Contract Farming Capital And State Corporatisation Of Indian Agriculture 1St Edition Ritika Shrimali full chapter pdf docx

Contract Farming, Capital and State:
Corporatisation of Indian Agriculture

1st Edition Ritika Shrimali
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/contract-farming-capital-and-state-corporatisation-of-i
ndian-agriculture-1st-edition-ritika-shrimali/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Farming System And Sustainable Agriculture Alok Kumar

Patra
https://ebookmass.com/product/farming-system-and-sustainable-
agriculture-alok-kumar-patra/
Key Concepts in Agriculture and Farming Hazem Shawky

Fouda
https://ebookmass.com/product/key-concepts-in-agriculture-and-
farming-hazem-shawky-fouda/
Justifying Contract in Europe : Political Philosophies

of European Contract Law Martijn W. Hesselin
https://ebookmass.com/product/justifying-contract-in-europe-
political-philosophies-of-european-contract-law-martijn-w-
hesselin/
Capital Structure Dynamics in Indian MSMEs Farooq Ahmad

Shah And Nufazil Altaf
https://ebookmass.com/product/capital-structure-dynamics-in-
indian-msmes-farooq-ahmad-shah-and-nufazil-altaf/
Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason 1st
Edition David Harvey
https://ebookmass.com/product/marx-capital-and-the-madness-of-
economic-reason-1st-edition-david-harvey/
13 Indian History Model Test Paper for UPSC & State PSC
2nd Edition Edition Krishna Reddy
https://ebookmass.com/product/13-indian-history-model-test-paper-
for-upsc-state-psc-2nd-edition-edition-krishna-reddy/
Capital and Ressentiment : A Short Theory of the

Present 1st Edition Joseph Vogl
https://ebookmass.com/product/capital-and-ressentiment-a-short-
theory-of-the-present-1st-edition-joseph-vogl/
Capital Allocation 1st Edition David R. Giroux
https://ebookmass.com/product/capital-allocation-1st-edition-
david-r-giroux/
Financial Capital in the 21st Century: A New Theory of

Speculative Capital (Marx, Engels, and Marxisms) 1st
ed. 2022 Edition Achim Szepanski
https://ebookmass.com/product/financial-capital-in-the-21st-
century-a-new-theory-of-speculative-capital-marx-engels-and-
marxisms-1st-ed-2022-edition-achim-szepanski/
Ritika Shrimali
Contract Farming,
Capital and State
Corporatisation of
Indian Agriculture
Contract Farming, Capital and State
“At a time when the Indian State is thrusting Contract Farming on the Indian
farmers despite the latter’s fierce resistance which has become a national upsurge
and brought thousands of protesters to the gates of Delhi where they have
camped in bitter cold for months, this study of Contract Farming and the
corporatization of agriculture, is both apposite and valuable. Based on extensive
field work and insightful analysis this is a truly pioneering work.”
—Prabhat Patnaik, Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies and
Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
“A book that could not be more timely: researched in the region at the heart
of India’s green revolution now at the heart of a new corporate agriculture
which controls production by controlling everything except the land. Read the
background in this book to learn why India’s 2020 Farm Laws have provoked
perhaps the largest protest in world history.”
—Barbara Harriss-White, FAcSS, Emeritus Professor and Fellow,
Wolfson College, Oxford University, UK
“Contract farming is restructuring rural livelihoods around the developing world,

with profound implications for the well-being of the women, men and their fami-
lies that live in the countryside, and beyond. Based on extensive fieldwork, Ritika
Shrimali’s new book brings fresh and important insights into the dynamics and
ramifications of these processes, and in particular the interface between farmers,
capital and the state, with important implications for India and beyond. Contract
Farming, Capital and State should be widely read, and will be welcomed by all
those engaged in agrarian political economy.”
—Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Professor of Economics and International Development
Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada; Editor-in-Chief,
Canadian Journal of Development Studies
Ritika Shrimali
Contract Farming,
Capital and State
Corporatisation of Indian Agriculture
Ritika Shrimali
Center for Global Studies
Huron University College
Western University
London, ON, Canada
ISBN 978-981-16-1933-5 ISBN 978-981-16-1934-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1934-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover image: © Ekely/Getty Images
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
This work is dedicated to my lifelines:
papa, ma, didi, Mey, Anahad and Arihan.
And to all the hardworking and toiling millions across the world who do
not know where their next meal is coming from.
Foreword
It is a paradoxical trait of the market economy that while producers need

access to the market, such access is not automatic. The problem of how
to guarantee market access to producers is an important one. This is espe-
cially so for farmers, because farm products are perishable and because as
low-income property-owners, farmers need to sell their products quickly
in order to obtain the financial resources to pay their bills and clear their
loans.
Before the 1990s, it was believed that farmers’ access to the market
should and could be guaranteed by the state. Times have changed. Many
now believe that the big business can provide the farmers guaranteed
access to the market for their agricultural products and for a good price.
It is this ‘belief’, one that reflects objective material interests of the big
companies, that has led to a new government policy in India which aims
to promote contract farming throughout the country. Farmers have been
protesting against this policy and similar other anti-farmer policies since
November 2020.
This book by Dr. Shrimali could not have come at a more opportune
time. To those farmers who had fallen for contract farming, she could say,
‘I told you so’. On reading her book, the readers will better understand
why the farmers are protesting. They are protesting against specific poli-
cies such as the one on contract farming [‘Farmers (Empowerment and
Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act’]. They
vii
viii FOREWORD
are also protesting against something that is common to the different poli-
cies: increasing corporate influence on agriculture in India. And that is the
general focus of her book.
Based in her doctoral dissertation (which, with full disclosure, I had
the honour of supervising) Dr. Shrimali’s book deals with a series of
inter-connected themes: how it is that domestic and foreign industrial
and financial companies control farming activities through the strategy of
contract farming which is already being practiced in certain parts of the
country; what (adverse) effects does this process have on economic and
social development; and in what ways do the state policies contribute to
the deepening and widening corporate influence on farming?
There are several conceptual innovations in the book. One of these
concerns the topic of what is called accumulation by dispossession on
which there is a lot of literature. She rightly argues that in the developing
world and generally, there can be a lot of accumulation without disposses-
sion (of small-scale owners’ juridical control over property), and this can
happen on the basis of, for example, contract farming.
While contract farming represents relations between two kinds of
property-owners, or between two kinds of capitalists (big capitalists and
capitalist contract farmers), reading the book will convince you that the
relationship is anything but equal. The quantitative difference in the
magnitude of capital of big companies and of farmers produces a qual-
itative difference between them, one that points to the vulnerability
of farmers. Contract farming is anything but empowering as far as the
farmers are concerned. The more general idea here is that the market is
a space of economic coercion and constraints and not just of opportuni-
ties. While the business world and the state see the market as a network
of horizontal and harmonious relations among commodity producers, the
market has important vertical and therefore, unequal, relations. These are
the relations between farmers and different sections of capital, as the book
shows.
The book is also shaped by some fundamental philosophical and theo-
retical principles. One is that to understand anything in the world, it is
necessary to understand social relations, mechanisms, and their effects.
She applies this principle ingeniously to the conceptualization of contract
farming. Contract farming is not a thing (or a set of things), although
it is partly that. Contract farming is seen as based on a series of rela-
tions such as the ones just mentioned. Another principle is that one can
never understand economic processes without understanding the state.
FOREWORD ix
She applies this idea to the study of contract farming in terms of the
various government policies over time that have created the conditions
where some farmers are economically forced to enter into contracts with
big companies, and that have actively enabled contract farming.
The book is clearly based on conceptual labour. It is based on a massive
amount of empirical work too: indeed, it is heavily based on evidence
which has come from months of fieldwork in multiple rounds. She has
conducted semi-structured interviews with executives of big companies,
farmers, labourers, policy experts, and government officials. She has made
use of much statistical material from various sources. She actually loves
being in the field where she learns about common people’s everyday expe-
riences and about the processes behind it. I only wish that there was a little
more discussion on rural labour issues.
Dr. Shrimali’s research is solidly and unabashedly informed by the
Marxist political economy. She draws productively from classical and
contemporary Marxists, both from India and from Europe and North
America.
Her book deals with an important aspect of the rural/agrarian polit-
ical economy and India’s development. It will be of interest to advanced
students and professors in Development Studies, Agrarian Studies, South
Asian studies, Critical Business studies, Globalization studies, Political
economy, Human geography, and many other cognate fields.
March 2021 Raju J. Das

York University, Toronto, Canada
Professor, Author of Critical Reflections on Economy
and Politics in India: A Class Theory Perspective, and
The Political Economy of the New India
Acknowledgments
This project in essence, defines my life.

This project has been transformative for me in more than one way. To
acknowledge all the people who have been part of my journey feels like
an uphill task, that I will attempt nonetheless.
It would have been easier if I could define and distinguish my life
between academic, personal, and political commitments. In absence of
that, this project has been my life in more than one way, even as I
have struggled to sustain myself by continuously attempting to find a life
outside of the academy. This book is a culmination of my fourteen-year
bitter-sweet relationship within and outside Academia.
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge all the labour and migrant
workers whom I interviewed in Punjab during my fieldwork between
2007 and 2012. Without you, I would not have questioned the relevance
of academia for ordinary lives. Without you, I would not have dared to
write a book that is accessible and jargon-free. I admit it is still written in
a language that you do not read or write. But I hope it is still accessible to
those who can make a difference in your lives. Your daily struggles inspire
me to keep doing the work that I have set myself to do. I dream that your
struggles will end. And with that hope, I write.
At York University, I would not have survived graduate school without
the unconditional support and guidance from my supervisor and mentor,
Raju Das. He has been instrumental in making me see the ‘light’ of crit-
ical thinking. I cannot thank him enough for introducing me to the world
xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
of Marx and Marxist Thought. His passion and commitment for crit-
ical thinking are contagious. I fondly remember our multiple hour-long
sessions discussing Capital Volume 1. I have learned a lot from him about
teaching, research, pedagogy, and being human. He has been my real
guru in every sense of the word. Thank you, Raju for being a strong
pillar of support in my journey.
My dissertation committee members, Philip Kelly and Ananya
Mukherjee-Reed have seen this project through its inception. They have
stood by me against many odds and I am grateful for their tireless
support. I have always been humbled by their invaluable encouragement
and rigorous engagement at every step of the project.
I cannot thank Daljit Ami enough for guiding, mentoring, and helping
me out with the fieldwork in Punjab. Without his network of amazing
friends and comrades, I would not have accomplished half the work that I
had set myself to do. Daljit continues to be my guide and comrade. Thank
you Daljit, once again. Its been an absolute honour to have known you
and worked with you. Here’s hoping to do more work together in the
future.
Sharing my work through teaching has also been a treasurable expe-
rience. I always keep my students in mind while writing, because it is
through them that I learn the most about epistemology, methodology,
and pedagogy. Over the years, my students at York University, Ryerson
University, and Huron University College at Western University, have
been the most critical and relentless audience of my work. Thank you.
MELLT meetings at York University have been a source of much-
needed space to continue intellectual conversations beyond grad school.
I offer my thanks to all the members—Charvaak Pati, Rob Bridi,
Sudarshana Bordoloi, Mizhar Mikati, Asutosha Acharya, Leah, Ashley,
Rupinder, Jarren, and Josh, for reading and engaging my work over the
years. They all have been my primary internal and external committees.
Thank you all for your comradery and continuing intellectual support.
In addition, I want to thank the following people for their friend-
ships over the years. Thanks to JP, Adam, Sally, Rob, and Andrew for our
‘Thursday dinner clubs’. I could not have survived my first year in grad
school without you all. Nishant, Deepa, Sudarshana, Ajay, Ritu, Salloni,
Jaby, Ashutosha, Charvak—you were the reason why Canada started to
finally feel like home. Friends from Mississauga and Brampton (part of
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit) and Kitch-
ener (situated on land that is the traditional home of the Haudenosaunee,
Anishinaabe, and Neutral People), thank you for showing me a life outside
of academia. And finally, we might be on either side of the Canadian coast,
but Shriya, thanks for always being there for me, with me, through the
many many lows and some highs of my post-Ph.D. life. I just have to
thank my stars that my best bud from JK is living in the same country as
me and we are just a 4-hour time-zone apart! It matters. Thank you for
being there, always. I know I can always count on you.
CUPE 3903 provided me access to some amazing people during
my time at York University who have continued to remain friends and
comrades. Friendships with Baolinh, Christina, Dhruv, and Noaman, have
been an integral part of my maturing in Academia.
I cannot thank my parents enough for being the strongest pillars of
supports throughout my life. Ma, papa, I am nothing without you. Thank
you for your unwavering faith in me. Also, I cannot thank you enough for
giving me an elder sister as a lifelong present. Didi! you are my everything.
With you by my side, I need nothing else. I left for Canada when my
nephew Anahad was 2 years old, and now he is 16 and has a mustache!
I still can’t believe it. But I am so proud of you my little boy and I love
you loads.
Arihan, I know you must be searching for your name in this acknowl-
edgment. You remind me that every day can be full of excitement and
amazement. You are my sunshine. You are my hope and my love.
I also want to thank my parents in-law, amma and baba. Their life is
a perfect story of what grit, determination and persistence can achieve.
They have raised two amazing feminist progressive men, my husband and
my brother-in-law, Kanal. Kanal was my constant online buddy during the
grad school days when he was also finishing up his Ph.D. from University
of Northern Carolina around the same time when I was writing up my
dissertation at York. We spent hours talking about the seemingly never-
ending dissertation writing process, the internal politics of what kind of
research gets done and published in ‘pure science disciplines’. He is the
amazing younger brother that I never had.
And finally, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Mey. His unflinching
emotional, intellectual, political support has sustained me, fed me, held
me, and loved me for fifteen years now. In more than one way, he has
taught me the foundational skills to survive in this world. He has taught
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
me how to cook, what to cook, what it means to eat well, the importance
of having a routine. In so many ways he has become my true guardian.
I could not have done this without you. Nandri, Shukriya, Thank you.
Love you.
Contents
1 Introduction and Rethinking Contract Farming 1

