Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2563

This paper examines the declining economic stake of womenin agriculture, and the increasing contribution of womento agriculture. The contribution of women to agricultural

work seems to be increasing in general for several reasons,judging from the number of women workers in crop productionalone. If we also include the work involved in livestock, poultry,fisheries, water conservation, forestry and work related to com-mon property resources, the contribution of women to agriculturewould far exceed that of men.

Women employed as wage labour receive lower wage than mendo. Even when women are categorised as cultivators, theirownership and control over resources such as land, livestock,farm machinery, and transport equipment are limited. In addition,their access to credit, technology and market information is highlyrestricted. Their opportunities for education, skill formation andof shifting to better paid work are also narrow. Disadvantagesexperienced by women become apparent once women’s workcomes out into the open, as in the case of female wage labourand women-headed households. Female wage labourers are thelowest paid in the economy. The women-headed households inrural areas are seen in the lowest income class. The first majorimplication of feminisation of agriculture is the increasing burdenof work on them and lower compensation.

Feminisation of Indian agriculture has been emphasised bymany. Increased involvement of women in agriculture at the turnof the century compared to the earlier period has been noticedin many field studies as well as district level studies.1 It has alsobeen emphasised that the contribution of women to agriculturehas been underestimated due to the faulty definition of work.Even the existing census data are not comparable.2

Feminisation of agriculture is not specific to India. It has beennoticed all over Asia – south Asia, south-east Asia and in partsof west Asia.3 It has been pointed out that the Indian case isdifferent from that of east Asia.4 Feminisation of agriculturenormally takes place due to outmigration of males from low paidagriculture to high-paid industry. In India, it is believed that thishas been induced by casualisation of work, unprofitable cropproduction and distress migration. Migration has been noticedto other rural areas, to urban slums and to highly labour-exploit-ative sectors of the economy such as construction.

Urbanisation in India over the past decade has been lowerthan expected. The share of urban population has increasedonly by about 2 per cent over this period.5 If we look at all thefour categories of migrants of less than one year, the distribution

shows that rural to rural migrants constitute about 47 per cent,whereas rural to urban migrants constitute only 22 per cent1999-2000.6

Less than a year work related migration is very low for women.About 33.7 per cent of rural males and 44.6 per cent of the urbanmales migrated for reasons of employment. In the case of women,less than a year migration related to employment is as low as3.6 per cent for rural migrants and 3.7 for urban migrants. Hence,work participation of women is mostly related to family enter-prises and local work available. Their upward mobility foremployment is highly restricted.

To that extent, increase in women’s work in agriculture is dueto outmigration of male partners. Women’s work remains invis-ible in family enterprises. However, in specific pockets with highlevels of male migration, women come out prominently as cultivatorclass and entrepreneurial class in household industry.Marginalisation of workforce that occurred in the past decadehas made one-third of all rural workers agricultural labour asper the 2001 Census. This may have forced men to opt for high-paid casual work in agriculture and non-agriculture, leavingwomen to take up the low-paid casual work in agriculture.

In the agriculturally prosperous areas, wages are high. In high-wage areas, labour may be progressively displaced due tomechanisation. Whatever work is still available at higher wages,is mostly taken up by men who migrate, leaving women to acceptlow-paid work in less prosperous areas. This has increased thenumber of female agricultural labourers. Unlike the other cate-gories of workers in own-account enterprises and farming, thefemale agricultural labourers are visible workers who work forwages and their numbers cannot be hidden. Thus, at present inrural India, about 33 per cent of cultivators and about 47 percent of agricultural labourers are women.

Increased Share of Women in the AgriculturalWorkforce

We cannot compare the census data on agricultural workersto note the trend over the past decade. However, for rural workersas a whole for all India, comparable information has been releasedby the census authorities. The workforce composition of ruralIndia (main + marginal) shows a 4 per cent shift of rural workforcein favour of women (Table1).

