ASSAM- AGRICULTUREREPORT ON THE SMALL AND MARGINAL FARMERS AND
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.4. According to the project report the Agency has to achieve the following important targets during the 3 years.
(a) Distribution of 250 and 150 power pumps to small farmers and marginal farmers respectively; installation of 200 and 150 shallow tube wells for small farmers and marginal farmers respectively;
(b) Under custom service, tractorisation of 10,000 acres, letting out 750 number of power pumps and 1,000 units of sprayers and dusters to the small farmers and tractorisation of 6,000 acres, letting out 1,000 power pumps and 500 Nos. of sprayers to marginal farmers have been proposed. An expenditure of RS 11,433 lakhs has been proposed to be incurred as subsidy for this purpose by the Agency;
(c) To distribution 9,000 tonnes of fertilisers and 1,000 tonnes and seed annually to the small farmers. Total subsidy component for this comes to Rs 6.00 lakhs;
(d) To distribute 400 milch cows 4,000 pigs/goats, 1,00,000 poultry to small farmers; 400 milch cows, 900 goats/pigs and 1,00,000 poultry in marginal farmers with a subsidy component of Rs 6.54 lakhs.
(e) For creation of improved storage facilities the Agency has to bear Rs 2.50 lakhs and the rest would be advanced as loan by the State Government and N.C.D.C.
(f) To issue medium term and short term loan to the small farmers to the tune of Rs 100.00 lakhs and Rs 47.00 lakhs respectively and Rs 157.00 lakhs as short term loan and Rs 29.553 lakh as long term loan the marginal farmers.
(g) To keep Rs 9.00 lakhs as risk fund in the Agency’s budget against the lean issued by the Co-operative institutions to the small farmers and Rs 4.40 lakhs as risk fund in the Agency’s budget against the Co-operative loan issued to the marginal farmers.
(h) To appoint 6 (six) Supervisors in the Banks (in the first two years i.e. 1971-72 and 1972-73) with a view to strengthening of Co-operative societies with an estimated cost of Rs 0.60 lakhs for the 3 years period;
(i) To develop the marketing committee in each project area and to provides assistance to one marketing society in each block area under the Agency at an estimated cost of Rs 0.60 lakhs.
(j) For development of marketing facilities, construction of 50 k.m. of feeder roads, I central godown, 5 small godowns, a central yard and purchase of 3 trucks at an estimated cost of Rs 18.00 lakhs, out of which Rs 0.65 lakhs will be borne by the Agency;
(k) To give 100% subsidy to the growers for bringing the agricultural produces to the markets. For this, an amount of RS 1.50 lakh is estimated for the small farmers and 0.50 lakhs for the marginal farmers.
(l) To provide employment in the off-season to the marginal farmers and the landless agricultural labour. For this, and amount of Rs 10.00 lakhs is earmarked in the Agency’s budget;
(m) To rehabilitate the landless agricultural labourers in the Government waste lands in compact Blocks with an amount of Rs 2.00 lakhs for the MFAL budget; and
(n) To render assistance to the rural artisan for taking up suitable scheme after trainings. The amount placed in the Agency’s budget for this purpose is Rs 5.00 lakhs.
CHAPTER – II
OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
2.1. The main object of the study is to see as to how far the targets set for the agency have been achieved and also to identify problems standing in the way of successful implementation of the programmes of the Agency for providing corrective measures. It was decided to collect informations for the first 3 years of the operation of the Agency. AT the Agency level, informations were collected from the officials of the Agency and the credit institutions. At the Block level., information were collected from the officials of the Blocks and finally some beneficiaries were interviewed. The report is based on the informations collected from all these levels.
2.2.1. The Study was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, which was carried out from 2nd to 10th January 1975, discussions were held with the officials of the Project and credit institutions. During this period the office records were consulted for collecting information. Information and views were also collected by interviewing the officials of the district. The informations collected from the Project office are shown in different annexures.
2.2.2. In the second phase of the study, which was carried on from 17th to 23rd April, 1975. Discussions were held with the officials belonging to Statistics, Agriculture, State Bank of India and also the Project officials about the functioning of the SFDA/MFAL, Mikir Hills. In this connection the views of the Principal Secretary, the District Council, Mikir Hills, who once held the office of the Project Director was also heard, at the Block level, discussions were held with the officials of the Bokajan Development Block. Interview schedule was canvassed to 5 beneficiaries under the Bokajan Development Block.