2 Punjab: An Intertesting Place to Study Agrarian
Change 25
3 Understanding the Social Relations of Contract
Farming 39
4 Stating the (Not So) Obvious: The ‘Interventionist
Neoliberal State’ in India 65
5 Understanding CF: CF as a Strategy to Enable
Dispossession-Free Accumulation Strategy 101
6 Implications of CF 01: Technology Rhetoric
in Contract Farming 123
7 Implications 02: Social Effects of Contract Farming 147
8 Conclusion: Are the Global Agri-corporates Saving
the Third World Peasantry? 173
xv
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Conceptualisation of research project (The diagram

has been adapted from Sayer [1992, 237]) 11
Fig. 1.2 Alternative framework to conceptualise contract farming
(Source by Author) 12
Fig. 4.1 Agriculture development through five-year plans (Source
Government of India, Planning Commission Five
Year Plans (1956–2012) along with author’s own
assessment of the phases. Note Some scholars like
Rao (1996), have divided the phases of Agricultural
Development into Pre-Green Revolution, Green
Revolution and De-licensing and De-regulation Phase
followed by Recent trends) 68
Fig. 4.2 Indian State offers enabling Environment
to the agribusiness corporations to facilitate CF
(Source © Supriya Sahai) 69
Fig. 4.3 Sector wise FDI inflows in Agriculture of India
from 2013–2014 to 2016–2017 in US $ Million (Source
Parliamentary Question, Rajya Sabha session 241,
Unstarred Question No. 342, 2017) 79
Fig. 4.4 Public and Private Sector seed availability from 2009
to 2013 (Source Parliamentary Question 2012 (b) 2012;
Parliamentary Question Hour 2013) 83
Fig. 4.5 Share of direct and indirect credit in total agricultural
credit since 2000s (Source Ramakumar and Chavan 2014,
61; Sattiraju 2017) 85
xvii
xviii LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 6.1 Market volume of tracyro manufacturers (2015–2018) 137

Fig. 6.2 Net sales (in crores) of agro-chemical corporations
in India, Nauary 2014 138
Fig. 7.1 Depeasantisation trend amidst Punjabi farmers: cost
of agriculture Inputs in Punjab (1970–2005) (Source
Raghavan 2008) 164
Fig. 7.2 Trend of depeasantisation amidst the farmers (Source
Singh et al. 2007) 165
Fig. 7.3 Category-wise trend of depeasantization in Punjab (%)
(Source Singh and Bhogal 2014; Singh et al. 2007, 17) 165
Fig. 7.4 Percentage of land sold by peasntry in different
geographical regions of Punjab (Source Singh et al. 2007) 166
Map 2.1 Percentage of farmers with more than 10 acres

of operational land involved with CF in Punjab districts
(Source Compiled from Pattanaik et al. [2008]) 28
Map 2.2 Geographical concentration of contract farming in India
(Source Compiled from multiple sources—[Ministry
of Agriculture 2005; FICCI Internal Document 2007;
Singh and Gautam 2007; Parliamentary Question-Rajya
Sabha Unstarred Question no. 1806 2007; Interviewee,
Senior Official, McCain Foods 2010; Interviewee, Field
Agent 2009; Interviewee, Senior Official, Pepsi Foods
2007]) 30
Map 2.3 Geography of credit worthiness (Source Fieldwork
Interview with Senior Official at Om Kotak Mahindra
Bank 2010) 32
List of Plates
Plate 3.1 Publicity pamphlets of Bayer for farmers in Punjab

written in local Punjabi language (© Bayer India [Crop
Science Division]) 43
Plate 3.5 The high-solid, low-sugar round potato allows for a total
golden chip as against burnt chips from the local
varieties, which have high-sugar and low-solid content.
Publicity Material from PepsiCo India. © PepsiCo India 57
Plate 6.1 Potato wide row farming on contract farms in Punjab
for PepsiCo, 2009. These wide rows are used for furrow
irrigation meant to reduce the impact of water erosion
in periods of excessive rain (Source © Author) 125
Plate 6.2 Deep Chiseler developed by PepsiCo. It is used
to sharpen the hard pan formed at 8–9 depth of soil
due to shallow tillage resulting in compaction of lower
solid zone (Source © PepsiCo India) 126
xix
xx LIST OF PLATES
Plate 6.3 Bed Maker—developed by PepsiCo. It ensures

uniform raised bed formation for cultivation of chilli
and for nursery raising of vegetable crops (Source ©
PepsoCo India) 127
Plate 6.4 Pepsi’s Plastic Mulch Technology for groundnuts. Plastic
Sheets roll out of the machine and cover the seeds
(Source © PepsiCo India) 127
Plate 6.5 Power Tiller to prepare wide rows in fields (Source
Fieldwork, Publicity Material in AgriTech Mela, 2009) 129
Plate 6.6 Precision equipment to conserve water and increase
productivity (Source © Photo by Author) 130
Plate 6.7 Fertigation and chemigation equipment room at Bharti’s
FieldFresh Farm in Ladowal, Punjab, 2009 (Source ©
Photo by Author) 131
Plate 6.8 Lining of the experiment farm with various supply points
to maintain the soil for fertility—at Bharti’s FieldFresh
Farm in Ladowal, Punjab, 2009 (Source © Photo
by Author) 131
Plate 6.9 Bell Peppers growing out of ‘application beds’ at Bharti’s
FieldFresh Farm in Ladowal, Punjab, 2009 (Source ©
Photo by Author) 132
Plate 6.10 Use of Micro-irrigation system on Bharti’s FieldFresh
Farm, Ladowal, Ludhiana, 2009 (Source © Photo
by Author) 133
Plate 6.11 Board outside the greenhouse at Bharti FieldFresh’s
farm in Ladowal, Punjab. This board shows the specific
seed variety that Bharti uses to grow baby corn (Source
© Photo by Author) 134
Plate 7.1 Copy of a general contract agreement, Ludhiana (Source
© Photo by Author with permission from Authorities) 149
Plate 7.2 Attendance Record managed by labour coordinator
at Nex Gen Farmers (Source © Photo by Author
with permission from authorities) 160
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Major corporations (productive capital) involved with CF

in Punjab 53
Table 6.1 Cropping calendar of farmers after adopting contract
farming, 2013 136
Table 6.2 Average wholesale prices for agricultural inputs
2008–2012 139
Table 6.3 Gross Margin for JISL Contract Farmers versus farmers
selling to Traditional Market 142
Table 7.1 Increase in capital investment per acre on fields
of contract farmers vs non-contract farmers 162
Table 7.2 Cargill seeds for Sunflower grown via contract farming
in Punjab 163
xxi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction and Rethinking Contract

Farming
Introduction
The book is about corporate control over agricultural production through
contract farming (CF). In CF, farmers sell a certain quantity of farm prod-
ucts to an industrial company at a predetermined price. In this process,
and in principle, the industrial company has secure access to the raw
material it needs, and the farmers have a secure market. CF raises some
interesting questions that this book seeks to address. Why are companies
interested in CF, and how does the state enable CF? What are the actual
mechanisms of CF? Do farmers and farm labour benefit from CF?
The Indian state, in particular, follows a rather ruthless form of
agriculture intervention that is actively reshaping the Indian food produc-
tion pattern and replacing it with the production of luxury food items,
primarily for the ‘West’ through farming initiatives such as CF. The book
is informed by an understanding that corporate control over agrarian
production is increasing. The production process involving sowing of
seeds, crop chemicals, harvesting, post-harvest care, processing, etc., are
in the control of a few agribusiness corporations. I argue that CF is
one such profit-driven agrarian production system resulting in increasing
corporate control over Indian agriculture.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
R. Shrimali, Contract Farming, Capital and State,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1934-2_1
2 R. SHRIMALI
The Brenner debate,1 as it has come to be called is one of the most

important historical debates of recent years. The debate, though not yet
conclusive, has been significant in pointing out the role of productive
forces and production relations in shaping the nature of nation-state-
specific capitalism. The scholars in India also initiated a similar debate
on classes and mode of production, popularly known as The Mode of
Production Debate. This debate has been succintly summarised in a three-
part paper published in Economic and Political Weekly by Alice Thorner
(1982). This debate is also far from being conclusive. However, it suffices
to say that the nature of capitalism in India continues to transform, partic-
ularly in the ‘rural countryside’ since the year 2000. This transformation,
termed as ‘Agrarian Neoliberalism’ (Das 2012), is actively reshaping the
Indian food production pattern and replacing it with the production
of crops that are driven by consumer demands from advanced capitalist
countries. At times the demand for change in agriculture production is
driven by ‘food-feed-fuel’ crisis. This results in the cultivation of flex-
ible crops like jatropha (Weis 2013). Such transformation in agriculture
production is largely being done through farming initiatives such as CF.
In other words, CF is widening capitalist class relations in rural India.
But, how did CF come to be?
The World Development Report, 2008

To understand the development of CF in India, one needs to look back at
The World Bank Development Report (henceforth WDR) on Agriculture
for Development—2008. The report brought agriculture to the centre of
the development agenda. It generated a lot of debate among scholars.
In 2009 Journal of Peasant Studies and Journal of Agrarian Change,
two of the most influential journals in the agrarian political economy,
carried a series of commentaries on the implication of the WDR in various
countries of the world. Scholars of repute contributed to this collection.
For instance (Hall 2009; Akram-Lodhi 2009; Kepe 2009; Murray Li
2009; Veltmeyer 2009) wrote for Journal of Peasant Studies (Amanor
2009; McMichael 2009; Oya 2009; Rizzo 2009; Woodhouse 2009) for
Journal of Agrarian Change. Without getting into the details of the
individual contributions, it is sufficient to say that the criticism of the
1 For details, read Brenner (1986). The debate has also been publishsed in one volume,
edited by Aston and Philpin (2005).
1 INTRODUCTION AND RETHINKING CONTRACT FARMING 3
World Bank Report was well -founded in the sense that it was effectively
asking to reconfigure agrarian relations in the countries that are primarily
dependent on agriculture as a source of livelihood and sustenance.
There are three parts to the WDR. In the first part, the report focuses
on the question of what can agriculture do for the development? The
report clearly argues that to reduce poverty amidst smallholders and grow
sustainably, new strategies need to be adopted for agriculture to reach
its full potential. It further argues that for effective development to take
place, it is vital that each country adjusts its agenda according to the
investment opportunities made available (The World Bank 2007, 44).
Using examples from China, India and Ghana, the report shows that
reducing rural poverty means reducing overall poverty reduction. WDR
normalises the language of ‘catching up to development’ and argues that
developing countries have a lot of catching up to do to maintain food
security, and hence the programme suggested will be beneficial for them
(ibid., 68). Therefore, to reduce overall poverty and to support food secu-
rity, the report advocates improving agriculture production. The second
section of the report discusses effective instruments for using agriculture
for development. The focus is on the role of agribusiness for development
and in what ways agriculture can be brought to the market. Specifi-
cally, the report creates a need for producers to be linked to modern
supply chains and how high-value exports need to be produced to reduce
poverty. It emphasises the need to focus on capturing the benefits of
genetically modified organisms for the poor, and the range of institutional
arrangements that need to be made to make that possible. Section “Liter-
ature Review” focuses on four policy objectives that countries should
focus on to advance agriculture for the development agenda.
In other words, the idea of ‘Agriculture for Development’ lays down
subtly what the States need to do in terms of policymaking that would
create conditions conducive to capital accumulation in the agriculture
sector. Whereas the report does not specify anything about ‘contract farm-
ing’, it does talk about the need to support smallholders through better
land and financial policies that can increase their competitiveness. In this
sense, it is argued that when small landholders get linked to agribusi-
nesses via CF, poverty can be reduced. Consequently, the impetus to
support CF-led agricultural operations has led many developing coun-
tries to produce non-traditional export crops under CF. These emerging
‘New Agriculture Countries’ (NACs) include, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Latin
America, Thailand and India (Nanda 1995).
4 R. SHRIMALI
Literature Review
Contract Farming (CF) is about corporate control over agricultural
production. In CF, farmers sell a certain quantity of farm products to
an industrial company at a predetermined price. In this process, and in
principle, the industrial company has a secure access to the raw mate-
rial it needs, and the farmers have a secure market. CF is a world-wide
phenomenon. The existing literature on CF sheds light on several aspects
of CF and is briefly reviewed below.
Contract Farmers Earn More Returns on Their Investment