The comparable data for rural sector over the decade showsan increase in the share of main female workers to all main

Feminisation of Agriculture andMarginalisation of Their Economic Stake

The government as well as international organisations have implemented manyprogrammes aimed at rural women. But actually their programmes do not touch upon the

issues related to women’s higher income work opportunities, upward economic mobility, rightssuch as equal wages for equal work and property rights. This article analyses the declining

economic stake of women in agriculture in spite of their increasing contribution.

SWARNA S VEPA

Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052564

workers. It has increased from 25.19 per cent in 1991 to 26.27per cent in 2001. Percentage increase in the female main workershas been 7.2 per cent over the decade compared to an increaseof only 3.2 per cent for men main workers (Tables 2, 3 and 4).Thus, it is evident that female main workers are replacing malemain workers in rural sector. The magnitude reported has, however,been very small. This is probably due to classifying women infamily farms and family enterprises as marginal workers. Anotherreason could also be that the seasonal migration of men in searchof work leaves the women to manage agriculture, but they arenot acknowledged as main workers.

As has been pointed out earlier, in the rural sector, womenare likely to be employed more in agricultural activities such asfarming, livestock, fisheries and forestry rather than in non-agricultural activities. The Census 2001 data shows that 39 percent of the total workers in farming (cultivators + agriculturallabour) are women. Some of the workers categorised under otherwork could also be related to livestock, fisheries and so on. Inthis category of other workers, 23 per cent were women. About33 per cent of the cultivators and about 47 per cent of theagricultural labour are women. This includes both main andmarginal workers. We do not have a further break-up betweenmarginal and main workers. Comparable data for 1991 is notavailable to study the change over the decade and establishincreasing feminisation of agriculture. If we add female workersin livestock, fisheries and forestry-related enterprises, theirpercentage is likely to increase.

As per the Economic Census 1998, more than two millionwomen are employed in non-crop agricultural enterprises.About 34 per cent of all workers are women in these enterprises.The data shows that most of these enterprises are own-accountenterprises. It means that they could combine housework andenterprise-related work in the same premises. There is scope forconsiderable underestimation of the number of women in ag-riculture and agricultural enterprises than in non-agriculturalenterprises.

The Time Use Surveys may throw some more light on thisaspect. But, they are available only for six states. They show thatwomen’s total contribution to work is apparent not only in cropproduction, but also in the other activities that form part of theSystem of National Accounts (SNA). In all the six states, womenhad spent as much time or much more time on non-crop pro-duction and SNA activities as on crop production. The first itemcalled, ‘primary production’ in the Time Use Surveys includedonly crop production activities. The non-crop SNA activitiesinclude livestock, fisheries, forestry, processing storage, etc. Anaverage of 10.20 hours per week has been spent by women oncrop production activities in the year 2000. This alone hastranslated into 43 per cent of female workers to total workersin crop production in the year 2001 in these states. An additional10.37 hours a week, was spent on non-crop agriculturalactivities by women. Total time spent on agricultural activitieswas about 20.57 hours per week by women, which would meaneither more women workers in agriculture than reported in thecensus or more main workers spending more time on theseactivities (Table 5).

The average time spent on non-crop agricultural activities washigher for women than for men in five out of six states. Thiswould mean that either there are more women workers contri-buting to work or more women are main workers working longerhours on SNA activities. Thus, what has not been captured in

Table 1: Workforce Composition of Rural Workers(Persons in millions)

1991 Proportion 2001 Proportion

Female 80.43 0.32 111.46 0.36Male 168.60 0.68 199.20 0.64M+F 249.03 1.00 310.66 1.00

Source: Census of India 2001.

Table 2: Share of Female Workers among the Main andMarginal Workers

(in per cent)

Female Main Female Main Female FemaleWorkers to Workers to Marginal Marginal

all Main all Main Workers to Workers toAll India Workers Workers all Marginal all Marginal

Workers Workers1991 2001 1991 2001

Total 22.48 23.20 90.41 60.89Rural 25.19 26.27 91.38 63.12Urban 12.81 14.75 72.59 39.24

Source: Census of India 2001.