CHAPTER – III
IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS AND FARMERS – THE BENEFICIARIES
3.1. According to guide Line set out in the Project report, the Agency had to undertake the necessary survey to identify the areas and beneficiaries in 1970-71. The following were the criteria for the selection of areas where the programme would be launched.
(a) Large concentration of farmers belonging to these three categories;
(b) Irrigation facilities, and
(c) The land having potentiality for growing HYV/multiple cropping.
3.2. As per project report, implementation of the programme was to be limited to 3 Development Blocks in 1971-72 and accordingly the Agency selected 2 Blocks. These Blocks had been selected on the basis of areas having potentiality for introducing multiple cropping HYV for the implementation of programme. The project report provided for extension of area of operation of the programme to 2-3 more Blocks. But this was not done considering the progress of works in the Blocks selected previously.
3.3. After selection of the Blocks, next phase of the works was to identify the farmers under each category on the basis of land holdings. This task of identification of farmers was done through the Block Development Agency.
3.3.2. The identification of farmers according to project report was to be done in the year 1970-71. It was gathered that the initial survey was conducted in 1970-71, so that the Agency could proceed with the execution of the programmes immediately. In the initial survey, approximately 19,000 farmers were listed as small farmers, marginal farmers and agricultural labours. But the final survey, which was conducted from April 1974 to October, had put the total number of farmers to be benefited by the programme at 13,275. Big difference between the figures found 1974 out by initial and final survey was to be due to some people leaving the places and inclusion of some households having land beyond the prescribed limit for identifications as small and marginal farmers in the initial survey, which had to be omitted I the final survey.
3.3.3. It was reported that the inadequate staff of Block, heavy work of the Gram-Sevaks were some of the main causes for delay of identification of farmers. However, the Blocks did it through the Gram-Sevaks and the persons were verified by the Block upto 10% and the Agency upto 5%. In following table, the number of farmers of different categories identified by the surveys conducted in the 3 Blocks is shown: —
TABLE No. 1
NUMBER OF S.F.M.F. AND A.L. IDENTIFIED
|
3.4. It was reported that no compact areas in the three Blocks has been identified for implementation of the programmes. Naturally, all the identified persons were scattered all over the area of the Block. Since the small farmers marginal farmers and agricultural labours wre dispersed all over the areas, it was difficult to draw up schemes separately for each, so, composite projects were taken for developing them together.
CHAPTER – IV
FINANCING OF THE PROGRAMME
4.1. A Project report was prepared for an amount of Rs 217.50 lakhs for small farmers for entire three years project period, out of which a sum of Rs 60.50 lakhs was tentatively placed a the disposal of the Agency for utilising in subsiding the cost of various inputs required by farmers and meeting establishment cost of the Agency and the rest of the amount was proposed to be born be the credit institutions, as loan, for meeting the cost of the inputs and services. As regards programme for marginal farmers and agricultural labours, an amount of Rs 194.58 lakhs was earmarked in the project report, out of which and amount of Rs 47.52 lakhs was required to be spent by the Agency itself during the three years period for the development of small farmers, marginal farmers was 25% and for marginal farmers and agricultural labourers was 33 percent. For project done on co-operative basis subsidy was as high as 50 percent of the cost. For rural works programme, help to rural artisans, colonisation programme; central marketing yard, etc., the Agency was to bear the whole cost. On the other hand, State Government was to bear 50 per cent of the cost of construction of feeder roads, 75% of the cost of the construction of godown and usual subsidy offered by the State Government from time to time for purchasing power pump, installation of shallow tube well for irrigation purpose.
4.2.1. Out of the amount of Rs 107.52 lakhs, the Agency chalked-out an annual programme costing Rs 54.55 lakhs only. The following table shows the actual amount allotted and spent during the last three years.
TABLE No. 2
YEAR-WISE ALLOTMENT AND EXPENDITURE
(Rs in lakhs)
|
4.2.2. The above table shows that till the end of the third year of the operation of the project an amount of Rs 3.885 lakhs had been spent. The details of the amount spent are shown in Annexure 2 and in the Chapter V of this report. Major portion of the expenditure i.e. Rs 2.34 lakhs had gone for the payment of staff. Only Rs 1.545 lakhs had been spent on development work.
4.3. From the foregoing analysis, it is seen that though Rs 60.50 and 47.02 lakhs had been proposed to be spent on the SF and MF AL respectively, the amount proposed from the credit institution were Rs 157.60 and Rs 57.56 lakhs respectively. Thus, arrangement of credit from the Banks was one of the main function of the Agency. The Agency could not released the subsidy proposed in their budget until and unless the credit institutions did not come forward to issue credit and the identified cultivators were willing to take credit for service and inputs for productive purpose.