Literature shows that contract farmers have been able to see a big jump
in their income. In a recent report published by Food and Agricul-
ture Organisation, it was found that CF is able to create more shared
value and create sustainable partnerships for farmers who opted to get
into contracts (Pledran et al. 2019). Farmers are earning more due to
reduced transaction costs, increased technology access and credit access
(Birthal et al. 2005, 2; Key and Runsten 1999, 387). One of the prin-
cipal motives for farmers to enter into a CF arrangement is the promise
of having an assured market to sell their produce. That is, the farmers
prefer the assured buy-back rate of the corporations as it provides them
with financial stability. For instance, by reducing their transactions costs
(information cost of finding the price, or the labour required to bring
a good to the market, or communication charges), the contract farmer
is able to plan their financial year ahead (Pritchard and Connell 2011,
238; Njuki et al. 2011, 438; Porter and Phillips Howard 1997, 235;
Porter and Phillips Howard 1995, 68). Studies show that incomes from
CF increased from a moderate (30–40%) to a high (50–60%) proportion
of participants (Little 1994, 221). In an IFPRI study, 51% of the contract
farmers reported a slight increase, and another 25% perceived a signifi-
cant increase in their income from CF Schemes (Miyata et al. 2009, 19).
Studies from Africa, India, South East Asia and, Latin America, reveal that
CF contributes to smallholder’s welfare by improving income (Masuka
2012, 580; Chakraborty 2009, 88; Erappa 2006, 36; Anim 2011, 5066;
Singh 2002, 1622–32; Gill and Gill 1990, 2509; Setboonsarng 2008,
4; Glover and Kusterer 1990, 7). Since the start of the CF operations,
income has been steady for contract farmers in Latin America (Clapp
1988, 15). The definite improvement in the farmers’ household income
from such schemes generated productivity gains in other household activ-

ities in Zimbabwe (Jones and Gibbon 2011, 1600). The increase in
revenue of contract farmers in Ghana is a direct consequence of the rise
in the cost of production and the efficiency gains from the adoption of
better technology, management, and production practices (Trebbin and
Franz 2010, 2051).
Getting an assured buy-back market with a ‘reasonably’ fair price
proved good for contract farmers in Lao PDR and Cambodia (Setboon-
sarng 2008, 3). Access to a ready market, in the absence of the State’s
ability to provide an alternative, is an important reason why contract
farmers in Mexico (Echanove and Steffen 2005, 166) or in Malawi and
Uganda (Njuki et al. 2011, 426) get involved with CF. In another
example from the catfish sector in Vietnam, it was found that the verti-
cally integrated contract farms had substantially higher yields and revenue
per hectare than non-integrated farms (Trifkovic 2016).
CF is seen as a vehicle to introduce new on-farm technologies (Watts
1994, 34), making it investment-intensive. For instance, investment in
tractors and allied equipment, irrigation structures and farm infrastruc-
ture, etc., has increased on contract farms (Sharma 2007, 38; Johl
1986, 11; Setboonsarng 2008, 5; Clapp 1988, 9; Glover and Kusterer
1990, 9). The use of patented seeds also increases the cost of cultiva-
tion for the farmer (Punjabi 2008). In India, agri-input industries in
seed, fertilisers, agro-chemicals—such as Escorts Ltd., Tata Chemicals,
DCSCL, Mahindra Shubhlabh, ITC, etc. have spread out their operations
significantly since the late 1990s (Sharma 2007, 26; Pal 2008, 150).
Contract Farming Is a Way to Alleviate Poverty for Small Land

Holders
Some policy-driven articles argue that CF operations alleviate poverty for
small landholders in developing countries (Kirsten 2002; Bellemare and
Bloem 2018). There are some successful cases of small-scale farmers who
have benefited from CF operations, particularly in the cultivation of horti-
culture crops (Glover 1987, 445; Little and Watts 1994, 5–7; Watts 1994,
34–58; Singh 2002, 1625; 2004, 5584; Sharma 2007, 38; Echanove and
Steffen 2005, 167–70; Setboonsarng 2008, 4–5).
Many crop-specific initiatives have benefited small landholders as well.
In Vietnam, for instance, the government has upgraded rice value chains
6 R. SHRIMALI
by encouraging vertical coordination and horizontal coordination among

farmers through the ‘small farmers, large field’ programme by facilitating a
range of negotiable contracting options (Helene et al. 2019). Smallholder
CF is the primary source of certified cocoa organic exports from Rural
Uganda (Jones and Gibbon 2011, 1599).
Contract Farmers Loose Their Autonomy and Control

One of the central critiques of CF has been that of ‘disguised prole-
tarianization’ (Watts 1992, 1994; Clapp 1994). Scholars have critiqued
evidently unequal economic relations between a global agribusiness
corporation and a small contract farmer. They argue that the contract
farmers are exploited by big companies as they are ‘controlled’ by the
Corporations and they ‘lose their autonomy’ to farm (Singh et al. 2007;
Singh 2002; Ghosh 2003; Clapp 1994; Watts 1992, 1994; Glover and
Kusterer 1990). That is, a contract farmer has to adhere to the speci-
fications of the contract and do as told or instructed. This inability to
experiment and do as instructed, instead, leave them with little freedom
to be innovative in the field (Ghosh 2003; Singh 2002, 2004; Singh et al.
2007; Echanove and Steffen 2005; Wilson 1986).
Discussing the question of control over production process, a recent
and critical work on CF was done in India on potato CF. The research
argues that CF is not an ‘inclusive alternative’ to land grabbing, but it
is a way to control land in rural India (Vicol 2017). In other words, he
argues that land is still central to the idea of capital accumulation in rural
India—a point that I disagree with and have argued against here (Shrimali
2016) and in Chapter 5 of this book.
CF Creates Demand for Cheap Labour

The literature on labour in CF primarily deals with different kinds of
labour (women, migrant and, child) required on contract farms. Labour
requirement has increased on farms where contracted production is
carried out. Little (1994, 225) notes that annual labour requirements for
many horticultural crops exceed five hundred person-days per hectare in
Africa. The hiring of labour by contract farmers, therefore, is widespread.
The demand for labour is seasonal as well as gender-specific (Gwynne
1999; Watts 1994). CF has increased employment opportunities for
women (Sawers 2005, 47) as work on contracted farms requires flexible
and docile labour. These conditions are better met with female labour, as
women are perceived to be homemakers and, therefore, low-cost, sincere,
and more obedient workers than men (Singh 2003, 4; Singh 2002, 1632;
Raynolds 2002, 784; Panini 1999, 2170).
There has been some discussion on differences in wages during harvest
times between labourers. The difference is based on gender and whether
labourer is local or migrant (Singh 2002, 1632; 2003, 10). For instance,
Erappa (2006) writes that with the flow of migrant labourer into the
state, wages of labourers on contract farms get depressed. Clapp (1988,
9) writes that when labourers are required on a contract farm, the farmers
prefer to pay by piece-rate basis rather than a fixed wage.
CF thrives on cheap labour. In San Quintín, located in the Baja Cali-
fornian peninsula, local producers use Oaxacan day labourers for their
agricultural operations (Novo 2004, 218). Hiring of Oaxacan labourers
is possible because temporary migrant labour force is available for wages
below their level of reproduction (Novo 2004, 218; Little 1994, 225).
In Indonesia, ‘failed’ trans-migrants compete with the local population
for jobs on the contracted plantations leading to conflict between them
over both land and jobs (Li 2011, 288). Child labour on a contract farm
also provides a ‘cheaper’ labour option for contract farmers in India and
South Africa (Singh 2002, 1633; Venkateshwarlu and Da Corta 2001,
20; Porter and Phillips Howard 1997, 234).
Rise in Inequality Between Farmers

CF leads to an increase in inequality between contract farmers and those
who are not (Watts 1994, 57; Little 1994, 222–24; Panini 1999, 2170;
Setboonsarng 2008, 4; Chakraborty 2009, 88; Anim 2011, 5067). This
happens because the returns from farming have increased for those who
can invest more in the seeds, crops protection chemicals, etc. (Singh
2002, 1633). In a recent study, it was found that wealthier contract
farmers in northern Tanzania are more likely to receive extension services
from government or private companies. At the same time, the public
sector remains the primary source of extension by smallholders, which
is also sparse. It was recommended that a third-party extension service
would help reach out to the smallholders improving the overall well-
being of the value chain and lives of the people (Jensen et al. 2019).
Linked to the issue of inequality between farmers is the subject of
farmer indebtedness. In a study on sugar CF conducted in Hippo Valley
8 R. SHRIMALI
Estate in Zimbabwe, the authors argue that monopoly capital has gained
significant control in the out-grower scheme, leading to growing farmer
indebtedness (Mazwi 2020).
The case of rising inequality between farmers has been an issue with
the farmers in Punjab. As agriculture is becoming a more economically
unviable option for small farmers in India to pursue, they are leasing out
their land to rich landlords. Singh (2002) has been discussing an increase
in incidences of reverse tenancy since the start of CF in Punjab.
Critique of Literature
The literature on CF argues that small land holders benefit, and it
helps in alleviating poverty. But how small is the ‘small peasant’ on
Contract Farms? Can small peasants be seen as one homogeneous cate-
gory across the world? FAO report on smallholders and traditional
farming communities defines smallholder as:
…Smallholders are small-scale farmers, pastoralists, forest keepers, fishers who

manage areas varying from less than one hectare to 10 hectares… (Altieri
and Koohafkan 2008)
In other words, small peasants are characterised by family-focused motives

such as favouring the stability of the farm household system, using mainly
family labour for production, and using part of the produce for family
consumption. In Latin America, the average size of the landholding is
1.8 ha (approx. 4.5 acres) (Altieri and Koohafkan 2008, 2). In Kenya,
small/middle peasant landholding size is from 1 to 10 acres (Barkan and
Holmquist 1986). In the Canadian context, in his unpublished thesis,
Bridi shows that a small farmer owns less than 100 acres of land (Bridi
2010, 126, 175). This is interesting because owners of 100 acres are not
considered a smallholder in context of developing countries. In other
words, there is no conceptualization of what a ‘small peasant’ includes
in the literature on CF. For instance, in India, beneficiaries of CF have
been medium to large peasants (Singh 2002, 1621; Dhillon and Singh
2006, 27; Sharma 2007, 35). These farmers have access to more than
15 acres of operational land and are willing to take risks to grow crops
on contracts for at the very least 5 acres of their land. Fifteen acres of
operational land might be considered ‘small-scale’ according to the FAO,
but in the context of India, a farmer who has 15 acres of operational
land is not a small/marginal peasant by any standards. Again, to grow

Jatropha in Tamil Nadu, India, agribusiness corporations prefer to work
with farmers with more than 20–25 acres (10–12 ha) of operational land
with irrigation infrastructure for higher yields (Ariza-Montobbio 2010,
887). In India, a peasant with access to 20–25 acres of operational land is
definitely not a smallholder. He is smallholder in comparison to farmers
in the US and Canada.
In the case of Latin America, where the contract crop being grown has
a higher risk of failure, contract farmers are expected to bear this risk—
and in such a situation, the firms have an incentive to contract with larger
growers (Key and Runsten 1999, 386; Korovkin 1992, 229). In Latin
America, 70% of growers came from the wealthiest 20% of local families
(Clapp 1994, 237). Further, in northwestern Mexico, relatively wealthy
Mexican entrepreneurs contract their production with North American
firms, such as Campbell’s and Del Monte (Novo 2004, 215). In Mexico,
too, firms prefer to sign contracts with growers who are ‘large scale’ or
‘medium scale’—with farms of 100–200 ha—primarily to keep their trans-
action costs down. The North American Agri corporations ensure that
apart from access to land, farmers also have access to agriculture infras-
tructure, irrigation water—in other words, have some form of economic
solvency (Echanove and Steffen 2005, 171–74; Gwynne 1999, 221).
In the case of China, agribusiness corporations believe that unless the
contract farmers make the investments, they cannot be trusted to honour
the contract (Guo and Jolly 2008, 571). In such a context, there is an
inherent understanding that small peasant does not have the requisite
resources to invest. That is, if he is poor, then by extension of the argu-
ment, he is also untrustworthy (Guo and Jolly 2008, 571). In another
research article, it was suggested that participation in CF is influenced
by farm sizes, farmer’s age, education, exposure to different farm groups,
etc. (Simmons et al. 2005, 513). That is, there are specific other param-
eters as well that are required to be fulfilled in order to contract out for
the corporations (Barrett et al. 2012, 717). Other parameters include—
access to information, extension visits/technical assistance, membership
in farmer organisation, etc. (Anim 2011, 5065; Masakure and Henson
2005, 1723). This implies that an illiterate farmer with no connec-
tions to outside groups is considered incapable of getting involved with
CF schemes. Apart from that, because CF is a new kind of agriculture
venture, the agribusiness corporations prefer to deal with young, educated
farmers who would be more progressive in their outlook and willing
10 R. SHRIMALI
to experiment. CF scheme of chilies in South India selectively enrolls

participants through ‘progressive farmer’ networks, which organises the
rural spaces by generating new geographies of advantage and opportunity
(Pritchard and Connell 2011, 243).
In other words, it appears that the idea of a small peasant is a tactic that
legitimates direct foreign investment since it touches the ‘sensitive’ chord
of ‘doing something’ for the ‘small’ peasant (Little and Watts 1994, 57).
Agribusiness corporations prefer to work with peasants who have access
to a certain level of infrastructure and the resources to take credit and so
on. In most developing countries, farmers who would have access to such
resources are middle and rich peasants and not small/marginal peasants.
An interesting question that emerges is, in the pretext of promoting
smallholder participation in agriculture, whose interests are being
promoted? The agribusiness capitalists prefer to work with those peasants
who have substantial access to means of production (land, technology,
etc.), who can take loans to buy expensive agri-inputs, who are willing
to take the risk of crop failure. What matters then is the ability of the
peasant to raise the productivity of his land by increasing the consump-
tion of agri-inputs, by employing cheap labour and where economies of
scale can apply.
Second, there is little discussion on the role of the State promoting CF
and to what end? Academic discussion on State is often limited to how
can we improve governance to promote CF.
Third, while scholars have discussed the ‘reduction’ of autonomy of
farmers under contract, they have more or less conceptualised contract
farmers as non-capitalists who do not seek profit. In fact, this literature
contrasts with the literature that discusses an increase in farmers’ income.
Do contract farmers really care about ‘tilling the soil’ in some other way
if the ‘forced method’ fetches them more economic value? It is crucial to
conceptualise contract farmers as a capitalist class that makes CF possible.
Fourth, evidence suggests that access to credit and technology has
led to an increase in income for the contract farmers. However, there is
also evidence that suggests that not all farmers can access CF technology.
Thus, it becomes essential to examine the social nature of CF technology
and its inherent class bias.
Finally, there is little work on understanding how the system of agrarian
production like CF interacts with labourers? What does the labour process
on contract farms look like? How is the labour paid? What are the wages
like? What is the relation of labour process with CF?
Conceptualising Contract Farming

The critical reflections, conceptualization, and analysis of CF are based on
certain principles of philosophy of knowledge. These principles are based
on the assumption that there has to be something similar and something
distinct about the way CF is happening in India and how it is practiced
across the world. For instance, a buy-back rate, an assured market, access
to inputs, etc., are a few commonalities. However, in what ways the case
of Indian CF also different? Here, I specifically focus on the role of the
State and its role in creating conditions of agrarian accumulation. In other
words, the Indian State’s experiment with CF cannot be the same as other
country’s experience and experiment with it (Fig. 1.1).
This research has been influenced by the work of Andrew Sayer (1992),
who advocates a realist approach to social sciences and argues that to
do concrete research studies, actual events, which are unities of several
determinations, need to be first examined through abstract research.
Diagrammatically, this is how my research on CF has been conceived
as a theoretically informed empirically grounded work (Fig. 1.2). In
EVENTS
CONCRETE
Contract Farming is concrete because it is result of multiple relations of

production between productive, finance, mercantile and agrarian capital
MECHANISMS
e.g. STATE and Use of certain mechanical and biochemical technologies
ABSTRACT
STRUCTURE
Corporate Capitalism
Fig. 1.1 Conceptualisation of research project (The diagram has been adapted
from Sayer [1992, 237])
12 R. SHRIMALI
Not crop specific production

strategy, but at a general agrarian
capital accumulation strategy
Technology as
class relation
Global relations of capital