Table 3: Composition of Workers in India – Rural(Persons in millions)

Female Male Persons1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001

Total workers 80.43 111.46 168.60 199.20 249.03 310.66Main workers 56.00 60.34 166.29 169.33 222.29 229.67Marginal workers 24.43 51.12 2.31 29.87 26.74 80.98Percentage ofmain workers tototal workers 69.62 54.14 98.63 85.01 89.26 73.93

Percentage ofmarginal workersto total workers 30.38 45.86 1.37 14.99 10.74 26.07

Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com

Table 4: Percentage Increase in Main and Marginal Workers inRural India from 1991 to 2001 – Rural

(Persons in millions)

Total (Main + Marginal) Main Workers Marginal WorkersPersons Male Female Persons Male Female Persons MaleFemale (M+F) (M+F) (M+F)

1991 249.03 168.60 80.43 222.29 166.29 56.00 26.74 2.31 24.432001 310.66 199.20 111.46 229.67 169.33 60.34 80.98 29.87 51.12Difference 61.63 30.60 31.03 7.38 3.04 4.34 54.24 27.56 26.68Percentageincrease 19.84 15.36 27.84 3.21 1.80 7.20 66.98 92.28 52.20

Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com

Table 5: Weekly Average Time Spent on Crop Production andOther SNA Activities

State Crop Non-crop All Agri Other All SNA Percen- Percen-Produ- Agri Acti- Acti- Acti- tage of tage ofction Acti- vities vities vities Unpaid Female

vities Work Workers1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gujarat 11.99 9.63 21.62 2.28 23.90 44.67 41.71Haryana 3.14 18.04 21.18 2.26 23.49 85.99 45.52MadhyaPradesh 13.56 6.51 20.07 2.55 22.62 52.40 43.77

Meghalaya 13.57 12.32 25.89 3.23 29.12 76.39 45.80Orissa 6.61 10.15 16.76 2.27 19.03 69.44 35.70Tamil Nadu 12.35 5.57 17.92 5.54 23.46 32.45 45.52Average 10.20 10.37 20.57 3.02 23.60 60.22 43.00

Note: Columns1-6: CSO, ‘Time Use Survey’ April 2000.Column 7: Census of India 2001 (per cent of female workers to all farmworkers).SNA = System of National Accounts.

Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2565

the census is obvious in time use data. Women’s contributionto agricultural work has been high.

Even within SNA time use, women’s work could be under-estimated. The percentage of time spent by women on the activitiesentered into SNA was 13 per cent and the extended SNA (thatincludes the household work that would cost money if purchasedfrom the market) was 20 per cent. About 33.62 per cent of thewomen’s time is spent on work, while only 27.41 per cent ofthe men’s time is spent on work.

The average work done by women may be the same as menin the SNA activities, though the number of hours assignedwere14 per cent less. Mostly, rural men work far away from homeand spend more time in travelling to and from work, while ruralwomen work closer home. The time spent on travelling to workhas been added to the SNA work. Unless a more detailed break-up of the work for various occupational groups such as cultivatorsand agricultural labour is made available, it is not possible toget an accurate picture of men’s work and women’s work insimilar jobs. The Time Use Surveys also clearly show that womenin their double roles have to work more than men, but their rolein the main economic activity has been marginalised.

A total of 23.6 hours a week have been spent on economicactivities by women on an average, but they receive paymentonly for 60 per cent of their work. This clearly shows themarginalisation of their economic stake, despite their substantialcontribution to agriculture. The unpaid work of women is highin some states and less in others. It appears that it is high inHaryana and Meghalaya, where the participation of women wasrelatively high in non-crop agricultural activities such as live-stock, fisheries, forestry, processing, storage, etc. In Gujarat andTamil Nadu, where the unpaid work is lower than in other states,the urbanisation is high. This may have made many femaleworkers as wage labourers (Table 5).