4.4. It may be mentioned here that the State Bank of India was the lead bank of the district. But the State Bank of India had not come forward to open branches in the last three years, though a branch office of the State Bank of India was functioning in the Diphu Town since 31st December 1968 and due to its limitations it could not render service to the entire project area. It was reported that a branch of State Bank of India was to be opened sometimes back at Howraghat. A building to house the Bank was also arranged by the District Council. But till the time of the study, the branch was not opened. It was stated that as State Bank of India did not open any branch in the district for advancing credit, after much persuasion, the authority of the Apex Bank opened a branch at Diphu. This branch of Apex Bank started functioning from April 1972.
4.5. A good portion of the landowners in the district were not directly involved in cultivation. They used to give land to others for one Agricultural year on contract basis. This system is popularly known as ‘Picus’. But the Societies issued loan to their members on the basis of land holdings of each member. As result of this, some of the tillers of the land were deprived of getting loan on the plea that they were not landowners. The loan issued by the Bank consisted of both cash and kind. It was reported that some of the members of the Societies refused to accept the kind portion of the loan because of the fact that they had given their land to others on ‘Picus’ or they were ignorance about the use of the improved inputs. Since the Bank did not issue cash loan alone, they lifted the kind portion only to enjoy the cash amount. The persons who had already given way their land to others on ‘Picus’, spent the cash amount for their livelihood. Thus, it could be concluded that a portion of issue of loan to such persons were few and the Agency reported, they had taken steps to avoid selecting such persons for issuing loan under the programme.
4.6. The Agency officials informed that recently it was decided in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank that the Bank would issue short-term loan to the identified persons without insisting for document on land holding, provided the Deputy Commissioner certified operational status of the individual and the District Council stood as guarantee. If this is followed, the actual tillers may get loan and properly used the same for higher production.
4.7. During the period 1971-72 to 1973-74, the Apex Bank issued loan to 7 Societies. The following table shows the number of loan applications submitted by the Co-operative Societies and the number of Societies, whose cases were recommended for issuing loan.
|
During the 1972-73, Societies were granted loan, out of which 4 Societies refused to accept loan in kind since the member were reluctant to take the same.
4.8. As per the project report, credit requirement for the programme drawn up by the Agency was Rs 214.55 lakhs (Annexure 3). According to a revised estimated drawn by the Agency, total credit need was put at Rs 210.00 lakhs (Annexure 4). Against these requirements, during the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Co-operative Apex Bank issued Rs 1.96 lakhs as short-term loan to 292 farmers belonging to the Societies under the 3 Blocks where the programme was under operation (Annexure 5). It was reported that the Co-operative Bank issued loan to the extent of realisation of previous loan. The details are given in the table below: —
TABLE No. 4
Table showing the target and actual position of issue of institutional credit up to March, 1974(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The above table shows that only 0.93% of the revised target of the loan could be issued upto March 1974 and this entire amount was issued by the Co-operative Apex Bank. The absence of well-equipped credit institutions in the district was the main cause of poor flow of credit. Another factor hampering the progress was reported to be the traditional outlook of the identified cultivators and their in capacity to utilise the inputs properly. In the Annexure 6, the amount of loan issued, loan realised, outstanding and interest stand upto December 1974 is shown.
CHAPTER – V
AN ASSESSMENT OF EXECUTION OF THE PROGRAMMES
5.1. The Agency was to procures and supply various inputs at subsidised rate and to make available others services to the identified small and marginal farmers. For the agricultural labourers, the Agency was to take up rural works on 100% subsidy. In the following paragraphs, an examination of procurement and supply the various inputs and services to the small and marginal farmers and agricultural labours has been made.
IRRIGATION
5.2.1. According to the Project report, the Agency was to arrange loan from the Bank and subsidise a port of the cost for purchasing power pumps and installing shallow tube-wells. The Project report stipulated that for purchasing a power pump (2 H.P.), Rs 1,500.00 would be offered as subsidy, to the power and the rest of the amount (Rs 3,000.00) would be given as loan and for installing tube-well, Rs 4,500.00 would be given as subsidy and rest of the amount (Rs 4,000.00) would be offered as loan. The subsidy portion was to be borne by the Sate Government, as per the project report. The Agency was to bear the cost of failed wells only, estimated at 5% of the total cost of sinking and materials.