Capital accumulation in agriculture to
accumulation be understood as
takes place reproduction of inequalities in
without the production and exchange
dispossession relations
Labour exploitation as
dominant form of capital
accumulation
Fig. 1.2 Alternative framework to conceptualise contract farming (Source by

Author)
thinking about the structure and mechanisms, I draw on agrarian polit-

ical economy literature. It is an attempt to ‘apply’ to the Indian context,
some of the general ideas developed by Karl Marx and Lenin in their
classic work Capital Vol. I and II and Development of Capitalism in
Russia, respectively. In contemporary Marxism, while I might have found
points of departure, I have also benefitted immensely from reading
works of scholars who have applied the principles of class theory to
analyse society. Most notable among them are Bertell Ollman (2003),
Raju Das (2012, 2015, 2020), Eric Ollen Wright (1979), David Harvey
(2006, 2010, 2014), Terence Byres (1972, 1981, 1999, 2009), Harry
Braverman (1975), Henry Bernstein (1996, 2006, 2009), Sam Moyo
(2011), Patnaik and Moyo (2011). Utsa Patnaik (2007a, b), Akram-
Lodhi (2013), and Oya (2012), among many others.
In the context of CF, the structure has been identified as sets of inter-
nally related objects or practices. The capitalist peasant/landlord-labour
relation itself presupposes the existence of private property, capitalist
peasant-corporate entities (different factions of capital coming together)
coming together to produce a surplus that can be fed to processing
plants, presence of medium peasantry that leases in land from smaller
and marginalised peasantry by way of reverse tenancy, to produce agri-

cultural surplus; together form a structure. These are structures of social
relations, together with their associated resources, constraints, or rules,
that may determine what happens (Sayer 1992, 92–93).
The existence of structures of social relations depends on such contin-
uous actions that are necessary for its reproduction. In the context of
CF, it is the State that is responsible for creating necessary conditions.
An event such as CF is mediated by the State that creates conditions for
its existence by making agri-technology available to the contract farmers.
For instance, biochemical, mechanical, etc., technology is introduced by
the corporate structure of capitalist relations to shape the concrete event
of CF.
Events can be undersood as observable phenomenons. These are also
referred to as ‘concrete events’. These are events, processes and relations.
An event is concrete because it is a result of multiple structural relations
of production. CF is the event. Simultaneously, the relation between the
structure and events is a two-way flow. That is, just as corporate-capitalist
structures of social relations impact the way CF comes into force on the
ground, similarly, the way CF finds its space on the ground also affects the
structural relations of production. The process of CF is internally related,
it impacts and is impacted by the structure of social relations of corporate
capitalism in India.
An Alternative Framework for Theorising CF

CF needs to be understood as a structure of class relations. The class
relations have impacts on how classes (e.g., workers, capitalists (corpo-
rate capital and agrarian capital) and small-scale producers) and corporate
class-fractions (mercantile, productive, finance) relate to one another.
Because class relations prompt conflict of interests between classes, polit-
ical power in the form of state is generally mobilised in the economic and
political interest of those who control means of production. To keep the
direct producers such as labour, under control, they are not only exploited
but also socially oppressed based on of caste, gender, and age. These are
the components of a class-based framework for understanding CF.
(1) Capitalist classes in CF: local and Global

(2) Class relations of the capitalist state:
(3) Class character of Technical change
14 R. SHRIMALI
(4) Labour and low-wage Platform.
CF has to be reconceptualised in a manner that articulates CF as a

state-mediated capital accumulation strategy that brings together various
fractions of capital. It is a process which has consequences on devel-
opment of productive forces, concentration and centralisation of capital
and small producers and labourers. Thus, responding to the gaps in the
literature and building on the existing literature, I have identified four
elements—interconnected building blocks—that should form the basis of
theorising CF. I argue that such a dialectical re-conceptualisation of CF
is required to grasp the reality of CF fully.
First, CF should be understood as a concrete study of the complex
corporate-capitalist class relations. The primary relations of production in
CF are relations of cooperation, competition, and conflict between Agro-
food processing corporations (productive capital), agri-input corporations
(mercantile capital), finance capital, and contract farmers. These relations
of production are instrumental in showing that capital does not always
have to compete against capital but, infact can also collaborate and work
side by side in accordance with the plan, which is in the ‘general interest’
of the capital. In the case of CF, ‘general interest’ is about the selling of
technologies to the farmers.
The social relations that constitute the CF are not possible to exist
without the support of the state. That is, to understand the relations
that constitute CF and the CF-based accumulation, the state, including
its class character, needs to be explicitly included in the theoretical
framework. As such, then the role of the state is to work in the general
interest of the capitalist class. Reasserted here is the class view of the
Indian state. The state intervenes on behalf of the capital, and it has
impacts on the peasantry. For instance, the state promotes agricultural
policies that are instrumental in encouraging the production of high-
value commodities, especially horticultural products like fresh fruits,
vegetables, cut flowers, aqua-cultural products like prawns and shrimps
for the agribusiness corporations. However, on the other hand, because
of the increase in cost of production, agriculture is becoming an unviable
venture for the small and marginal peasants. This is coupled with the
fact that the state also withdraws significantly from its public expenses
related to agriculture. The third component of the alternative framework
is the class character of technology in CF. CF witnesses an excessive use
of technology on contract farms—BT Seeds, usage of plant protection
chemicals, timely and precise irrigation methods, heavy farm equipment,

etc., are used on contract farms to increase the crop productivity. These
are all technologies that are used on farms. However, technology cannot
be seen in isolation of the society within which it operates. It has to
be seen within the structure of property relations where it is used (Das
2002, 64). Only those large/middle peasants gain from this technology
who have the resources and access to bank credit to buy expensive agri-
inputs regularly. In other words, costly agri-input pieces of machinery
and implements are outside the economic means of small and marginal
peasants. Further on, using these expensive technologies yields more
profit to contract farmers and as such the gap between those who do not
get involved with CF operations and those who do,- keeps widening.
The fourth component of the alternative framework is how CF affects
labourers and small peasants. The question of labourers in relation to
the contract farmer and agribusiness corporations is pertinent. In CF, the
farmer interacts with labourers, however, this relationship is mediated by
the agribusiness corporations. For instance, it is the agribusiness corpo-
ration that indirectly decides how much wages a labourer should make.
This has implications for the lives of the labourers. On the other hand, the
corporate climate in Indian agriculture is making agriculture an increas-
ingly expensive and unviable option for small and marginal peasants. As a
result, the small and marginal peasants either leave agriculture, sell away
their land or lease it out.
There has been no systemic class analysis of CF in India that can shed
light on the fact, that, whereas the Indian State has failed to meet the
economic needs of the agrarian society at large, it has managed to keep
the local and global capitalists happy. One of the central epistemological
premises of Marxist theory is the distinction between appearances and
the underlying social reality that produces those appearances. That is, CF
can only be explained if the social reality hidden behind appearances is
analysed. It thus becomes essential to elaborate the underlying structures
of social relations, of the contradictions embedded in those structures, of
how those underlying structures generate the appearances which people
encounter in everyday life (Ollman 2003; Sayer 1992; Wright 1979, 12).
It is in this context that the book makes its contribution.
The Chapter Outline

This book is divided into eight main chapters.
16 R. SHRIMALI
Chapter 1 sets the context for Chapters 2–7. It begins discussing what
the book is all about and places it in context of the World Develop-
ment Report on Agriculture 2008 and its relation to the ‘development
initiatives’ for small landholders to get involved with CF. The chapter
then discusses the literature on CF, its critiques and offers an alternative
class-based framework on how CF should be conceptualised.
Chapter 2 provides a brief geographical context of Punjab. Punjab
has been a pre-eminent case of state-led agrarian development (through
Green Revolution Technology) as well as its ‘near-opposite’: neoliberal
agrarian development (through Contract Farming). The latter has opened
up agriculture to the international market, reducing the state’s role,
including in credit-provision. Punjab is, therefore, an interesting place to
study agrarian change and development. Fieldwork was conducted over a
period of three years (2007–2012) in the Indian State of Punjab.
Chapter 3 provides an analysis of CF as a structure of relations of
production and exchange involving productive capital (both in agriculture
and industry), mercantile capital, and finance capital. Chapter argues that
CF is more than just the market-contract between farmers and industrial
companies. It is a way to increase productive consumption of technolo-
gies in rural areas produced by agri-input corporations. An agri-input
corporation (seeds, crop protection chemicals, etc.) makes its profit by
selling products to CF farmers, just as a CF corporation makes a profit
by buying products from these farmers, and not by getting involved with
actual agrarian (capitalist) production, which is land-based and which is
relatively risky.
Chapter 4: As a structure of multiple relations of production and
exchange and as a mode of accumulation associated with these relations,
CF has an essential condition of existence: the state. CF is internally
related to the state. It is a deeply political project and not just an economic
one. The capitalist Indian state has been creating conditions for ‘neolib-
eral agriculture’ that are conducive to CF. Indeed, the state has been
directly promoting CF. The state has been doing this, more or less, in
the interest of big business (domestic and foreign), ideologically justi-
fying its actions in the name of national development. Using secondary
data sources and analyzing the documents produced by the state, I argue
that there is a definite shift towards corporatisation of Indian Agriculture
in the very discourse—vision—of the Indian State. Aided by the state, a
few corporate giants are controlling the means of production that is vital
for agricultural development. Such monopolistic tendencies have severe

implications.
Chapter 5: This chapter has been previously published as a paper in
Human Geography Journal. Drawing from my fieldwork experience and
using the examples from CF, I critique David Harvey’s theory of Accu-
mulation by Dispossession. I argue that that agrarian and agro-industrial
accumulation in India is based on an increase in farm productivity and not
necessarily on the direct dispossession of farmers from their land. So, to
the extent that capitalist accumulation in India is ongoing without dispos-
session in one part of its agrarian sector, this makes one question whether
accumulation by dispossession is as ubiquitous as it is seen to be in some
academic circles.
Chapter 6: This chapter discusses the difference in the idea of
‘technology-in-itself’ and ‘technology as a class-relation’. There is
a widespread belief that technological change can solve society’s prob-
lems, so it becomes crucial to examine the social nature of technology.
It is important to pose the relevance of technological advancement in
agriculture which has trans-historical and capitalism-specific importance.
Given that those who depend on agriculture for a living and tend to be
poor, what is the relation between technology and poverty?
Chapter 7: The implications of CF for labour are discussed in this
chapter. What is the relation between capital and technology-intensive CF
operations and labour that works on the contract farms? The ugliness of
capitalist class relations in India are manifested through the abject poverty
and living conditions of the labour.
Chapter 8: This chapter discusses the conclusion and way forward.
References
Akram-Lodhi, H. 2009. “Modernising Subordination? A South Asian Perspec-
tive on the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development.”
Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3): 611–19.
———. 2013. Hungry for Change: Farmers, Food Justice, and the Agrarian
Question. Halifax and Sterling, VA: Fernwood Publishing and Kumarian Press.
Altieri, M., and P. Koohafkan. 2008. “Enduring Farms: Climate Change,
Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities.” Environment and
Development Series 6. Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Amanor, K. 2009. “Global Food Chains, African Smallholders and World Bank
Governance.” Journal of Agrarian Change 9 (2): 247–62.
18 R. SHRIMALI
Anim, Francis D. K. 2011. “Small-Scale Maize Farmers’ Decision to Participate

in Contract Farming: Implications for Integration into the Marketing Chain.”
African Journal of Business Management 5 (13): 5065–69.
Ariza-Montobbio, Pere. 2010. “The Political Ecology of Jatropha Plantations
for Biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (4):
875–97.
Aston, T.H., and C.H.E. Philpin. 2005. The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class
Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Cambridge
University Press. Exclusively distributed by Aakar Books.
Barkan, J. D., and F. Holmquist. 1986. “Politics and the Peasantry in Kenya: The
Lessons of Harambee.” Working Paper No. 440. Institute for Development
Studies, University of Nairobi. http://alphatravel.mx/bitstream/handle/123
456789/7732/wp440-45939.pdf?sequence=3.
Barrett, Christopher B., Maren E. Bachke, Marc F. Bellemare, Hope C.
Michelson, Sudha Narayanan, and Thomas F. Walker. 2012. “Smallholder
Participation in Contract Farming: Comparative Evidence from Five Coun-
tries.” World Development 40 (4): 715–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wor
lddev.2011.09.006.
Bellemare, M., and J. Bloem. 2018. “Does Contract Farming Improve Welfare?
A Review.” World Development 112 (C): 259–71.
Bernstein, H. 1996. “Agrarian Questions Then and Now.” The Journal of Peasant
Studies 24 (1–2): 22–59.
———. 2006. “Is There an Agrarian Question in the 21st Century?” Canadian
Journal of Development Studies-Revue Canadienne D Etudes Du Developpe-
ment 27 (4): 449–60.
———. 2009. “V.I. Lenin and A.V. Chayanov: Looking Back, Looking
Forward.” Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 55–81.
Birthal, P. S., P. K. Joshi, and A. Gulati. 2005. “Vertical Coordination in High-
Value Commodities.” International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
http://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/mtiddp/85.html.
Braverman, H. 1975. Labor and Monopoly Capital; the Degradation of Work in
the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brenner, R. 1986. “The Social Basis of Economic Development.” In Analytical
Marxism, edited by John Roemer, 23–53. Cambridge University Press.
Bridi, R. 2010. “Unveiling the Nature of the Labour Process in Tobacco
Farming: Migrant Agricultural Workers in South-Western Ontario.” Unpub-
lished MA Dissertation, York University.
Byres, T. J. 1972. “The Dialectic of India’s Green Revolution.” South Asian
Review 5 (2): 99–116.
———. 1981. “The New Technology, Class Formation and Class Action in the
Indian Countryside.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 8 (4): 405–54.
———. 1999. “Rural Labour Relations in India: Persistent Themes, Common