About 80 per cent of all female workers are in agriculture,leaving about 5 per cent in household industries and about 15per cent in other types of work. Only 70 per cent of rural menare in agriculture. No doubt, agriculture is the single most importantcontributor of employment in the rural sector and more so tothe rural women (Table 6).

In family farms and enterprises, normally, the entire incomeis apportioned to the male members. In any case, the femalemembers in family farms and enterprises normally do not ownresources. Neither they take managerial decision nor have theyaccess to the income that is earned. Contributing to work on an

enterprise, without any control over the income that accrues tothe worker, amounts to marginalisation of their economic stake.

Increase in Female Marginal Workers

Primarily, work opportunities did not keep pace with thedemand for work in the economy as a whole and, particularly,in the rural sector. Being poor, people accept even marginal workrather than remaining unemployed. Hence, the share of marginalworkforce has increased. The number of marginal workers in-creased in the total workforce both in urban and rural areas and,more so, in rural areas over the past decade. Female marginalworkers are found both in crop and livestock enterprises – mostlyfamily enterprises as well as agricultural labour. However, thebreak-up is not available.

In rural workforce, the share of marginal workers increasedfrom 10.74 per cent to 26.07 per cent while the share of main workersdeclined from 89.26 to 76.93 per cent. The magnitude of marginalworkforce is even more appalling. The number of marginalworkers increased from 26.73 million in 1991 to 80.98 millionin 2001 (Table 7). Among the marginal workers, there were morewomen than men. In 2001, there were 51.12 million female marginalworkers and only about 30 million male marginal workers in ruralIndia. The composition of main to marginal workers amongfemale workers changed from 70:30 in 1991 to 54:46 in 2001.The composition of the male workers is still heavily tilted towardsmain workers – from 98:2 in 1991 to 85:15 in 2001 (Table 3).

A decade ago, almost all marginal workers were women. Inthe past decade, male work is also being marginalised. The share

Table 6: Distribution of Rural Workers(Persons in million)

Cultivators Percentage of Agricultural Percentage of HH Percentage of Other Percentage of Total PercentageCultivators Labourers Agricultural Industry HH Industry Workers Other Workers

to Total Labourers to to Total Workers to (Main + Workers Total Workers Workers Total Workers Marginal)

Male 84.05 (42.19) 54.75 (27.48) 5.64 (2.83) 54.76 (27.49) 199.20 (100)Percentage of malecultivators to totalcultivators (67.40) (53.09) (48.18) (76.97) (64.12)

Female 40.64 (36.45) 48.37 (43.40) 6.07 (5.44) 16.38 (14.69) 111.46 (100)Percentage of femalecultivators to totalcultivators (32.59) (46.90) (51.81) (23.02) (35.87)

Persons (M+F) 124.68 (40.13) 103.12 (33.19) 11.71 (3.76) 71.14 (22.90) 310.66 (100)

Source: Census of India, 2001

Table 7: Main and Marginal Workers in RuralIndia over a Decade

Total Main Marginal Main MarginalWorkers Workers Workers Workers to Workers toPersons Persons Persons Total Workers Total Workers

(M+F) (M+F) (M+F) (Per Cent) (Per Cent)

India – Census 1991 (persons in millions)Total 314.13 285.93 28.20 91.02 8.98Rural 249.03 222.29 26.74 89.26 10.74Urban 66.10 64.64 1.46 97.79 2.21

India – Census 2001 (persons in millions)Total 402.51 313.17 89.34 77.80 22.20Rural 310.66 229.67 80.98 73.93 26.07Urban 91.86 83.50 8.36 90.90 9.10

Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com

Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052566

of female workers among the marginal workers has come downfrom 91.38 per cent to 63.12 per cent over the past decade. Theshare of men among marginal workers increased from 2 per centin 1991 to 37 per cent in 2001. The rural distress in the pastdecade has forced more men to accept marginal work so muchso that male workers categorised as marginal workers more thandoubled.