5.2.2. Since the Co-operative Apex Bank was not in a position to issue medium-term loan, it was reported that nothing could be done in this regards. There was also no branch of the State Bank of India in the project areas. Project authority, therefore, reported to be facing difficulties in arranging medium term loan for installation of power-pump and shallow tube-wells.
5.2.3. Against a total expenditure of Rs 48.45 lakhs under irrigation, the subsidy portion was estimated at Rs 22.45 lakhs in the project report. The Government of India did not released any amount to the Agency due to non-finalisation of loan eases. Thus against the original target of 400 power pumps and 350 tube-wells as set out in the project report, the Agency could not install even a single power-pump or a tube-well during the last three years.
SUPPLY OF INPUTS
5.3.1. The Agency was to makes arrangements for supply of various inputs to the farmers who were granted loan by the Banks. The loan component consisted of both cash and kind. The Bank decided the amount-cash and kind to be issued to farmers on the basis of his land holding. When the loan was sanctioned the Bank asked the Assam Seed Corporation and Agro-Industry Development Corporation to supply seed fertiliser and other inputs etc., respectively to the farmers. The Bank pays the cost of various inputs to the concerned Corporation. The Corporations were supposed to carry the inputs into the Block headquarter for which the Agency had to pay transport subsidy to the Corporations. The Agency had to pay the input subsidy to the Bank.
5.3.2. Annexure 7 shows that against an allocation of Rs 20,00 lakhs made for agricultural sector under the annual programme of the Agency, an amount of Rs 0.28 lakh (1.4%) was utilised as subsidy upto 1972-74. In the period 1971-72 to 1972-74, a total of 292 farmers were benefited by this programme through the Agency. The kind portion of the loan issued by the Co-operative Apex Bank during the three years period was valued at Rs 88,007.62. The quantity of various inputs supplied by the corporations against the amount of Rs 88,007.68 is shown in the following able.
TABLE No. 5
Table showing the quantity of inputs supplied(In quintals)
|
5.3.3. The low utilisation of subsidy in agricultural sector could be attributed to many factors. First, the flow of credit was very poor in the district due to absence of proper credit was very poor in the district due to absence of proper credit institution. Practice of issuing loan, both in cash and kind had not gained popularity among the cultivators of the district. The cultivators in general and some of the officials of the district were of the view that the soil of the Mikir Hills is very fertile and hence does not require chemical fertiliser. Again, the people of the district were not agriculturally advanced. They had no knowledge about the improved method of cultivation. For motivating the people for adoption of improved practices of agriculture, devoted service of extension agencies was required. It was stated that the Gram Sevak were engaged in various activities not connected with agriculture. They hardly got time for extension work. As regards the Extension Officers (Agriculture) in the Blocks, many posts were lying vacant. For example, in the three Blocks selected for the programme, the post of Extension Officers was lying vacant it one of the Block while in the other two Blocks the Agricultural Extension Officers were officiating as Block Development Officers and so they could not give proper attention to the extension work. All these showed as to why the programme had failed.
CUSTOM SERVICE
5.4.1. The small and marginal farmers, though primarily dependant on the family labour for ploughing etc. yet provision was made in the project report to make available the service of modern farm equipments like tractors, threshers etc. to the identified farmers through AIDC with the usual subsidy from the Agency’s budget. Accordingly, Rs 12.43 lakhs was provided in the project report. Against this amount, an allocation of Rs 7.00 lakhs was made during the 3 years under the annual programme and nothing could be spent (Annexure-2).