Processes and Differential Outcomes.” Journal of Peasant Studies 26 (2–3):
10–24.
———. 2009. “The Landlord Class, Peasant Differentiation, Class Struggle
and the Transition to Capitalism: England, France and Prussia Compared.”
Chakraborty, Debashis. 2009. “Contract Farming in India: Unique Solution to
Multilayer Agricultural Problems?” Review of Market Integration 1 (1): 83–
102.
Clapp, R. 1994. “The Moral Economy of the Contract.” In Living Under
Contract: Contract Farming and Agrarian Transformation in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Clapp, R. A. J. 1988. “Representing Reciprocity, Reproducing Domination:
Ideology and the Labour Process in Latin American Contract Farming.” The
Das, R. J. 2002. “The Green Revolution and Poverty: A Theoretical and Empir-
ical Examination of the Relation Between Technology and Society.” Geoforum
33 (1): 55–72.
———. 2012. “Reconceptualizing Capitalism: Forms of Subsumption of Labor,
Class Struggle, and Uneven Development.” Review of Radical Political
Economics 44 (2): 178–200.
———. 2015. “Critical Observations on Neo-Liberalism and India’s New
Economic Policy.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 45 (4): 715–26.
———. 2020. Critical Reflections on Economy and Politics in India: A Class
Theory Perspective. Leiden: Brill.
Dhillon, Sharanjit S., and Navchetan Singh. 2006. “Contract Farming in Punjab:
An Analysis of Problems, Challenges and Opportunities.” Pakistan Economic
and Social Review 44 (1): 19–38.
Echanove, F., and C. Steffen. 2005. “Agribusiness and Farmers in Mexico: The
Importance of Contractual Relations.” Geographical Journal 171: 166–76.
Erappa, S. 2006. “Contract Farming in Karnataka: A Boon or a Bane?”
9/ADRT113. Bangalore: Agricultural Development and Rural Transforma-
tion Centre, Institute for Social and Economic Change. http://www.isec.ac.
in/CONTRACT%20FARMING%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
Ghosh, J. 2003. “Corporate Agriculture: The Implications for Indian Farmers.”
Gill, K. K, and S. S. Gill. 1990. “Agricultural Development and Industrialisation
in Punjab: Some Issues Related to the Pepsi Model.” Economic & Political
Weekly (November): 2507–9.
Glover, D. J. 1987. “Increasing the Benefits to Smallholders from Contract
Farming: Problems for Farmers’ Organizations and Policy Makers.” World
Development 15 (4): 441–48.
20 R. SHRIMALI
Glover, D., and K. Kusterer. 1990. Small Farmers, Big Business: Contract
Farming and Rural Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press. http://www.
cabdirect.org/abstracts/19916710935.html.
Guo, Hongdong, and Robert W. Jolly. 2008. “Contractual Arrangements
and Enforcement in Transition Agriculture: Theory and Evidence from
China.” Food Policy 33 (6): 570–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.
2008.04.003.
Gwynne, R. N. 1999. “Globalisation, Commodity Chains and Fruit Exporting
Regions in Chile.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 90 (2):
211–25.
Hall, D. 2009. “The 2008 World Development Report and the Political
Economy of Southeast Asian Agriculture.” Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3):
603–9.
Harvey, D. 2006. “Accumulation by Dispossession.” In Spaces of Global Capi-
talism. London: Verso.
———. 2010. The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2014. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Helene, A. Ba, Yann de Mey, S. Thoran, and M. Demont. 2019. “Inclusiveness
of Contract Farming along the Vertical Coordination Continuum: Evidence
from the Vietnamese Rice Sector.” Land Use Policy 87: 104050.
Jensen, P. F., M. Prowse, and M. N. Larsen. 2019. “Smallholder’s Demand for
and Access to Private-Sector Extension Services: A Case Study of Contracted
Cotton Producers in Northern Tanzania.” Journal of Agrarian Change 19
(1): 122–34.
Johl, S. 1986. “Report of the Expert Committee on Diversification of Agriculture
in Punjab.” Submitted to the Government of Punjab.
Jones, Sam, and Peter Gibbon. 2011. “Developing Agricultural Markets in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Organic Cocoa in Rural Uganda.” Journal of Devel-
opment Studies 47 (10): 1595–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.
2011.579107.
Kepe, T. 2009. “Unjustified Optimism: Why the World Bank’s 2008 ‘Agricul-
ture for Development’ Report Misses the Point for South Africa.” Journal of
Peasant Studies 36 (3): 637–43.
Key, N., and D. Runsten. 1999. “Contract Farming, Smallholders, and Rural
Development in Latin America: The Organization of Agroprocessing Firms
and the Scale of Outgrower Production.” World Development 27 (2): 381–
401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00144-2.
Kirsten, J. 2002. “Linking Agribusiness and Small-Scale Farmers in Developing
Countries: Is There a New Role for Contract Farming?” Development Southern
Africa 19 (4): 1–26.
Korovkin, T. 1992. “Peasants, Grapes and Corporations—The Growth of

Contract Farming in a Chilean Community.” Journal of Peasant Studies 19
(2): 228–54.
Li, Tania Murray. 2011. “Centering Labor in the Land Grab Debate.” The
Little, P. D. 1994. “Contract Farming and Development Question.” In Living
under Contract: Contract Farming and Agrarian Transformation in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Little, P. D., and M. Watts. 1994. Living Under Contract: Contract Farming and
Agrarian Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
Masakure, O., and S. Henson. 2005. “Why Do Small-Scale Producers Choose
to Produce Under Contract? Lessons from Nontraditional Vegetable Exports
from Zimbabwe.” World Development 33 (10): 1721–33.
Masuka, Godwin. 2012. “Contests and Struggle: Cotton Farmers and COTTCO
in Rushinga District, Zimbabwe, 1999–2006.” Geoforum 43 (3): 573–84.
Mazwi, Freedom. 2020. “Sugar Production Dynamics in Zimbabwe: An Analysis
of Contract Farming at Hippo Valley.” Review of African Political Economy
47 (166): 568–84.
McMichael, P. 2009. “Banking on Agriculture: A Review of the World Develop-
ment Report 2008.” Journal of Agrarian Change 9 (2): 235–46.
Miyata, Sachiko, Nicholas Minot, and Dinghuan Hu. 2009. “Impact of Contract
Farming on Income: Linking Small Farmers, Packers, and Supermarkets in
China.” World Development 37 (11): 1781–90.
Moyo, S. 2011. “Three Decades of Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe.” Journal of
Peasant Studies 38 (3): 493–531.
Murray Li, T. 2009. “Reading the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture
for Development.” Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3): 591–92.
Nanda, M. 1995. “Transnationalisation of Third World State and Undoing of
Green Revolution.” Economic and Political Weekly 30 (4): PE20–30.
Njuki, Jemimah, Susan Kaaria, Angeline Chamunorwa, and Wanjiku Chiuri.
2011. “Linking Smallholder Farmers to Markets, Gender and Intra-
Household Dynamics: Does the Choice of Commodity Matter?” European
Journal of Development Research 23 (3): 426–43. https://doi.org/10.1057/
ejdr.2011.8.
Novo, C. M. 2004. “The Making of Vulnerabilities: Indigenous Day Laborers
in Mexico’s Neoliberal Agriculture.” Identities-Global Studies in Culture and
Power 11 (2): 215–39.
Ollman, B. 2003. Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx’s Method. Urbana and
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
22 R. SHRIMALI
Oya, C. 2009. “The World Development Report 2008: Inconsistencies, Silences,

and the Myth of ‘Win-Win’ Scenarios.” Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3):
593–601.
———. 2012. “Contract Farming in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Survey of
Approaches, Debates and Issues.” Journal of Agrarian Change 12 (1): 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00337.x.
Pal, S. 2008. “Agricultural R&D Policy and Institutional Reforms: Learning from
the Experience of India and China.” Economic and Political Weekly 28 (June):
145–55.
Panini, M. 1999. “Trends in Cultural Globalisation—From Agriculture to
Agribusiness in Karnataka.” Economic and Political Weekly 34 (31): 2168–73.
Patnaik, U. 2007a. “Agrarian Crisis in the Era of the New Imperialism and the
Role of Peasant Resistance.” In The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays,
205–32. New Delhi: Three Essays Collective.
———. 2007b. The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays. New Delhi: Three
Essays Collective.
Patnaik, U., and S. Moyo. 2011. The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era:
Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry. Cape Town: Pambazuka Press.
Pledran, O., P. Phelinas, and E. Torquebiau. 2019. “Agroforestry Partner-
ships in Cocoa and Coffee Sectors: An Opportunity for Sustainable Value
Chains?” 4th World Congress on Agroforestry L09.P.13. Montpellier, France:
Food and Agriculture Organisation. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592709/7/ID5
92709.pdf.
Porter, G., and K. Phillips Howard. 1995. “Farmers, Laborers and the
Company—Exploring Relationships on a Transkei Contract Farming
Scheme.” Journal of Development Studies 32 (1): 55–73.
———. 1997. “Contract Farming in South Africa—A Case Study from KwaZulu-
Natal.” Geography 82 (354): 38–44.
Pritchard, Bill, and John Connell. 2011. “Contract Farming and the Remaking
of Agrarian Landscapes: Insights from South India’s Chilli Belt.” Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography 32 (2): 236–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9493.2011.00424.x.
Punjabi, M. 2008. “Supply Chain Analysis of Potato Chips: Case Study of Pepsi-
Co’s Frito Lay in India.” United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation,
March.
Raynolds, L. T. 2002. “Wages for Wives: Renegotiating Gender and Produc-
tion Relations in Contract Farming in the Dominican Republic.” World
Development 30 (5): 783–98.
Rizzo, M. 2009. “The Struggle for Alternatives: NGOs’ Responses to the World
Development Report 2008.” Journal of Agrarian Change 9 (2): 277–90.
Sawers, L. 2005. “Nontraditional or New Traditional Exports: Ecuador’s Flower

Boom.” Latin American Research Review 40 (3): 40–67. https://doi.org/
10.1353/lar.2005.0063.
Sayer, A. 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. 2nd ed. London:
Routledge.
Setboonsarng, S. 2008. “Global Partnership in Poverty Reduction: Contract
Farming and Regional Cooperation.” Discussion Paper Discussion Paper no.
89. Asian Development Bank Institute.
Sharma, V. P. 2007. “India’s Agrarian Crisis and Smallholder Producers’ Partic-
ipation in New Farm Supply Chain Initiatives: A Case Study of Contract
Farming.” W.P. No. 2007-08-01. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Manage-
ment.
Shrimali, R. 2016. “Accumulation by Dispossession or Accumulation Without
Dispossession: The Case of Contract Farming in India.” Human Geography—
A New Radical Journal 9 (3): 77–88.
Simmons, P., P. Winters, and I. Patrick. 2005. “An Analysis of Contract Farming
in East Java, Bali, and Lombok, Indonesia.” Agricultural Economics 33 (3):
513–25.
Singh, K., S. Singh, and H. Kingra. 2007. “Status of Farmers Who Left
Farming in Punjab.” Department of Eonomics, Punjab Agricultural Univer-
sity. Ludhiana: The Punjab State Farmers Commission, Government of
Punjab.
Singh, Sukhpal. 2002. “Contracting Out Solutions: Political Economy of
Contract Farming in the Indian Punjab.” World Development 30 (9): 1621–
38.
———. 2003. Contract Farming in India: Impacts on Women and Child Workers.
International Institute for Environment and Development. http://dlc.dlib.ind
iana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/6078.
———. 2004. “Crisis and Diversification in Punjab Agriculture: Role of State
and Agribusiness.” Economic and Political Weekly 39: 5583–90.
The World Bank. 2007. “World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for
Development.” Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Thorner, A. 1982. “Semi-Feudalism or Capitalism: Contemporary Debate on
Classes and Modes of Production in India.” Economic and Political Weekly
17, 49. 50 and 51: 1961–68, 1003–99, 2061–66.
Trebbin, A., and M. Franz. 2010. “Exclusivity of Private Governance Structures
in Agrofood Networks: Bayer and the Food Retailing and Processing Sector
in India.” Environment and Planning, A 42 (9): 2043.
Trifkovic, N. 2016. “Vertical Coordination and Farm Performance: Evidence
from the Catfish Sector in Vietnam.” Agricultural Economics 47 (5): 547–57.
24 R. SHRIMALI
Veltmeyer, Henry. 2009. “The World Bank on ‘Agriculture for Development’: A

Failure of Imagination or the Power of Ideology?” Journal of Peasant Studies
36 (2): 393–410.
Venkateshwarlu, D., and L. Da Corta. 2001. “Transformations in the Age
and Gender of Unfree Workers on Hybrid Cotton Seed Farms in Andhra
Pradesh.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 28 (3): 1–36.
Vicol, M. 2017. “Is Contract Farming an Inclusive Alternative to Land Grab-
bing? The Case of Potato Contract Farming in Maharashtra, India.” Geoforum
85.
Watts, M. 1992. “Peasants and Flexible Accumulation in the Third World:
Producing Under Contract.” Economic and Political Weekly (July): 90–97.
———. 1994. “Life Under Contract: Contract Farming, Agrarian Restructuring,
and Flexible Accumulation.” In Living Under Contract: Contract Farming
and Agrarian Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa, 21–77. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
Weis, T. 2013. “The Meat of the Global Food Crisis.” Journal of Peasant Studies
40 (1): 65–85.
Wilson, John. 1986. “The Political Economy of Contract Farming.” Review of
Radical Political Economics 18 (4): 47–70.
Woodhouse, P. 2009. “Technology, Environment and the Productivity Problem
in African Agriculture: Comment on the World Development Report 2008.”
Journal of Agrarian Change 9 (2): 263–76.
Wright, Erik Olin. 1979. Class, Crisis and the State. London: Verso. http://
orton.catie.ac.cr/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=BIBA.xis&method=post&for
mato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=008992.
CHAPTER 2
Punjab: An Intertesting Place to Study

