AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION

AGRICULTURAL POPULATION

THE DATA COLLECTED DURING THE CENSUS YEARS 1911, 1921 and 1931 cannot be compared directly with each other, nor can it be taken to be representative in all respects in as much as the basis of classification, the method of collection, the scope as well as purview of enquiry have all undergone a significant change during successive census years. However, with a view to studying the changes in the pattern of employment in Ratnagiri district since the beginning of 20th century, it will be worthwhile to take a note of the broad trends as are easily discernible from the data.

TABLE No 1.

STATEMENT SHOWING POPULATION AND PRINCIPAL EARNERS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS IN RATNAGIRI DISTRICT [Excluding figures for the former Sawantwadi State.] DURING 1911, 1921, AND 1931.

continued..

	C over B		C over A
	+ or -	Percentage	+ or -	Percentage
(1) Total Population	+1,48,283	12.8	+ 98,889	8.2
(2) Total Principal Earners	- 76,593	1.4	- 1,44,787	2.4
(3) Pastures and Agriculture	- 48,427	11.0	- 22,028	5.3
(4) Ordinary Cultivators	--	--	--	--
(5) Cultivating Owners	--	--	--	--
(6) Tenant Cultivators	--	--	--	--
(7) Stock Raising	--	--	--	--
(8) Forestry	--	--	--	--
(3) Farm Servants and Labourers	--	--	--	--

N. A.=.Not available.

The total population of Ratnagiri district decreased by 4.1 per cent, from 12,03,638 in 1911 to 11,54,244 in 1921 which again increased to 13,02,527 in 1931. Population in 1931 represented an increase of 12.8 per cent, over that of 1921 and an increase of 8.2 per cent, compared to that of 1911. Corresponding to the decline in population between 1911 and 1921, the group of 'total principal earners' also registered a decrease of 11.1 per cent, from 6,10,929 to 5,42,735 during the same period. However, number of persons engaged in 'pastures and agriculture' increased by 6.4 per cent, from 4,12,423 in 1911 to 4,38,322 in 1921. The group of principal earners recorded a further decrease of 1.4 per cent, from 5,42,735 in 1921 to 4,66,142 which meant a decrease of 2.4 per cent, when compared to that in 1911. Employment in 'pastures and agriculture' also declined by as much as 11.0 per cent, from 4,38,822 in 1921 to 3,90,395 in 1931. Employment in this group in 1931 showed a decrease of 5.3 per cent, when compared to that in 1911. It will be significant to note here that employment in 'industry' was on the increase during successive census years.

As can be seen from the table No. 1 the decline in the number of 'principal earners' and the fall in the level of employment in the group 'pastures and agriculture' between 1911 and 1931 are spread over the various heads of classification namely ' cultivating owners', ' tenant cultivators ', ' stock raising' and ' forestry'. ' Farm servants and labourers' however registered substantial increase from 38,244 in 1921 to 2,59,609 in 1931 which may be explained by two factors:

(1) increase in total population between 1921 and 1931 and

(2) decrease in other categories of employment as mentioned earlier.

Of the 17,11,964 persons returned as inhabitants of Ratnagiri district according to 1951 census, nearly 69 per cent, followed agriculture as their main occupation. It is not possible to analyse the changes in the structure of agricultural population since the publication of the last Gazetteers (1880) the reasons being, (1) the decennial census figures for the past seventy years are not comparable because of the changes in the methods of enumeration and of occupational classification from census to census and (2) the reconstitution of the district in 1949 consequent upon the merger of the adjoining Sawantwadi State and other territorial adjustments which make the comparison of 1951 returns with those of the preceding years difficult. However a broad indication of the structural changes underlying the population movements can be obtained by analysing the classification of population in all the censuses as rural [At every census a population of 5,000 marks the dividing line between a rural and an urban area.] which includes persons engaged in agriculture and allied occupations as also those in non-agricultural occupations. In 1951, out of 15,53,858 rural and 1,58,106 urban population, nearly 74 per cent, and 23 per cent, respectively belonged to agricultural classes.

An area does not remain a rural one indefinitely because any growth in its population would give it an urban background. Hence we cannot consider the growth of rural population in isolation over a period of time. The table below shows the growth of rural and urban population at the past censuses.