5.4.2. The Agency wrote to the Agro-Industry Development Corporation in October 1973 for submission of a model scheme on custom service. Accordingly, the AIDC had submitted a model scheme amounting Rs 97,400/- in November 1973. The Agency probably not satisfied with the scheme submitted by the AIDC wroth in December, 1973 to the Project Director, SMFAl Kamrup asking him to sent of copy of the scheme formulated for the SMFAL Development Agency, Kamrup. In the meantime the Chairman of the Agency held a discussion with the Managing Director, AIDC on 30.11.73 and in the discussion the question of given subsidy to the corporation was raised. It was hinted that subject to 50% subsidy, the ADIC might come forwarded to set up a custom service centre in the district. In the mean time, the Agency wore to the Co-operative Marketing Societies of the respective areas to signify their willingness for setting up custom service centre with 50% subsidy. But none come forward to take this venture. Then the Agency wrote to the Director (Credit), Ministry of Agriculture in March, 1974 for consideration of the following two proposals: — (1) The Co-operative institutions be allowed to set up such centres in Howraghat and Doukamukh at cent percent subsidised cost at an estimated cost of Rs 1.30 lakh (2). The Assam Agro-Industry Development Corporation is allowed to set up such centres in Howraghat and Bokajan at 50% subsidy on capital cost. But the Government of India advised to establish three custom service centres in the three selected Blocks with subsidy on capital cost. Here after, the Agency communicated this to the Managing Director, AIDC and requested him in April, 1974 to explore possibility of establishing custom service centres at Bokajan, Howraghat and Rongkhang. But the AIDC had expressed inability in June 1974 to set up custom service centres at above-mentioned places on the plea of financial difficulties. Then the Agency again informed the Managing Director, AIDC that 50% subsidy on the capital cost could be provided to the Corporation for setting up a custom service centre in the district and requested him to expedite the matter. Instead of accepting the proposal, the Managing Director informed the Agency of its willingness to assist some individual entrepreneur prepared to set-up a custom service centre in the District. Further, required training was proposed to be imparted if the cost of the training was met by the Agency. If the entrepreneur fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Corporation, he would be illegible to get the training free, besides, the monthly stipend of Rs 250.00. It was found that the matter had not made any headway after this development.
STORAGE AND MARKETING FACILITIES
5.5.1. The project report provided for strengthening of the marketing facilities for efficient disposal of marketable surplus in these areas. It was proposed to develop marketing committees by providing managerial assistance and developing marketing facilities by providing feeder-roads, godown, marketing yards and trucks. The State Government was to bear 50 per cent of the cost for the feeder-roads and 75 per cent of the cost of the construction of godowns. The Agency submitted a proposal for construction of 4 small godown to the Deputy Commissioner (MF), Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and requested the Government of India for granting 100 per cent subsidy for the construction of the said godown. The Government of India disagreed to the proposal for granting 100 per cent subsidy and informed that the Agency could allow subsidy upto 25 per cent only. Immediately after bearing from the Government of India, the Agency inform the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Assam about the refusal of the proposed of granting 100 per cent subsidy by the Government of India and requested to grant Rs 0.75 lakhs against the construction of 4 godowns at estimated cost of Rs 1.00 lakh. This proposal of the Agency was turned down by the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam and suggested that the Co-operative Societies should apply to N.C.D.C. through the Government of Assam for getting 75 per cent subsidy. Hereafter, the Agency brought this to the notice of the Register of the Co-operative Societies, Assam and requested him to send his reply. After this, the matter had not make any headway upto the time of this study. Any way, no higher production had been achieved as a result of the activities of the Agency, which called for construction of additional storage facilities.
5.5.2. Langhin under the Howraghat Development Block was proposed as the site for Central Marketing Yard. The Block Development Officer of the Howraghat Development Block was asked to prepare a scheme for development of feeder-road. But upto the time of this study nothing concrete had been achieved in this regard.
5.5.3. Thus, it is seen that out of Rs 11.75 lakhs provided in the project report, an amount of Rs 0.60 lakh was allotted during the three years under the annual Programme for the development of marketing and storage facilities against which nothing has been spent. (Annexure-2)
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
5.6. This part of the programme was designed to supplement the income of the identified farmers by rearing milch cows, poultry, goats and or pigs wherever feasible. Provision for giving subsidy, as usual, to the small and marginal farmers from the Agency’s budget was made in the project report. During the period 1971-72 to 1973-74, against the target of Rs 6.54 lakhs to be issued as subsidy under this programme, an allotment of Rs 10.80 lakhs was made, out of which nothing could be spent (Annexure 2). In this period, the Agency chalked out the following schemes.
(a) Diary Project: — Actions were initiated in December, 1972 to start a Co-operative diary project at Sariajhan, under Bokajan Dev. Block at an estimated cot of the 8.92 lakhs out of which Rs 3.62 lakhs was to be given as loan by financial constitution. The Co-operative Societies was to provide facilities for cultivation of fodder, rearing of milch cow etc. The society was to allot 2 acres of land to each breeder on individual basis, for fodder cultivations and management of cows would be under taken by farmers on individual basis. To be in with, each farmer would be allotted an unit of 2 cows. Each member would be provided with milch cow at subsidised rate, subsidised cattle sheds, developed lands, irritation facilities for cultivation of fodder, storage facilities for milk, milking utensils, etc. The Agency proposed to limit the membership of the Society to 50 families. The scheme was forwarded to the Government of India on 16th May 1973 and the scheme was moving since then between the Agency, Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Assam, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank, Agricultural Refinance Cooperation, State Bank of India, etc., and yet no loan for financing the project was in sight till the time of the study. Out of the 500 Bighas of land proposed for the Project, the District Council had handed over 228 bighas of land to the Agency up to the time of the study and the Agency had started reclamation. The financial estimate of the proposed diary project is shown in Annexure 8.