Agrarian Change
Introduction: From Green

Revolution to Contract Farming
India’s Punjab is often hailed as the success story of state-led agrarian
development through the Green Revolution Technology (henceforth
GRT). The GRT was heralded as a political and technological achieve-
ment, unprecedented in human history (Shiva 1991). It was designed
to break out of nature’s limits and variabilities. However, the inequal-
ities created by the introduction of the green revolution technologies
have been well documented. For instance, Lipton and Longhurst (1989)
discuss the implications of ‘modern varieties’—(MV) on poverty because
of the increase in the cost of production. That is, poorer farmers were
considered unsuited to compete with those farmers who could adopt
GRT. Das also discusses in length the relation between technology and
society, increase in inequality between farmers and labourers with the
adoption of GRT (Das 1998, 1999, 2002). Implications of GRT on
land relations (farmers losing land, tenures in Punjab and Haryana have
also been well documented (Gill and Ghuman 2001). Further, agrarian
production system based on monoculture of wheat and paddy rotation
has led to exploitation of groundwater resources and deterioration of soil
health (Shiva 1991; Byres 1972; Cleaver 1972). The agrarian crisis caused
by an increase in the cost of production with the introduction of GRT
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 25

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021
R. Shrimali, Contract Farming, Capital and State,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1934-2_2
26 R. SHRIMALI
led to high indebtedness and farmer suicides in Punjab (Sidhu and Jaijee
2011; Sidhu et al. 2011; Singh 2009; Singh and Toor 2005; Gill 2005).
In other words, by 1990s, it was clear that the introduction of GRT
was ridden with crises and challenges for Punjab’s agriculture economy.
Around the same time, India witnessed vital economic reforms. The resul-
tant New Economic Policy (NEP) crafted a unique role for agriculture
in the economy, whereby agricultural exports emerged as means to earn
foreign exchange and secure fiscal stability.
The Johl Committee Report

To deal with the agrarian crisis and to create space for themselves to
get involved with India’s NEP, the Punjab Government constituted an
expert committee on Diversification of Agriculture in Punjab under the
chairmanship of S.S. Johl in 1986 (Johl et al. 1986). Popularly known
as ‘Johl Committee Report,’ the committee recommended that at least
20% of the area presently under wheat and paddy must be replaced by
other competitive and profitable alternative crops like fruits and vegeta-
bles, which accounted for less than 2% of the gross cultivated area at that
time (Kumar 2008, 160). In 2002, the Johl Committee came up with
another set of recommendations where it was suggested that one million
hectares of area under wheat and paddy rotation should be replaced by
other crops, which consume less water, are compatible ecologically, and
are in demand outside the country (Johl et al. 2005). The provincial
government of Punjab thus initiated a strategy of introducing neoliberal
agricultural development via CF. This included: growing of horticul-
tural crops, increased crop-tree integration (Dhaliwal and Bhullar 2008),
opening up of agriculture to the international market, promoting agro-
industrialisation (Singh 2008a), farm forestry (Lal 2008), biofuels (Gupta
et al. 2008), increasing role of the corporate sector in agri-inputs (Singh
2008b) credit provision and simultaneous reduction in the role of the
State in all these activities.
One of the most prolific writers on Contract Farming in India has been
Sukhpal Singh. In 2008 he wrote a piece (Singh 2008b) documenting
the history of CF development in Punjab. He identifies two phases of
CF development. The first phase was led by global–local partnerships in
the early 1990s and the other led by the Punjab Government. Punjab
Agro Industries Corporation Limited (PAIC) is the premier organisation
2 PUNJAB: AN INTERTESTING PLACE TO STUDY AGRARIAN CHANGE 27
of the Punjab Government, entrusted with the responsibility of promo-

tion and facilitation of agro-based industries, including agro-processing,
dairy processing. Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited (PAFC)
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PAIC. The central area of operation of
PAFC is related to the procurement of food grains and Contract Farming.
In a typical state-led model of CF, farmers would get into a contract
with PAFC, sell their produce to them at a pre-determined price, and
later PAFC would sell/export to agri-processing players in the market.
However, the State led contract farming model through PAFC has prac-
tically wound up after a decade of experiment (Agnihotri-Chaba 2012).
In other words, while the state-regulated contracting scheme did not
succeed, new policies are getting planned to encourage the diversification
of crops (Agnihotri-Chaba 2012).
In the second model of CF, different agribusiness corporations come
together to effectively control various aspects of agricultural production
in search of new sources of furthering their capital accumulation (Shrimali
2016). What makes CF different from earlier forms of agrarian capital
accumulation (such as the Green Revolution) is its totalising logic. i.e.,
from the sowing of seeds to their harvest and then post-harvest care, the
entire agricultural production is managed and controlled by agribusiness
corporations.
Uneven Geography of Contract Farming

Contract Farming adds another layer to the pre-existing uneven devel-
opment in the province and the country. For instance, Contract farming
in Punjab has enough geographical variation. Map 2.1 shows the varia-
tion at the sub-state level. Jallandhar, Muktsar and, Bhatinda are three
districts with the highest percentage of farmers with more than 10
acres of operational land involved with CF. Jallandhar falls under the
fertile doaba1 region of Punjab. Punjab has good irrigation infrastructure,
1 There are 4 regions in Punjab—Malwa, Majha, Doaba and Powadh. But it is inter-
esting to observe that when one talks about Punjab—it is always as if Punjab is one
contiguous area—the geographical distinctions between malwa/majha and doaba are
almost always obfuscated. Malwa is a south-eastern region of Punjab and parts of Haryana
between the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers. It makes up the majority of the Punjab region,
consisting of 11 districts or parts of districts. Majha is a region of the Punjab that is north
of River Sutlej. It is ‘the central plains’ of the Punjab. Powadh (or Puadh or Powadha) is
a region of Punjab and parts of Haryana between the Sutlej and Ghaggar rivers. Doaba is
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SONATA
FORM
Vienna as the home of the sonata; definition of ‘sonata’—Origin
and history of the standard sonata cycle; relationship of sonata
movements—Evolution of the ‘triplex’ form: Pergolesi’s ‘singing
allegro’; the union of aria and binary forms; Padre Martini’s
sonatas, Scarlatti’s true sonata in C; Domenico Alberti; the Alberti
bass; the transitional period of the sonata—Sonata writers before
Haydn and Mozart: J. C. Bach; Muzio Clementi—Schobert and
Wagenseil; C. P. E. Bach; F. W. Rust.
Turning our backs upon Bach and looking over the musical marches,
we shall observe many roads in the second half of the eighteenth
century making their way even from the remotest confines towards
Vienna. There they converge towards the end of the century. Thither
comes pouring music from England, from France, volumes of music
from Italy; music from Prussia, from Saxony, from Russia; from all
the provinces, from Poland, from Bohemia and from Croatia. There
is a hodge-podge and a pêle-mêle of music, of types and
nationalities. There are the pompous oratorios from the west, light
operas and tuneful trios and sonatas from the south, dry-as-dust
fugues from the north, folk-songs gay and sad from the east. All
whirling and churning before Maria Theresa, or her lovable son, or
the intelligent courtiers about them. France will grow sick before the
Revolution, Italy will become frivolous, Germany cold. Only Vienna
loves music better than life. Presently up will come Haydn from
Croatia, and Mozart from Salzburg, and Beethoven from Bonn. Then
young Schubert will sing a swan-song at the feast from which the
honored guests have one by one departed; and waltzes will whirl in
to gobble up all save what fat Rossini can grab for himself.
And what is the pianoforte’s share in this profusion of music?

Something of all, variations, pot-pourris from the operas, rondos and
bagatelles and waltzes; but chiefly sonatas, and again sonatas.
Now sonatas did not grow in Vienna. Vienna laid before her honored
guests the great confusion of music which had poured into her for
fifty years from foreign lands, and in that confusion were sonatas.
They were but babes, frail and starved for lack of many things, little
more than skin and bones. But they had bright eyes which caught
Haydn’s fatherly glance. He dragged them forth from the rubbish and
fed them a good diet of hearty folk-songs, so that they grew. Mozart
came from many wanderings and trained them in elegance and
dressed them with his lovely fancies. And at last when they were
quite full-grown, Beethoven took charge of them and made them
mighty. What manner of babe was this that could so grow, and
whence came it to Vienna?
The word sonata slips easily over the tongues of most people, great
musicians, amateurs, dilettanti and laymen alike; but it is not a word,
nor yet a type, easily defined. The form is very properly associated
with the composers of the Viennese period. Earlier sonatas, such as
those of the seventeenth century composers, like Kuhnau and
Pasquini, are sonatas only in name, and not in the generally
accepted sense of the word. The rock which bars their entrance into
the happy kingdom of sonatas is the internal form of the movements.
For a sonata is not only a group of pieces or movements in an
arbitrary whole. At least one of the separate movements within the
whole must be in the special form dubbed by generations with an
unfortunate blindness to ambiguity, the sonata form. Attempts have
been made from time to time to rename this form. It has been called
the first movement form; because usually the first movements of
sonatas, symphonies and other like works, are found to have it.
Unhappily it is scarcely less frequently to be found in the last
movements. Let us simply cut the Gordian knot, and for no other
reason than that it may help in this book to render a difficult subject a
little less confusing, call this special form arbitrarily the triplex form.
I
To trace the development of the pianoforte sonata, then, is a twofold
task: to trace the tendency towards a standard group of pieces or
movements in one whole; and to trace the development of the triplex
form of movement, the presence of which in the group gives us the
somewhat despotic right to label that group a sonata.
The first task leads upon something of a wild-goose chase. The

number of movements which a sonata might contain never became
rigidly fixed. A single movement, however, is not a sonata in the
generally accepted meaning of the word. It is true that the separate
pieces of D. Scarlatti are still called sonatas; but this is only one of
the few cases where the original natural use of the word has
persisted beside the arbitrarily restricted one. We are, as a matter of
fact, almost forced to this continued free use of the term by the lack
of a more specific one to cover the circumstance, or even of a
suitable abstract one. As we have seen, the few pieces Scarlatti
published himself he called esercizii. Even in his day the word
sonata was applied mostly to compositions made up of two or more
movements. His pieces were not fugues; neither were they dances.
They were too regular and too compact to be called fantasies or
toccatas. They were not rondos, and his imagination was sterile in
fanciful titles such as Couperin gave to his pieces. Our modern
minds reject his own title as utterly unmusical. In abstract terms we
have ‘piece,’ which may do for the historian but not for the program.
‘Movement’ has been chained up in the sonata and symphony.
‘Gems’ and ‘jewels’ are too often in music a paste of musk and tears.
So we hold to sonata, for the lack of anything better.
Though the word originally signified any music sounded or played on
instruments, thus differentiating instrumental music from vocal, its
use was limited early in the seventeenth century to music written for
groups of strings or wind. At that time, it will be remembered,
harpsichord and clavichord music was still essentially organ music,
to which the word sonata was rarely applied.
The string sonatas had developed chiefly from the old chanson, the
setting of a poem in stanzas to polyphonic vocal music. The
composer attempted in this old form to reflect in his music the varied
meaning of the stanzas of his poem. Thus the music, taken from its
words and given to groups of strings to play, was more or less clearly
divided into varied sections, showing, as it were, the shape or
skeleton upon which it had originally been moulded. At first the
instrumentalists, even the organists, as we have seen, were content
merely to play upon their instruments what had been thus written for
voices. Such had long been their custom with popular madrigals and
with other simpler forms.
Soon the organists broke ground in a wholly different direction. But

the other instrumentalists, chiefly the violinists, on the contrary,
though they began to compose their own music with an ever-growing
regard to the special qualities of their instruments, still retained the
well-known form. Hence the many fledgling sonatas in the last
quarter of the sixteenth century and even the first quarter of the
seventeenth, with their title of canzon a suonare. This title was soon
cut down to sonata. The form was enormously expanded by the
enthusiasm and rapidly soaring skill of the instrumental composers.
The many more or less vague sections, fossil outlines, as it were, of
the poem in stanzas, swelled out to broad and clear proportions. The
number of them was consequently cut down to four or even three,
the selection and sequence of which had been almost unconsciously
determined by principles of contrast. Finally the influence of the
growing suite combined with the breadth and formal perfection of the
several sections to cut them off distinctly, each from the other. The
word sonata, then, it will be observed, was applied almost from the
beginning to a piece of music divided into several more or less
clearly differentiated sections or movements.
The growth of the suite was, as we have seen, of quite a different

nature. The sonata developed rapidly from a seed. The suite was a
synthesis of various dance pieces, held together by a convention,
without any inherited internal relationship. In spite of the number of
suites written during the seventeenth century for string band and
even other combinations of instruments, it is practically a special
development of keyboard music. The lighter character of the music
itself, depending largely upon dance rhythms for its vitality,
encouraged the free style suitable to the harpsichord. Its influence
upon the string sonata is, however, unmistakable.
Thus, though harpsichord music and the suite were more or less
neglected in Italy during the second and third quarters of the
seventeenth century, we find Corelli publishing between 1683 and
1700 his epoch-making works for violin and other instruments in
alternate sets of suonate (sometimes called suonate da chiesa), and
suites, which he called suonate da camera. In the former the
movements had no titles but the Italian words which marked their
character, such as grave, allegro, vivace, and other like words. In the
latter most of the movements conformed to dance rhythms and were
given dance names.
The normal number of movements in both sonatas and suites is four,

and normally these four are in the order of slow, fast, slow, fast. The
movements of the suite are all normally in the same key; but among
the sonatas the middle adagio is often in a different key from the
other movements. This variety of key is nearly always present as a
distinctive feature of the sonata.
Corelli’s works are, leaving aside his personal genius, indicative of

