane are linked to

marketing. The farmers are provided loans for sugarcane cultivation according to the

acreage. The sugarcane after harvesting are sold to the sugar industry soon after the

harvest, at a price fixed prior to cultivation of the crop. The difference of loan amount

and the amount for the commodity sold, is paid to the farmer immediately after the

sale.

3. Land Holding Pattern:

From the Table 4.4, it is observed that farmers in rainfed taluk, with less than two

hectares account for 84 per cent of total holdings, with only 49 per cent of total area.

In comparison, in irrigated taluk, farmers with less than two hectares account for 89

Table 4.4 Land Holding Pattern in Mandya District, Nagamangala Taluk and Mandya Taluk

Nagamangala Taluk Mandya Taluk Mandya District

Category Number Area Number Area Number Area

< I ha 61.53 20.66 73.20 30.69 68.45 27.39

I - 2 ha 22.23 27.97 I6.29 27.I4 I9.3I 28.0I

2-4 ha I2.06 29.08 8.33 26.79 9.4I 26.I9

4- IO ha 3.92 I9.IO 2.06 I3.02 2.64 I4.95

> IO ha 0.26 3.I8 O.I2 2.35 O.I9 3.46

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 IOO IOO . r\J" ~ e : "'n Pa.-< c.e ...., . .! .:. ")·e~. Source: District Statistical Office, Mandya. Karnataka.

per cent of total holdings with 58 per cent of total area. Thus, skewedness in land

113

holding is comparatively higher in irrigated taluk than in rainfed taluk.

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

The following section gives a gcncial idea about some important vruiablt:!'; uf i.he

households characteristics. The household information is discussed under five headings,

which are, demographic features, land assets, agricultural assets - agricultural

operational and land assets , livestock assets and other durable assets.

J. Demographic Features:·

In the rainfed area, the average household size increases from four per household for

the landless category to eight per household for the large farmer category. The number

of working members in each household increase from an average of 1.33 per

household for the landless category to 4.13 for the large farmer category. But in

percentage terms the variation across the categories is marginal. Similar to the rainfed

area sample, the household size in irrigated area sample, the average household size

shows an increase from 4.54 for the landless category to 1 0 for the large farmer

category. In absolute terms there is also an increase in the work force size across the

categories. But in percentage terms, the dependency ratio, is very high for the landless

category compared to the farming households, in the rainfed area. Unlike the rainfed,

the dependency ratio is lower in the landless category as compared to the farming

114

households, in the irrigated area. This implies that there is a higher proportion of

workers from each landless household in the irrigated area as compared to the rainfed

area. The Iand-man ratio is higher in the rainfed area as compared the irrigated,

showing that the pressure on land is lower in the rainfed area. These factors can have

direct influence on the food security of the households(,see, Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Demographic Features of Households

Rainfed Area

Item Landless Marginal Small Large Total Farmers Farmers Farmers

-----------------------------~------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Households 3 26 40 15 84

Household Size 4.00 5.08 6.68 7.93 6.31

Number of Non-workers 2.67 2.46 2.88 3.80 2.90

Number of Workers 1.33 2.62 3.80 4.13 3.40

Dependency ratio 66.67 48.48 43.07 47.90 46.04

Land-Man Ratio 0.00 0.34 0.60 1.04 0.62

Irrigated Area

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Land Assets:

115

The average size of land holding in the rainfed sample is 3.9 acres compared to 1.61

acres in the irrigated area (Table 4.6). The land distribution is skewed among the

irrigated sample households, which is similar to the distribution pattern at the taluk

level. In the irrigated area Sruuple, households with less thau fivt: a~.:rt:s a~.:wunt for 89

per cent of total holdings with 66 per cent of total area. Where as, in the rainfed area,

households with less than five acres account for 81 per cent of total holding with 61

per cent of total area. However, in the irrigated ·area 70 per cent of total holding are

less 2.5 acres compared to 32 per cent in the rainfed area. The average area under

irrigation in the rainfed area sample shows an increase from eight per cent for

Table 4.6 Category Wise Type of Land Owned Rainfed Area

Item Landless Marginal Farmers

Small Farmers

Large Farmers

Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------'"!---------------------------------------Dry land

Wet Land

Total Land

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.59

0.14

1.73

3.14

0.85

3.99

6.40

1.83

8.23

3.13

0.78

3.91 ----------------------------------------c-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Irrigated Area

Item Landless Marginal Farmers

Small Farmers

Large Farmers

Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dry land 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.77 0.13

Wet Land o.oo. 1.20 3.16 6.57 1.49

Total Land 0.00 1.27 3.43 7.34 1.61 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marginal farmer category and rises substantially to 21.3 per cent for small farmer

category and 22 per cent for large farmer category. In the irrigated area, the

116

percentage of area irrigated shows a decline from 94 per cent for marginal farmer

category to 89 per cent for large farmer category with an average of 92 per cent for

all category households.

Land distribution

Table 4.7 Land Distribution in Sample Villages (in percentages)

MF SF LF Total ---------:---------------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------Rainfed village Holding Size 32% 49% 19% 100%

Area Owned 13.72% 48.63% 37.65% 100%

Irrigated village Holding Size 70% 19% II% 100%

Area Owned 37.91% 28.53% 33.56% JOO%

From Table 4. 7, it is observed that land distribution pattern at the village level is

similar to that of taluk level. This is true in the case of both irrigated and rainfed

regions.

3. Agricultural Assets:

The use of agricultural machinery is very minimal or nil in bo·th rainfed and irrigated

areas( see, Table 4.8). There are no tractors used by any of the households surveyed.