Concentration of Female Agricultural Labour

As per the 2001 Census, one-third of the rural workers areagricultural labourers. This shows the magnitude of casualisationof work in the rural areas. As per the census, female agriculturallabour is high in some states compared to others. Agriculturallabour is normally hired for crop production (Appendix). Demandfor hired labour is high in the areas where mechanisation is low,crop intensity is high and area irrigated is high. Further, ricecultivation normally uses more labour than wheat cultivation.One can expect predominantly rice-growing areas to have higherlabour demand (Table 8). The states of Punjab and Haryana havelower demand for human labour as the levels of mechanisationis high. In Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, for example, bothmachine labour use and human labour use have been high. Thisonly reiterates the point that in these states, labour demand ishigh due to the importance of two/three crops of rice in kharifas well as in the rabi and summer seasons, unlike in Haryanaand Punjab, where only one crop of rice is possible. Anotherimportant point is that use of machine labour in southern statesmay have reduced the overall demand for labour in agriculture.However, the mechanisation is mostly due to shortage of locallabour. Female labour is important for rice cultivation. Yet, dueto limitations of migration, women cannot take up work in highdemand, high wage areas.

In some states, there are more women than men cultivators.In others, women are engaged more as agricultural labour thanmen. In the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, MadhyaPradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, more than 50per cent of agricultural labourers are women. In these states, thepercentage of female cultivators is also high at about 30 to 40per cent. But what is more interesting to note is that, with theexception of Tamil Nadu, states that offer moderate to lowerwages, employ more women. In West Bengal, Haryana andKerala, there are more men than women as agricultural labourers,since the wages are high.

The role of women in agriculture becomes clear, if we considerthe district level data. Out of the total 582 districts for whichdata is available, about 46 per cent of the districts have morefemale labourers than men. In some districts more than 60 percent of agricultural labourers are women. Only 8.70 per cent ofthe districts have more than 50 per cent women as cultivators.The situation is particularly alarming in the backward districts.In the 150 districts that have been chosen for Food for WorkProgramme and also likely to have the launch of the EmploymentGuarantee Schemes, the situation is even more alarming. Censusdata is available for such 142 districts. In 83.7 per cent of thesebackward districts, female agricultural labour has more than 40per cent share. In 87 backward districts, (61 per cent of thebackward districts), female agricultural labour constitute 50-70per cent. Female cultivators also constitute more than 40 per centof all cultivators in about 41 backward districts, (29 per cent ofthe backward districts). Thus in the backward districts agriculture

has more than the average share of women as cultivators andlabourers (Tables 9 and 10).

A few districts in some states illustrate this point that femalelabour is concentrated in backward districts. In Andhra Pradesh,for example, the percentage of female labour is as high as 60and above in the relatively backward districts and less prosperousdistricts of Warangal, Nalagonda, Mahaboobnagar, Vizianagaramand so on. The more prosperous arrears such as east and westGodavari districts employ relatively fewer women as labour. Thewages are likely to be high in peak seasons in the rice growingirrigated areas of east and west Godavari districts. Womencultivators are fewer than men in the most prosperous districtsof the state. In more difficult terrains such as Vizianagaram, about40 per cent of the cultivators are women.