the state of the sonata at the end of the seventeenth century. That
the sonatas with suite movements were called chamber sonatas and
the others church sonatas gives us some hint of the relative dignity
of the two forms in the minds of composers of that day. In 1695 J.
Kuhnau published in Leipzig his sonata in B-flat for the harpsichord,
with the prefatory remarks that he saw no reason why the
harpsichord, with its range of harmony and its possibilities in
contrapuntal music, should be restricted to the lighter forms of music
(such as the suite). He therefore offered to the public a piece for
harpsichord written in the more dignified form of the violin music of
the day, which he called the Sonate aus dem B.
Here, as we remarked in chapter I, the word sonata comes into

pianoforte music, bringing with it a dignity, if not a charm, which was
felt to be lacking in the suite. Kuhnau’s sonata is in four movements,
none of which is very clearly articulated. The adagio comes between
the second and fourth and is in the key of E-flat major. This sonata
was followed by seven more, published the next year under the title
of Frische Clavier Früchte. The tone of all is experimental and
somewhat bombastic. But at any rate we have at last keyboard
sonatas.
During the lifetime of Corelli two other Italian violinists rose to shining
prominence, Locatelli[21] and Vivaldi[22]. To them is owing a certain
development in the internal structure of a new form of the sonata
called the concerto, of which we shall say more later on. Here we
have to note, however, the tendency of both these composers to
make their concertos and sonatas in three movements: two long
rapid movements with a slow movement between. Corelli left sonate
da camera and sonate da chiesa of the same description; but the
procedure seems to have recommended itself to Sebastian Bach
mainly by the works of Vivaldi, of which, as we have seen, he made
a most careful study. Hence we have from Bach not only the
beautiful sonatas for violin and harpsichord in three movements, but
harpsichord concertos,—many of which were transcriptions of
Vivaldi’s works, but some, like the exquisite one in D minor cited in
the last chapter, all his own,—likewise on the same plan. So, too,
were written many of the Brandenburg concertos, notably the one in
G major, No. 5. Finally we have the magnificent concerto in the
Italian style for cembalo alone, which is more truly a sonata, leaving
for all time a splendid example of the symmetry of a well-wrought
piece in three movements.
Of this perfect masterpiece we have already spoken. It is well to
recall attention to the fact, however, that the first and last movements
are of about equal length and significance. Both are in rapid tempo
and of careful and more or less close-knit workmanship; and both
are in the key of F major. The movement between them is in a
different key (D minor) and of slow tempo and wholly contrasting
character.
Here, then, as regards the number and grouping of movements in

the sonata, we have in the work of the father, the model for the son
Emanuel. For so far as Emanuel Bach contributed at all to the
external structure of the pianoforte sonata, it was by adhering
consistently to this three-movement type which was later adopted by
Haydn, Mozart, and, to a great extent, Beethoven.
His consistency in this regard is indeed well worth noticing. For

between the years 1740 and 1786, when he composed and
published his numerous sets of sonatas, there was much variety of
procedure among musicians. Bach, however, rarely varied; and this,
together with the models his father left, justifies us in calling the
sonata in three movements distinctly the German type of this period.
Meanwhile composers who were more in the current of Italian music

fought shy of committing themselves to a fixed grouping of
movements. Italian instrumental music was taking a tremendous
swing towards melody and lightness. This was especially influential
in shaping the triplex form of movement; but was also affecting the
general grouping. Padre Martini (1706-84) of Bologna alone adhered
to a regular, or nearly regular, number and sequence of movements
in harpsichord sonatas. His twelve harpsichord sonatas, published in
Amsterdam in 1742, but written some years earlier, seem strangely
out of place in their surroundings.
To begin with, even at this late date they are written either for organ
or for harpsichord. This alone prepares us for the general
contrapuntal style of them all. Then, though named sonatas, they are
far more nearly suites. Each is composed of five movements. The
first is regularly in sonorous prelude style, suitable to the organ. The
second is regularly an allegro in fugal style, the third usually an
adagio. The fourth and fifth are in most cases dances,—gavottes,
courantes or gigues, with sometimes an aria or a theme and
variations. All the movements in one sonata are in the same key.
Only one feature resembles those of the growing Italian harpsichord
sonata: the generally light dance character of the last or the last two
movements. For what is very noticeable in the sonatas of E. Bach is
that the last movements, though cheerful in character, are usually of
equal musical significance with the first.
Far more in the growing Italian style are the eight sonatas of
Domenico Alberti, the amateur thorn in the professional side. Just
when they were written is not known. The young man was born in
1717 and died probably in 1740 if not before. None of them has
more than two movements. Both are in the same key and the second
is usually the livelier of the two, often a minuet.
A group of the Italians preferred the sonata in two movements,

Francisco Durante (1684-1755), for example, and later Domenico
Paradies (1710-92). Later still, some sonatas of Johann Christian
Bach, youngest son of Sebastian, who submitted quite to the Italian
influence, have but two movements; and the first of Clementi’s
sonatas also. Other Italians, like Baldassare Galuppi (1706-85),
seem never to have decided upon any definite number, nor any
definite order of movements.
What is, however, due particularly to the Italian influence is the

persistent intrusion of a dance form in the cycle—usually a minuet.
We find it in Alberti, in Christian Bach, and especially in the clavecin
works of Jean Schobert, a young Silesian, resident in Paris from
about 1750 to 1766, one of the most brilliant clavecinists of his day,
one of the most charming, and one who brought a very decided
influence upon the development of the young Mozart.
The Italian tendency was invariably to put at the end of the sonata a
movement of which the lightness and gaiety of the contents were to
bring refreshment or even relief after the more serious divulgences
of the earlier movements,—a rondo or even a dance. To this impulse
Haydn and Mozart both yielded, retaining from Emanuel Bach only
the standard number of three movements.
It must be added here that something is due to Slavic influences in

the ultimate general triumph of the objectively gay over the
subjectively profound in the last movement or movements of the
sonata and the symphony. Not only did Haydn incorporate in the
scheme the lively expressive melodies and the crisp rhythms so
native to the Slavic peoples among whom he grew to manhood.
Earlier than he the Bohemian, Johann Stamitz, had thus enlivened
and clarified the symphony, and given it the great impetus to future
development which bore so splendidly in Vienna. And Schobert,
whom we have but now mentioned, was from a Polish land. What
such men brought was essentially of spiritual significance; but in
music, as in other arts, the new spirit brings the new form.
As we have already said, the number and sequence of movements

in the pianoforte sonata has never been rigidly fixed. But an average
combination is clear. The majority of sonatas by Haydn and by
Mozart, as well as by lesser men like Clementi, Dussek and Rust,
and many of the sonatas by Beethoven, are in three movements. Of
these the first and last are invariably in the same key (major and
minor). The first movement is normally of a dignified, formal, and
more or less involved character, though such a generalization may
be quickly stoned to death by numbers of conspicuous and great
exceptions. The second movement is normally in a key contrasting
with the first movement, usually of slow and lyrical character, usually
also simple, at least as regards form. The last movement is, in
perhaps the majority of cases, more brilliant, more obvious and more
rapid than the others, calculated to amuse and astonish the listener
rather than to stir his emotions, to send him away laughing and
delighted, rather than sad and thoughtful.
The number three was established by Emanuel Bach. The character

of the last movement, however, was determined by Italian and Slavic
influences, and is somewhat reminiscent of the suite. If one more
sign is necessary of the complex crossing and recrossing of various
lines of development before the pianoforte sonata rose up clear on
its foundations, we have but to note the curious facts that the suite
was neglected in Italy during the seventeenth century in favor of the
string sonata; that the suite reached its finest proportions in
Germany, chiefly at the hands of Sebastian Bach; that through
Sebastian Bach the three-movement sonata group passed from the
Italian Vivaldi to Emanuel Bach, who established it as a norm; finally
that the Italians, who neglected the suite in the seventeenth century,
conceived an enthusiasm for it in the eighteenth and brought their
love of it to bear on the German sonata group, introducing the
minuet and giving to the last movement the lively care-free form of a
dance or a rondo.
Before proceeding to outline the development of the triplex form in

which at least one movement of this sonata group was written and
which is one of the most distinctive features of the sonata, it is not
out of place to stop to consider what relationship, if any, existed
between the movements. Was the sonata as a whole an indissoluble
unit? Rather decidedly no. The grouping of several movements
together came to be as conventional and as arbitrary, if not so
regular, as the grouping of the suites. There is about the sonatas of
Emanuel Bach a certain seriousness and an emotional genuineness
which might prevail upon the pianist today, if ever he should think of
playing them in concert, to respect the grouping in which the
composer chose to present them to the world. But there is no
organic life in the sonatas as a whole. Occasionally in his sonatas
and in those of Clementi and Haydn the slow middle movement
leads without pause into the rapid finale. In these cases, however,
the slow movement is introductory to the last, to which it is attached
though not related.
Haydn, Mozart and even Beethoven took movements from one work
and incorporated them in another. Moreover, it was the custom even
as late as the time that Chopin played in Vienna, to play the first
movement of a symphony, a concerto or a sonata early in a program
and the last movements considerably later, after other works in other
styles had been performed. The sonatas and symphonies of the last
quarter of the eighteenth and the first quarter of the nineteenth
centuries in the main lacked any logical principle of unity. We say in
the main, because Emanuel Bach, F. W. Rust, and Beethoven
succeeded, in some of their greatest sonatas, in welding the
movements inseparably together. Clementi, too, in the course of his
long life acquired such a mastery of the form. But these
developments are special, and signalize in a way the passing on of
the sonata. As a form the sonata proper was doomed by the lack of
a unity which composers in the nineteenth century felt to be
necessary in any long work of music.
The day will come, if indeed it has not already come, when most
sonatas will have been broken up by Time into the various distinct
parts of which they were pieced together. Out of the fragments future
years will choose what they will to preserve. Already the Bach suites
have been so broken. It makes no difference that their separate
numbers are for the most part of imperishable stuff. Movements of
Haydn and Mozart will endure after their sonatas as wholes are
dead. So, too, with many of the Beethoven sonatas. The links which
hold their movements together are often but convention; and there is
evidently no convention which Time will not corrode.
II
In looking over the vast number of sonatas written between 1750
and 1800 one is impressed, if one is kindly, not so much by their
careless structure and triviality as by their gaiety. In the adagios the
composers sometimes doff their hats, somewhat perfunctorily, to the
muse of tragedy; but for the most part their sonatas are light-hearted.
They had a butterfly existence. They were born one day but to die
the next. Yet there was a charm about them. The people of that day
loved them. A run and a trill do, it is true, but tickle the ear; but that
is, after all, a pleasant tickling. And simple harmonies may shirk often
enough the weight of souls in tragic conflict, to bear which many
would make the duty of music; yet their lucidity is something akin to
sunlight. The frivolities of these countless sonatas are the frivolities
of youth. There is no high seriousness in most of them. And our
triplex form came sliding into music on a burst of youth. A star
danced and it was born.
What gave definite shape to this fundamentally simple form is the

Italian love of melody. So far as it may be traced to the influence of
one man, it may be traced to Giovanni Pergolesi, whose trio-sonatas
first gave to the world as a prototype of the classical triplex form
what is now known as the ‘singing allegro.’ Pergolesi was born in
1704 and lived to be only thirty-three years old; but in that brief life,
gaily and recklessly squandered as it seems to have been, he
exerted an influence upon the growth of music which apparently
started it upon a new stage. He was all but worshipped by his
countrymen. His opera, La serva padrona (1733), won instant
success, not only in Italy, but well over all Europe; and had an
influence comparable to that of but few other single works in the
history of music. On the ground of instrumental music his trio-
sonatas have, as it seems now, accomplished scarcely less.
We must here restrict ourselves to the harpsichord music of the time

in Italy, in which the ‘singing allegro’ found place almost at once. Let
us first consider what lay at the bottom of the new form.
We may plunge at once to the very foundation, the harmonic

groundwork. As we have seen, perhaps the most important
accomplishment in music of the seventeenth century was the
discovery and establishment of key relationships in that harmonic
conception of music which has endured almost to the present day.
Instrumental forms developed upon this re-organization of musical
material. Subsequently, however polyphonic the texture of a piece of
music—a fugue of Bach’s, for instance—might be, its shape was
moulded upon a frame of harmony. The piece was in a certain key,
clearly affirmed at the beginning and at the end, points in the
structure which in a piece of music as in a paragraph are naturally
the most emphatic. Within these limits there was the life and variety
of a harmonic development, which, departing from the tonic key,
must return thence. Long before the year 1700 the regulation of such
harmonic procedures had definitely fixed the symmetrical plan of two
forms: the so-called aria form and the binary form. Neither was in
itself capable of much development; and it was in a sort of fusion of
both that the harmonic plan of the triplex form was created.
The aria form was in three sections which we have elsewhere

represented by the letters A, B, A. A, the opening section, was all in
the tonic key, and was practically complete in itself. B, the second
section, was in a contrasting key or was harmonically unstable. A,
the third section, was but an exact repetition of the first, to give
balance and unity to the whole. The limitations of the form were
essentially harmonic. The first section offered little or no chance for
modulation. Its tonality must be unmistakably and impressively tonic.
Therefore it did not develop into the second section by means of
harmonic unrest. The second was simply a block of contrasting
harmonies, like a block of porphyry set beside a block of marble.
Frequently, however, the second section was incomplete without the
third. In such cases a hyphen between the B and the second A in our
lettered scheme would represent the relations between the three
sections more nearly, thus: A, B-A.
The binary form, in which most of the dance movements of the suite
were composed, was usually shorter than the aria form; but though
apparently simpler, it was, from the point of view of harmony, more
highly organized. It consisted, as we have seen, of two sections,
each of which was repeated in turn. The first modulated from the
tonic key to the dominant or relative major; the second from that key
back to the tonic again. It will be observed that the first section really
grew into the second by harmonic impulse; for the first section,
ending as it did in a key that was not the key of the piece, was
incomplete. The two sections together not only established a perfect
balance of form and harmony, but had an organic harmonic life
which was lacking in the aria.
However, the tendency of most forms was towards the triple division
typified by the aria, with a clearly defined first section, a second
section of contrasting and uncertain character, and a third section
which, being a restatement of the first, reestablished the tonic key
and gave to the piece as a whole a positive order. In the binary forms
of Froberger and Chambonnières there is the harmonic embryo of a
distinct middle section; namely, the few modulations through which
the music passes on its way from dominant back to tonic in the
second section. It can be easily understood that composers would
make the most of this chance for modulation as they became more
and more aware of the beauty of harmony; likewise, that the bolder
their harmonic ventures in these measures, the greater was their
need to emphasize the final re-establishment of the tonic key.
Ultimately a distinct triple division was inevitable, with an opening
section modulating from tonic to dominant, a second section of
contrasting keys and few modulations; finally a restatement of the
first section, as in the aria, but necessarily somewhat changed so
that the whole section might be in the tonic key. Such is the
harmonic foundation of the triplex form.
Such a form makes its appearance in music very shortly after the
beginning of the eighteenth century. It seems akin now to the aria,
now to the binary form. One may suspect the latter relationship if the
first section is repeated, and the second and third sections (as one)
likewise. These repetitions are obviously inherited from the binary
form. On the other hand, if these sections are not thus repeated, the
piece resembles more nearly the aria.
Take, for example, an adagio from the second sonata in a set of