TABLE No. 2.

RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION (1881-1951), RATNAGIRI DISTRICT.

The table reveals that during the period of over last 70 years the proportion of rural to total population has remained more or less unchanged, the magnitude of variation being between 93.1 and 94.8. This gives the district its predominantly rural character.

However the rural-urban ratio varies from taluka to taluka. The following table shows talukawise distribution of rural population in 1951:

TABLE No. 3.

RURAL POPULATION, RATNAGIRI DISTRICT (TALUKAWISE) 1951.

Urban population accounted for nine per cent, in 1951. The density of population was heavy viz. 344 per sq. mile in 1951. Urbanisation is restricted only to a few places like Chiplun, Malvan, Ratnagiri, Vengurla and Sawantwadi which fact could be attributed to their location as trade or taluka centres. The following table shows, the growth of towns in the district during the last seventy years:

TABLE No. 4,

URBAN POPULATION IN RATNAGIRI DISTRICT, 1951.

N.A. = Not available.

There were 13 towns in 1951. Of these, however, the towns which are also taluka headquarters, are important while the rest owe their growth to the natural increase of population and promotion of villages to urban category. Chiplun has got an interesting position and illustrates the influence of physical configuration on urbanisation and is also an important trade centre. Ratnagiri is the district headquarters. Malvan and Vengurla are important for their trading activity in cashewnuts.

It will be observed that the rate of growth of these towns is rather slow except in the case of Ratnagiri. Even in the last decade, which was characterised by. unprecedented rate of growth of (urban) population all over the country, the rate of increase in the population of these towns has been rather meagre, which was due to the poor response of the surroundings. Trade, industry and communication are in a backward state. Large scale emigration from the district, mainly to Greater Bombay, is also of direct relevance. Of the total population of the district viz. 17,11,964 in 1951, 4,10,999 persons born in Ratnagiri district were enumerated in Greater Bombay. Owing to the poverty of the tract, the populace (mostly rural) has always sought employment in factories and offices outside the confines of its home district.

The following tables give the number of persons engaged in agriculture and in various allied occupations:

TABLE No. 5.

POPULATION ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE, RATNAGIRI DISTRICT (1951).

TABLE No. 6.

POPULATION ENGAGED IN ALLIED AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS, RATNAGIRI DISTRICT (1951).

The number of persons following agriculture as their main source of livelihood was 11,89,662 and included self-supporting persons and their dependents, both earning and non-earning. Agriculture also provided a source of supplementary income to 2,57,268 persons. The proportion of owner cultivators is the highest (56 per cent, of agricultural population); which, though indicative of a healthy social trend, is not necessarily an index of agricultural prosperity for which, besides ownership, factors such as alluvial soil, irrigation facilities etc. are also equally important The proportion of tenant cultivators was also high (38 per cent.). The proportion of agricultural labourers was very low (just four per cent.) for the simple reason that the number of tenant cultivators was quite large. The proportion of landlords was still smaller (two per cent). This does not mean that landlordism in Ratnagiri district was not a problem. The high proportion of tenants disproves it. It was due to the fact that the landlords in question had large holdings.

An important point to be noted about livelihood classes is that they are not mutually exclusive; joint means of livelihood are quite common because the income an individual obtains from the cultivation of his own land or from agricultural labour may not be sufficient for his maintenance. This mixed character, however, complicates analysis of figures. For instance, if all the tenants (class II) had held their lands from landlords (class IV) alone, the analysis would have been simple and a landlord-tenant ratio would have indicated the circumstances under which land might be leased out to tenants. But owing to the mixed character " of the livelihood classes, this ratio does not convey whether a person belonging to class II holds land from a big landholder (of class IV) who lets out his land to a number of tenants or from the widow of a small landholder who was obliged to lease out land which her husband used to cultivate personally, or from a person in livelihood class I who found it convenient to lease his excess land to a tenant, or from a person who might not be an agriculturist at all. A high ratio at the most may be said to suggest that the ranks of class IV include landholders with large" holdings of land.

The number of persons engaged in occupations allied to agriculture was 1,655 most of. whom were independent workers engaged in stock raising (1,023), rearing of small animals and insects (7), plantation industries (393) and forestry (232).

TOP