While the sex composition of cultivators and agriculturallabourers differs from one state to the other, within the states,it appears that agriculture in more backward districts attract largerpercentage of women than men, and at the same time, moreprosperous districts have less number of women than men. Thecase of Tamil Nadu also gives credence to the view. In the

Table 8: Human Labour Inputs Per Hectare for Rice (1998-99)

Human Human Labour ( in Rs) MachineLabour Casual Attached Family Total Labour

State (Man Hours) (in Rs)

Andhra Pradesh 1023.36 4679.88 289.92 2486.93 7456.73 1178.46Assam 671.41 604.31 275.33 3251.26 4130.90 98.72Bihar 845.13 1656.97 10.51 1580.04 3247.52 272.87Kerala 908.34 9760.98 136.21 2431.93 12329.12 1074.70Haryana 584.09 2913.14 237.07 2657.21 5807.42 1426.81Madhya Pradesh717.91 1537.37 51.47 1744.26 3333.10 238.34Punjab 450.54 1755.42 566.97 1394.31 3716.70 2164.17Tamil Nadu 1134.83 6560.92 222.34 2631.13 9414.39 1759.29Uttar Pradesh 775.18 1750.38 31.33 2345.84 4125.55 713.68West Bengal 1245.29 3742.90 133.20 4034.87 7910.97 302.11

Note: Machine labour for Bihar refers to 1997-98.Source:Reports for the Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices, GoI,

New Delhi, 2002.

Table 9: Distribution of Districts as per the Percentageof Female Workers in all Districts

Cultivators Agricultural LabourersPer Cent No of Districts Percentage No of Districts Percentage

<30 254 43.64 94 16.1530-40 140 24.05 76 13.0640-50 137 23.54 143 24.5750-60 36 6.19 202 34.7160-70 14 2.41 63 10.82>70 1 0.17 4 0.69Total 582 100.00 582 100.00

Note: Data is not available in the Census 2001 for 11 Districts.Source:Census of India, 2001.

Table 10: Distribution of Districts as per the Percentage ofFemale Workers in 151 ‘Food for Work’ Districts

Cultivators Agricultural Labourers

Percent No of Districts Percentage No of Districts Percentage

<30 51 35.9 8 5.630-40 50 35.2 15 10.640-50 34 23.9 32 22.550-60 5 3.5 57 40.160-70 2 1.4 27 19.0>70 0 0.0 3 2.1Total 142 100.0 142 100.0

Note: Data for nine districts is not available in the Census 2001.

Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2567

prosperous irrigated district of Tanjavur, the percentage of womenagricultural labour is only 44, while the backward districts likeRamanathapuram has as high as 58 per cent of agricultural labouras women. In the districts such as Namakkal, Pudukkotai,Tiruvannamalai and Perambalur, 55 to 60 per cent of agriculturallabour were women. It is not clear from the census data whetherthey are employed in rice cultivation or other commercial crops.The reason for higher employment of women as labour appearsto be the lower wages paid to women. Thus, women seem tobe pushed to poorest areas of the state where the wages are lowcompared to prosperous districts. They get lower wages than meneven in these districts.

In the case of Chhattisgarh, in all the 16 districts, the percentageof female agricultural labour is between 53 to 66. In the districtof Dantewada it is highest at 66 per cent and lowest at 53 percent in Raigarh. Similar situation exists in Gujarat also. Thepercentage of female agricultural labour to the total agriculturallabour varies from 60 to 70 in the districts of Dohad, Panchmahaland Dangs. Similarly, it is worth noting that as per the 2001Census, the hill districts of various states such as HimachalPradesh and Uttaranchal recorded more number of women cul-tivators. In Uttaranchal, in all the districts there are more womenas cultivators than men. It ranges from 68 per cent in Almora,and 67 per cent in Garhwal to 55 per cent in Uttarkashi. In nineof the 13 districts of Uttaranchal more than 55 per cent of thecultivators are women. In eight districts they are more than 65per cent.

Wages in Agriculture

The wage rates in 1998-99 show that the states of Orissa, Bihar,Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh get the lowest wage ratesbetween Rs 30 and Rs 40. Kerala labour gets the highest wagerate at Rs 105.84 followed by West Bengal, Haryana and TamilNadu. Depressed wages also contribute to the poverty and dif-ferential between male and female wage further means decliningeconomic stake of women.