In the rainfed area,both wooden and iron ploughs are used for ploughing. Cows are

Table 4.8 Rainfed Area

Agricultural Implement Assets of Households

117

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------·-Hem Landiess Marginai Small Large Total

Farmers Farmers Fanners ------- ... ------------ .. ------------------------------------------------·------------------------------·-------------- . -----I.P Set

Motor pump

()na.n ,.,a.11 ~t'~" .. ~ ..

Iron Plough

Wooden Plough

Cart

Tractor

Bullocks

Irrigated Area

Item

0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) (\ (\{\ v.vv

(0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Landless

0.15 (4) 0.08 (2) " --~ v.~:J

(6) 0.46 (12) 0.77 (20) 0.04 (I) 0.00 (0) 0.38 (5)

Marginal Farmers

0.30 (12) 0.20 (8) 0.40 (16) 0.85 (34) 0.93 (37) 0.13 (5) 0.00 (0) 0.45 (9)

Small Farmers

0.53 (8) 0.13 (2) 0.33 (5) 1.13 (15) 1.00 (15) 0.20 (3) 0.00 (0) 0.80 (6)

Large Fanners

0.29 (24) 0.14 ( 12) 032 (27) 0.75 (61) 0.86 (72) 0.11 (9) 0.00 (0) 0.48 (20)

Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I.P Set 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Motor pump 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Open well 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Iron Plough 0.00 1.29 2.20 3.45 1.18

(0) (144) (40) (22) (206) Wooden Plough 0.00 5.26 0.15 0.00 2.56

(0) (144) (6) (0) (!50) Cart 0.00 0.14 0.65 1.00 0.23

(0) (20) (26) (22) (68) Tractor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Bullocks 0.00 0.64 1.40 2.55 0.68

(0) (92) (40) (22) (!54) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Figures in brackets denote the frequency of households.

used .in the place of bullocks for ploughing the land, specially in the marginal and

small farmer category. Only the large farmers have on an average atleast one of iron

118

and wooden plough each. The average number of ploughs is less than one in the case

of marginal and small farmers. As compared to the canal system of irrigation in the

irrigated area, irrigation pump sets and open wells are the sources of irrigation in

rainfed area.

4. Livestock Assets:

Rearing of sheeps and milch animals is common to both rainfed and irrigated areas.

Table 4;9 Livestock Assets of Households Rainfed Area _______ :,. _________________________________________________________________ .,: _________________ ,.. ________________________ ._.,. __ _

Item

Cow

Buffalo

Sheep

Goat

Poultry

Irrigated Area

Landless

0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 bO)

.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Marginal Farmers

0.92 (24) 0.50 (13) 1.38 (12) 0.38 (7) 1.00 (12)

Small Farmers

1.53 (40) 0.58 (23) 1.38 (II) 0.43 (6) 1.23 (34)

Large Fanners

1.40 (I 5) 1.00 (8) 9.80 (15) 1.13 (8) 1.27 (15)

Total

1.26 (79) 0.61 (44) 2.83 (38) 0.52 (21) 1.12 (61)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Landless Marginal Small Large Total

Fanners Fanners Fanners ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cow 0.09. 0.22 0.55 0.82 0.27

Buffalo (8) b32) (22) (18) (72) 0.43 .93 1.40 2.09. 0.93

Sheep b40) (134) (40) (22) b236)

.41 0.81 1.30 2.64 .89

Goat b38) b116) (40) b22) b216)

.28 .51 1.25 .55 .54

Poultry b26) (74) (40) ~12) (152)

.76 1.06 1.40 .45 1.11 (70) (138) (40) (22) (270)

·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Figures in brackets denote the frequency of households.

In the rainfed area, the average livestock reared.is higher by'large farmers compared

to other households. But, no livestock rearing by the landless households is observed.

119

In the irrigated area livestock are reared by all classes of households( see. Table 4.9).

The government policy of providing milch animals through banks and co-operatives

and the infrastructure - feeds, milk collection centre: etc., - made available at the

village has helped even landless households in the irrigated ah::a to tak.t: take up dairy

business in addition to other sources of non-farm employment.

5. Other Household Assets:

The average figures in Table 4.1 0, on household assets show that the households in

Table 4.10 Consumer Durable Assets of Households Rainfed Area

Item Landless Marginal Small Large Total Farmers Farmers Farmers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Television Set 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.20 0.06

Radio &~13. &~1 I &~13 &3) .47 b~15

Bicycle &~13 &8) &13) &7) b~i§ .15 .30 .47

Scooter b~6o b~6o &12) b~6o ~ri6 .00

Clock bO)

.00 bO)

.12 bO)

.10 bO)

.40 bO)

.15

Fumitures bO)

.67 ~11 &4) .58

~6) .60

b13) .86

(2) (8) (23) (15) (48) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrigated Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. -------

Item Landless Marginal Small Large Total Farmers Farmers Farmers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Television Set 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.27 0.05

Radio &~19 &~~0 b~§o ~6) .09

&14) .56

Bicycle ~~1 &:l~ b36) ~22) &~~ .75 .36

Scooter &30)

&:81 b~86 &22) ~.~~ .00 .64

Clock &0) .

.II &~~4 bO) .60

~14) .00 &~~6

Fumitures &10)

.15 &~~~ ~~:6 ~22) .36

~0) .94

(14) (76) (40) (22) (152) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Figures in brackets denote the frequency of households.

120

the irrigated area comparatively better off than in the rainfed area. In the rainfed area

the variations in the average assets of the sample houseolds acquired is not substantia

across the categories. Where as, in the irrigated area, a gradual increase in the averag1

number of assets is observed between landless category and large farmer category o

the sample households.

121