twelve published by Padre Martini in 1742, written probably many
years earlier. These sonatas were republished by Madame Farrenc
in the third volume of her Trésor des pianistes. The adagio in
question is clearly in three sections very like an aria, with the
difference that the first section ends in the dominant (in the eighth
measure), and the last is consequently changed from the first so that
it may end in the tonic. There are no repeats.
Far more remarkable is a sonata in C major by D. Scarlatti. It is the

eleventh in the Breitkopf and Härtel collection of twenty to which
reference has already been made. Here we find a first section
modulating from tonic to dominant. This is repeated. Then follows
the second section, full of free modulations, and this section comes
to a very obvious half-close. The last section very nearly repeats the
first, except for the necessary changes in harmony so that all may be
in the tonic key. Scarlatti nowhere else wrote in this form so clearly.
Did he merely chance upon it? The wide crossing of the hands
marks an early stage in his composing, yet the form is clearly triplex
and astonishingly orthodox.
The most striking aspect of this little piece is the obvious, clear
divisions of the sections. The first section is marked off from the
second by the double bar for the repeat. There is a pause before the
third section, or restatement, begins. But clearest of all is the
arrangement of musical material. By this we know positively that the
triplex form has become firmly fixed, that the old binary form has
expanded to a ternary form, submitting to the same influences that
had made the perfect aria and the perfect fugue.
It will be remembered that in the old binary form, composers made

little effort to differentiate the material proper to the dominant part of
the first section from that which had already been given out in the
tonic. Such pieces dealt not in clear themes but in one or two
running figures which lent themselves to more or less contrapuntal
treatment. The opening figure was usually the most definite. The
second section began with this figure in the dominant key; but in the
final restoration of the tonic key the figure played no part. In other
words, the chief figure of the whole piece almost never appeared in
the second section in the tonic. It was not until the embryonic middle
section, which, as we have seen, consisted of but one or two
modulations, had developed to something of the proportions of the
contrasting section of the aria, that composers realized that in order
fully to re-establish the tonic key at the end, the chief figure should
again make its appearance and usher in the final section, which thus
became a restatement of the first.
Scarlatti’s treatment of the binary form was always brilliant and clear.
He was, as we know, fertile in sparkling figures. His sonatas are
always made up of two or more of these, which, unlike the figures in
the suites of most of his contemporaries, are distinct from each
other. But in most of his pieces, long as the middle section might be,
the tonic key was never re-introduced by the return of the opening
figure of the first section. It is precisely this that he has done in the
sonata in C major now in question. The first section presents two
distinct figures or subjects, one in the tonic, the other in the
dominant. The first, or opening figure, is in the nature of a trumpet
call. The second is conspicuous by the wide crossing of the hands.
The second section begins immediately after the double bar in the
proper manner of the binary form; that is, with a modification of the
first subject in the key of the dominant. Then follow many interesting
modulations, leading to the unmistakable half-close, prefatory to the
third section. And the third section begins at once with the first figure
in the tonic key, and proceeds to the second, now likewise in the
tonic. This, more than all else, marks the passing of the binary form
into the triplex. The Padre Martini adagio presents the same feature,
but less clearly because the second figure is hardly articulate.
These two little pieces, which are but two out of many now known
and others yet to be discovered, seem to reveal to us a stage at
which the aria form and the binary form merged into the form of
movement generally known as the sonata form, which we have
chosen arbitrarily to call the triplex. The three distinct sections, the
last repeating the first, seem modelled on the aria. The highly
organized harmonic life seems inherited from the binary form of the
dance movements of the suite. Finally the arrangement and
development of two distinct figures or subjects on this plan are
proper to the new form alone.
Upon this hybrid foundation Pergolesi built up his ‘singing allegro.’

Where Scarlatti had employed figures, Pergolesi employed
melodies. Therefore we find a melody in the tonic key, a melody in
the dominant, these two constituting with the measures which
accomplish the modulation between them, the first section, which is
repeated. Then follows a section of free modulation, in which
fragments of either melody, but chiefly of the first, play their parts;
and lastly the return of both melodies in the tonic key.
It is the Italian love of melody which gives it its final stamp. To this
love Scarlatti hardly felt free to abandon himself in his harpsichord
music; partly, probably, because of the ancient polyphonic tradition
which still demanded of organ and of harpsichord music the constant
movement we find in the preludes of Bach’s English suites; also
because as a virtuoso he was interested in making his instrument
speak brilliantly, and because he realized that the harpsichord was
really unfitted to melody.
But the singing allegro of Pergolesi won the world at a stroke, and
almost at once we find it applied to the harpsichord by the young
amateur, Domenico Alberti. One should give the devil his due. Poor
Alberti, hardly more than a youth, for having supposedly seduced the
world of composers to bite the juicy apple of what is called the Alberti
bass, has been excoriated by all soberminded critics and treated
with unveiled contempt. Let us look into his life and works for a
moment.
Little enough is known of him, and that little smacks of faëry. He was
probably born in Venice in 1717. He died about 1740, probably in
Rome. Only twenty-three, masters, but he tied his bass to the tail of
music and there it swings to this day. But more of the bass anon. He
was an amateur, according to Laborde,[23] a pupil of Biffi and Lotti.
He was a beautiful singer. At least we read that he went to Madrid in
the train of the Venetian ambassador, and astonished Farinelli, one
of the greatest and most idolized singers of the day, who was then
living in high favor at the Spanish court. Later he came back to
Rome, where he recommended himself to the patronage of a certain
Marquis Molinari. About 1737 he set two of Metastasio’s libretti,
Endymion and Galatea, to music, which was, according to Laborde,
highly esteemed. All his teachers recalled him with great
enthusiasm. He could so play on the harpsichord, so improvise, that
he charmed large assemblies during whole nights. And sometimes
he would go abroad at night through the streets of Rome with his
lute, singing, followed by a crowd of delighted amateurs. He died
young and much regretted. Laborde closes his article by saying that
Alberti wrote thirty-six sonatas which are said to be superb, and of a
new kind (d’un genre neuf). Laborde’s article, though pleasing, is a
bit highly colored. From it we have a right only to infer that Alberti
was lovable, a good singer and a good player. That he speaks of the
sonatas as being of a new sort, however, should not be forgotten.
Dr. Burney mentions Alberti twice in his ‘Present State of Music in

Germany,’ both times in connection with his stay in Vienna in the
autumn of 1772, more than thirty years after Alberti’s death. Once it
is to give his name among the seven men who were at that time
considered to be the greatest composers for harpsichord and for
organ. Other names were Handel, Scarlatti, and Bach (either
Emanuel or Christian: the father was not then generally appreciated).
High company for poor Alberti, from which he since has fallen most
low. But that he should have been reckoned with such men thirty
years after his death, speaks irrefutably for the influence his works
must have had, for a time, at any rate, upon the development of
pianoforte music.
Reference was made in the second chapter to the other mention of

Alberti in Dr. Burney’s book. It occurred in connection with Dr.
L’Augier’s reminiscences of D. Scarlatti. Scarlatti had told the
eminent physician that he had always borne in mind, while writing his
pieces for the harpsichord, the special qualities of that instrument,
whereas other ‘modern’ composers, like Alberti, were now writing in
a style that would be more fitting to other instruments. In the case of
Alberti, Scarlatti must have had the voice in mind, for Alberti’s
harpsichord sonatas are hardly more than strings of melodies.
Considering then that Alberti was held in such high esteem as late
as 1772, and that D. Scarlatti complained of him that he wrote in a
manner less fitting to the harpsichord than to some other instrument,
it seems likely that to him in part is due the appearance of the
singing allegro in harpsichord music, which was to be characteristic
of Christian Bach, of Mozart, of Haydn, of Clementi and in some part
of Beethoven.
The sonatas themselves bear this out. The eight which we have
been able to study, are light stuff, indisputably. But the triplex form is
clear in most of the movements. He uses two separate distinct
melodies as themes. The first appears at once in the tonic, the
second later in the dominant. The first section, which is nothing more
than the exposition of these two themes, is repeated. After the
double bar follows a section of varying length, usually dominated by
reminiscences of the first theme, the modulations of which are free
but by no means unusual. Then the third section repeats both
melodies in the tonic key. The first movement of a sonata in G major
is conspicuous for the length of its second section, in which there is
not only a good bit of interesting modulation, but also actually new
material.
The bass which bears his name is no more than the familiar breaking
of a chord in the following manner:
It is hardly more true that he invented it than that such a formula is

intrinsically as contemptible as many musicians, mostly
theoreticians, would make it out to be. If a musician is, in a given
composition, concerned with melody, he may be justified in following
the procedure which makes that melody reign undisputed over his
music. This inevitably will reduce the accompaniment to the simplest
function possible; namely, outlining or supplying the harmony upon
which all melodies, since the Middle Ages at least, have been felt to
rest.
In the first sophisticated experiments with melody—the opera early in

the seventeenth century—the accompaniment to a song was
frequently no more than a few occasional chords upon the
harpsichord. These chords were not even written out for the
accompanist, but were indicated to him by figures placed over the
notes of a single bass part. As composers acquired skill in combining
several instruments in accompaniments to their operas, the figured
bass lost its importance; but it was still employed as a sort of
harmonic groundwork almost to the end of the eighteenth century. It
was a prop to the harmonies woven more or less contrapuntally by
other instruments, which, unlike the harpsichord, had power to
sustain tone.

Contract Farming Capital And State Corporatisation Of Indian Agriculture 1St Edition Ritika Shrimali full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contract Farming Capital And State Corporatisation Of Indian Agriculture 1St Edition Ritika Shrimali full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contract Farming, Capital and State:

Corporatisation of Indian Agriculture

Farming System And Sustainable Agriculture Alok Kumar

Key Concepts in Agriculture and Farming Hazem Shawky

Justifying Contract in Europe : Political Philosophies

Capital Structure Dynamics in Indian MSMEs Farooq Ahmad

Capital and Ressentiment : A Short Theory of the

Capital Allocation 1st Edition David R. Giroux

Financial Capital in the 21st Century: A New Theory of

“Contract farming is restructuring rural livelihoods around the developing world,

ISBN 978-981-16-1933-5 ISBN 978-981-16-1934-2 (eBook)

Cover image: © Ekely/Getty Images

It is a paradoxical trait of the market economy that while producers need

March 2021 Raju J. Das

This project in essence, defines my life.

1 Introduction and Rethinking Contract Farming 1

Fig. 1.1 Conceptualisation of research project (The diagram

Fig. 6.1 Market volume of tracyro manufacturers (2015–2018) 137

Map 2.1 Percentage of farmers with more than 10 acres

Plate 3.1 Publicity pamphlets of Bayer for farmers in Punjab

Plate 6.3 Bed Maker—developed by PepsiCo. It ensures

Table 3.1 Major corporations (productive capital) involved with CF

Introduction and Rethinking Contract

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

The Brenner debate,1 as it has come to be called is one of the most

The World Development Report, 2008

Contract Farmers Earn More Returns on Their Investment

from such schemes generated productivity gains in other household activ-

Contract Farming Is a Way to Alleviate Poverty for Small Land

by encouraging vertical coordination and horizontal coordination among

Contract Farmers Loose Their Autonomy and Control

CF Creates Demand for Cheap Labour

Rise in Inequality Between Farmers

…Smallholders are small-scale farmers, pastoralists, forest keepers, fishers who

In other words, small peasants are characterised by family-focused motives

land is not a small/marginal peasant by any standards. Again, to grow

to experiment. CF scheme of chilies in South India selectively enrolls

Conceptualising Contract Farming

Contract Farming is concrete because it is result of multiple relations of

Not crop specific production

Global relations of capital

Fig. 1.2 Alternative framework to conceptualise contract farming (Source by

thinking about the structure and mechanisms, I draw on agrarian polit-

and marginalised peasantry by way of reverse tenancy, to produce agri-

An Alternative Framework for Theorising CF

(1) Capitalist classes in CF: local and Global

(4) Labour and low-wage Platform.

CF has to be reconceptualised in a manner that articulates CF as a

chemicals, timely and precise irrigation methods, heavy farm equipment,

The Chapter Outline

for agricultural development. Such monopolistic tendencies have severe

Anim, Francis D. K. 2011. “Small-Scale Maize Farmers’ Decision to Participate

———. 1999. “Rural Labour Relations in India: Persistent Themes, Common

Korovkin, T. 1992. “Peasants, Grapes and Corporations—The Growth of

Oya, C. 2009. “The World Development Report 2008: Inconsistencies, Silences,

Sawers, L. 2005. “Nontraditional or New Traditional Exports: Ecuador’s Flower

Veltmeyer, Henry. 2009. “The World Bank on ‘Agriculture for Development’: A

Punjab: An Intertesting Place to Study

Introduction: From Green

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 25

The Johl Committee Report

of the Punjab Government, entrusted with the responsibility of promo-

Uneven Geography of Contract Farming

And what is the pianoforte’s share in this profusion of music?