The states in which wage differentials are low, the number offemale labourers is also low. To indicate the wage inequalityamong the states, female wages as a proportion of male wagesis taken. Ideally, it should be one, indicating no wage differentials.The wage taken in the study is the average wage of non-publicworks. In Tamil Nadu, the female wage as a proportion to malewage is 0.51, in Kerala and Goa female wage is 0.53 of the malewage, as compared to the all-India average of 0.64. In Kerala,the absolute female wage is high compared to other states, butthe differential is also high. In states like Punjab where the wagedifferential is relatively low, that is, the proportion of femalewage to male wage is 0.75, but it is also a state where theparticipation of female agricultural labourers is only 25 per centand the percentage of female cultivators is 13. The absolute wagesare the lowest for women in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa but arestill marked with high percentage of agricultural labourers. About58 per cent of the women are agricultural labourers in MadhyaPradesh7 (Appendix).

In the past decade, in general, the wages per person-day haveincreased by about 80 per cent. However, they have declinedslightly in real terms in many of the most populous states suchas UP and Bihar, and have risen only marginally in others. Thisis likely to have led to fall in real wage incomes given the declinein overall wage employment in the rural areas. The position of

labour dependent population has deteriorated in more than oneway. First, the use of machines reduced their opportunities ofemployment in more prosperous states. Secondly, the possibleshift of rice area to other crops poses a threat to labour employ-ment as the other crops use less labour than rice cultivation. Lastbut not the least, shortage of rice production within the state andthe consequent increase in the prices to the consumers wouldforce the low-income groups to consume fewer calories. Thusas per the National Sample Survey, in 1999-2000, the three lowestincome classes in the rural areas of Kerala, Tamil Nadu,Maharashtra and Gujarat had consumed fewer calories. Hence,shortages of production and high local prices for consumerswould hurt population even in the low poverty states. Thus itis clear that rural households depending upon female labourincome suffer the most, experiencing poverty and lower calorieconsumption.

Appendix: Percentage of Female Workers and Male-FemaleWage Differentials

Sl State Percentage of Female WagesNo Culti- Agri Farm Female Male Index

vators Labourers Workers (Rs) (Rs) ofto to to Wage

Total Total Total Equality(M+F) (M+F) (M+F) (Female/

Cultivators Agri Farm Male)Labourers Workers

1 Andhra Pradesh 33.34 53.75 46.24 26.48 40.67 0.652 Arunachal

Pradesh 51.20 45.99 50.89 42.73 67.09 0.643 Assam 28.92 34.17 30.27 35.55 48.82 0.734 Bihar 20.59 35.11 29.62 31.57 36.53 0.865 Jharkhand 37.93 48.06 42.20 – – –6 Goa 48.43 55.99 51.53 46.99 83.20 0.567 Gujarat 32.49 52.22 41.71 34.43 43.91 0.788 Haryana 38.83 44.43 40.46 51.01 62.65 0.819 Himachal