(i) Duck Farming: — A proposal of starting 10 (ten) units, each unit comprising 50 duck and 10 drakes of Rhaki compbell under Bokajan Development Block had been submitted to the Agency State Bank of India, Dimapur. But the Bank had asked the Agency to proceed slowly in respect of advances on duck and poultry farming (vide letter No. AGL. 150 dated 23rd December 74) The total cost involved under this proposal was Rs 56,980.00 only.
(ii) Goat farming:— A scheme for 100 unit of goat rearing, each unit comprising 5 local up graded female goats and male of the exotic blood was drawn up and submitted to the Agent, State Bank of India, Diphu in the month of April, 1974, who in turn transmitted the scheme to the Branch Manager, Dimapur in the month of May, 1974. The matter had not made any headway after this. It was not known to the project authority whether the said scheme had been forwarded to the Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Shillong. The total cost involved was Rs 1,05,000.00 i.e. Rs 1050.00 per unit.
(ii) Individual Diary Scheme: — A proposal for financing 50 individual units of rearing of milch cows, each unit comprising two cross-breed jersey cows was sent to the Agent, State Bank of India, Diphu in the month of April, 1974. Who in turn forwarded the same to the Branch Manager, State Bank India. Dimapur in the month of May 1974. But the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Shillong informed in December 1974 that it would not be advisable to undertake such a programme. The ground forwarded was that the individual participant could be irritant when they discovered the lower rate of subsidy given to them then the member of the Dairy project near by It was reported by the A.P.O. (Veterinary). Schemes of the same nature would be launched in the Howraghat Dev. Block But it case of Rongkhung Dev. Block, the individual units of rearing of cows, goats and poultry would be undertaken and not the Co-operative diary project. Upto the time of this study, no work under this programme could be started in any of the programme Blocks. Only preliminaries, such as, preparation of schemes and estimates for each unit, negotiation with the Banks for financing and selection of farmers were done. From the above discussion it would be clear that this part of the programme had also failed due to difficulties in obtaining credit.
STRENGTHENING OF CO-OEPRATIVE SCIENTIES
5.7. The number of Credit Societies taken up under SMFAL Agency under the Howraghat, Rongkhong and Bokajan Development Blocks were 20, 9 and 12 respectively, out of the total number of 108,20 and 29 credit Societies under the respective blocks As the subsidy component of the project taken up as a Co-operative venture was high (50% of total cost), the Agency took initiative for strengthening the Co-operative Societies. It had proposed to pay the Co-operative Societies 4 times the share of members as loan. This would increase the borrowing capacity of numbers. But nothing had been done in thing respect during the 3 years period. Secondly, the Agency subscribed risk fund to the Apex Bank against the loan issued to the Co-operative Societies. So far, Rs 6421.13 had been paid on this account out of the total amount of Rs 13.40 lakhs proposed in the project report. Thirdly, it was proposed to give staff subsidy to the Co-operative societies/Banks for supervisors for processing loan applications and looking after the utilisation of the loan.
5.7.2. In the Mikir Hills District, since there is no Central Cooperative Bank, the Apex Bank is financing the agricultures and therefore the subsidies available for the Central Co -operative Bank are granted to the Apex Bank. Thus, against the provision of appointing 6 supervisors in the first two years, the Agency had subsidised the 50% of the pay and allowances of the two additional supervisors employed under the Diphu Branch of Apex Bank in the year 1973-74. The an paid as subsidy by the Agency to the Apex Bank in 1973-74. The amount paid as subsidy by the Agency to the Apex Bank in 1973-74 was Rs 0107 lakh against Rs 0160 lakh provided in the Project report for the 3 years period. The Agency officials reported that the supervisors were being utilised by the Bank more for realisation of outstanding loan than its outward flow. The Apex Bank submitted claims for Rs 0036 lakh for 2 supervisors for the year 1974-75. The amount Agency officials informed that as per the guideline of the Government of India, the Agency could reimburse 66% of the total cost of maintenance of supervisors provided the services rendered by them were satisfactory, Accordingly, the Agency had written the Branch Manager of the Apex Bank to let the Agency know the services rendered by the supervisors during 1974-75 and was welting for a reply for releasing the subsidy for the year 1974-75. Besides, the Agency had paid Rs 0102 lakh during the year 1973-74 to 41. Credit Societies as managerial subsidy.
RURAL WORKS
5.8. According to the guideline set out in the project report, it was proposed that during the loan months for agriculture, the agricultural labours would be engaged in certain rural development works which include the construction of rural road, digging of irrigation and drainage channel, Soil conservation work, etc. In this programme, the marginal farmers were also expected to participate. For the programme Rs 10.00 lakhs was earmarked in the project report.
5.8.2. In the meeting of the Governing body of the Agency held on 24th October 1972, it was decided that since no progress had been achieved in the other fields, the rural works programme should not be undertaken. In the mean time, the Government of India had asked the Agency for undertaking minor irrigation schemes under rural works programme. As a result 3 schemes, one in each block, was taken up and after that the programme was continued. The following Table shows the allotment and expenditure incurred for this programme in the year 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.
TABLE No. 6
ALLOTMENT AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RURAL WORK PROGRAMME(Rs in lakhs)
|
Total number of persons benefited from the programme was about 2,700 only.
5.8.3. It was reported that since the Agency had no technical personnel of its own long time had taken for execution of a scheme. The processes involved in the execution of a scheme were also length. The Agency asked the Block Development Officers to prepare scheme according to some guideline given by them. After submission of the estimates, etc. by Block Development Officers, there wee forwarded to the respective technical officers for technical approval of the schemes. After receipt of approval A meeting of the Board had to be called and after scrutiny by the members of the Board, approved the scheme and directive given to the Project Officer to issue work order. Then the Project Officer asked the BDOs to execute the scheme through the identified farmers. There processes sometimes took considerable time. On the other hand, due to delay of issuing work order no progress could be made in execution of the scheme due to advent of monsoon.
5.8.4. On the other hand the Blocks had no competent technical personnel for preparing schemes under rural works programme and supervising the execution of the same. The payment was to be made on completion of the work. But, it was reported that sometimes the payment was made before completion of the work and as a result, the work suffers since the beneficiaries failed to resume work again and no outsiders other than those identified persons, could be employed for completion of the work.
TRAINING OF RURAL ARTISANS
5.9. To enthuse the local artisan to take up suitable training for improving production, Rs 5.00 lakhs was earmarked in the project report. It was found that the Agency took actions for execution of this part of the programme in December 1972. The Agency wrote to the Assistant Director of Industries for preparing scheme on rural artisan and the Asst. Director of Industries submitted a scheme in the last week of January 1973. The Agency sent the scheme to the Government of India in February 1973 for approval. But in the first half of the month of March 1973, the Agency received a letter from the Government of India asking for a scheme on rural artisan. The Agency again submitted a revised scheme in April 1973 by following the pattern of the SMFAL Agency, Kamrup. In this scheme, the Agency proposed to offer training to 296 rural artisans in 18 different trades at a cost of Rs 5.00 lakhs as follows.
|
5.9.2. The 18 different trades were (1) Carpentry, (2) tailoring and cutting, (3) cane and bamboo works, (4) black smiths, (5) wearing, (6) umbrella making, (7) fitter, (8) welder, (9) Motor mechanic, (10) plumbing, (11) sheet metal works, (12) wire man, (13) tractor driving, (14) diesel mechanic, (15) backary, (16) textile, (17) radio mechanic and (18) electrician.
5.9.3. The Government of India conveyed its approval of the scheme in May 1973 subject to some modification. It was found that against the 18 different trades, the Government of India did not approve training in five trades namely, fitter, welder sheet metal works, and textile and radio mechanic. The financial implication of the scheme as approved by the Government of India, is shown below: —
|
5.9.4. The Agency had trained 30 persons, out of 213 persons approved for training during 1973-74 at a cost of Rs 12,710.83. Number of persons trained, trade-wise, is shown in the following table. Selection of less number of persons than targeted was due to dearth of suitable persons for training.
TABLE No. 7
|
5.9.5. Other parts of the programme could not be implemented due to administrative failure to organise the trainees to take up the work for which they were trained. It was learnt from the official of the Agency that the trainees were not employed anywhere or self-employed upto the time of the study.