Pradesh 57.41 40.83 56.67 50.36 67.06 0.7510 Jammu and

Kashmir 36.35 22.09 34.52 66.07 77.04 0.8611 Karnataka 29.61 58.66 43.20 27.14 42.51 0.6412 Kerala 15.54 33.35 27.80 56.65 100.78 0.5613 Madhya Pradesh 37.66 52.97 43.77 24.91 30.15 0.8314 Chhattisgarh 42.62 59.60 49.67 – – –15 Maharashtra 44.12 56.73 50.16 25.28 41.32 0.6116 Manipur 44.70 56.15 46.76 47.40 59.46 0.8017 Meghalaya 45.19 47.45 45.80 43.06 57.37 0.7518 Mizoram 49.28 52.48 49.44 66.24 97.77 0.6819 Nagaland 50.07 46.19 49.85 46.67 71.93 0.6520 Orissa 20.57 48.56 35.70 23.34 31.14 0.7521 Punjab 13.37 25.90 18.52 49.48 65.86 0.7522 Rajasthan 46.33 59.33 48.39 37.02 55.19 0.6723 Sikkim 46.62 49.20 46.92 40.60 50.71 0.8024 Tamil Nadu 35.93 51.52 45.52 30.78 60.20 0.5125 Tripura 29.17 41.43 34.94 38.66 49.14 0.7926 Uttar Pradesh 20.00 39.45 27.33 30.08 43.50 0.6927 Uttaranchal 56.23 26.76 52.21 – – –28 West Bengal 16.85 31.03 24.87 35.59 44.60 0.8029 Chandigarh 6.60 8.14 6.93 – – –30 Delhi 29.47 29.18 29.39 N.A 80.99 (-)31 Pondicherry 10.80 43.28 39.15 – – –32 Daman and Diu 50.60 75.58 56.79 – – –33 D and N Haveli 54.45 63.59 56.94 – – –34 Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 0.00 – – –35 A and N Island 30.01 22.19 28.52 – – –All-India 32.59 46.91 39.07 29.01 44.84 0.65

Note: NSS 55th Round, Employment and Unemployment Situation in India,July 1999-2000.NSSO, GoI, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,Census of India – 2001.

Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052568

Implications to Policy

Many programmes by the government as well as the interna-tional organisations are aimed at rural women. They help dis-advantaged women by way of additional work and microcredit.The aim is to improve their economic position. The prescriptionssuggested include devises and tools and machinery that help themearn livelihoods on one hand and reduce their drudgery on theother in their present roles. Women normally occupy the placesvacated by men. But still, there has not been any effort to promoteemployment of women as regular wage labour. There was hardlyany upward mobility for women. Community participation andawareness creation activities sometimes overburden the womenwith work related to natural resource conservation, biodiversityconservation and free contribution of labour to community workthat does not bring them any direct monetary benefit. Hence,government programmes need to urgently address the problems oflow wages, lack of incentives for work, lack of skills and access toresources. Most of the organisations do not touch upon the issuesrelated to higher income work opportunities, upward economicmobility, property rights and rights such as equal wages for equalwork. In addition since poor labour households in backwarddistricts need more income, Employment Guarantee Schemesshould pay special attention to create tailored-made employmentopportunities for women at stipulated minimum wages to helpthem in the short run. They may be employed in water conser-vation, regeneration of forests, and other environmental resto-ration activities that would also enhance the availability of water,

fuelwood and other free goods from common property resources,such as wild foods. Similarly, in the backward districts withhigher percentage of women cultivators, right to land and accessto credit and technology are of utmost importance. Gender justicethrough equal wages, equal opportunities of upward mobility,right to land, avenues of acquiring of skills, are as important torural women, as the community participation and gainful self-employment and credit in wage-based livelihood system.

Email: svepa@mssrf.res.in

Notes1 Anuradha Talwar and Swapan Gunguly, ‘Feminisation of India’s Agricul-

tural Workforce’, West Bengal Agricultural Workers Union, 2001-2002.2 Census data of 1991 and 2001 are not comparable in the strict sense.

The 2001 Census worker classification as cultivators and agriculturallabourers consists of both main and marginal workers. The 1991 workerclassification is only for main workers. So far the Census 2001 has notbeen released the occupational distribution separately for main and marginalworkers. Census 1991 pertains only to main workers.

3 Asia’s Women in Agriculture, Environment and Rural Production, Countrypapers on Sustainable Development Dimensions 2003, FAO.‘Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in theChanging World’, 2001, FAO – World Bank study.

4 C P Chandra Sekher and Jayati Ghosh ‘Indian Economic Reform Processand the Implications of South-East Asian Crisis’, Employment and TrainingDepartment, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1999.

5 Food Insecurity Atlas of Urban India, October 2002, MSSRF.6 NSS Report No 470, ‘Migration in India’, 55th Round 1999-2000, p 22.7 Atlas of the Sustainability of Food Security in India 2004, MSSRF and

WFP.

���