COLONISATION PROGRAMME
5.10. The Agency formulated a scheme for colonisation for setting 100 families in Pangaon area of Rongkhong dev. Block at an estimated cost of Rs 30.00 lakhs. The District Council also had considered it suitable scheme and had given all support. It agreed to allot a plot of land measuring 100 bighas for the purpose. The Government of India also sanctioned the scheme, provided no subsidy granted on the cost of land, Kutcha house, school building, drinking water supply and supervision, etc. The District Council, Diphu had been moved to hand over the proposed land free from encumbrances. It was learnt that the District Council had asked the Agency to take possession of unencumbrance portion of the plot, which would be about 50% of the land originally proposed. But the Agency had not taken possession till the time of the study. The details of the scheme are shown in Annexure 9.
5.11. From the discussion in this chapter, it could be concluded that nothing worth while had been achieved during the last three years from 1971-72 to 1973-74 by forming the Agency. Under the circumstances, the Government of India had decided to extend the term of the Agency by another two years, so that they had an operation over a full five years period.
CHAPTER – VI
INTERVIEW WITH THE BENEFICIARIES
6.1. Five beneficiaries under the Bokajan Dev. Block were interviewed to find out the benefit derived by the identified farmers and agricultural labourers. Out of these 5 beneficiaries, 3 were agricultural labourers and 3 were marginal farmers. Out of these 3 agricultural labour, 2 were landless and the other had 2 were landless and the other had 2 bighas of land of his own. At the time of interview, the two landless agricultural labours were found engaged in construction of rural road undertaken under rural work programme by the SMFAL Dev. Agency, Mikir Hills. These labourers reported that they earned their living on daily wage. The other labourer, who had possessed 2 bighas of land leased in 8 bighas of land from others and primarily depended on agriculture.
6.2. As regards the two marginal farmers interviewed, one possessed 3 bighas of land and the other had 7 bighas of land and also leased in 3 bighas of land from others. The other marginal farmer, having 3 bighas of land, engaged himself in off-season as a daily wage labourer.
6.3. These selected persons were asked whether they had received any help from the Agency. Out of these 5 persons, 3 were found engaged in rural works programme undertaken by the MFAL Dev. Agency. The two other persons, it was Reported had applied each for loan of Rs 600.00 in the month of January 1975. Further, it was reported that the credit institution concerned took decision to issue loan, both in cash and kind, worth Rs 600.00 to each of the applicants for cultivating high-yielding varieties of paddy 3 bighas of land only. It was reported that the loan was sanctioned already, but the persons concerned did not receive the loan till the time of the study.
6.4. The farmers interviewed were asked to give their own opinion about the functioning of the Agency and benefit derived from it. But it was found that none of them were aware of the existence of a Agency like SMFAL in Mikir Hills and the programmes sponsored by it. The 3 agriculturist labours, who were engaged in rural works programme, said that they were paid Rs 4.00 only as daily wage, which was too low a wage and this should be increased to Rs 5.00. The two marginal farmers had not received any kind of help from the Agency in the last three years. They stated that irrigation facilities should be extended to raise the productivity of the land.
ANNEXURE I
Proposed expenditure for the SMFAL Agency showing loan portions to be borne by the Co-operative and Commercial Banks and subsidy portion to be borned by the Agency(Rs in lakhs)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional Schemes to be Submitted Later on
|
ANNEXURE 2
Statement showing the allotment and expenditure for SMFALDA from 1971-72 to 1973-74(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE 3
Credit Requirement According to the Project Report(Rs in lakhs)
|
ANNEXURE 4
Revised assessment of Credit need for SMFAL Development Agency, Mikir
Hills
(Rs in lakhs)
|
ANNEXURE – 5
Credit advanced by Commercial Banks and Co-operative Banks under the SMFAL Programme
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 6
Details of Loan advanced by Societies
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 7
Statement showing the allotment and expenditure in the agricultural sector from 1972-73 to 1973-74
(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total annual allotment 20.00
Total expenditure 0.28
Percentage 1.4%
ANNEXURE – 8
Revised estimate for the Proposed Dairy Project at Sarihajan under SMFAIDA, Mikir Hills
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 9
Revised scheme on colonisation for 100 families Rongkhang Block
Estimated expenditure for colonisation programme
|
ANNEXURE – 10
Statement showing the Physical target and achievement in the Agricultural sector from 1971-72 to 1973-74
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 11
Statement showing Physical target fixed achievement under Irrigation Programme
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 12
Statement showing allotment and expenditure under Irrigation
(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Out of the this amount Agency will bear Rs 0.70 lakhs only and rest by Government of Assam as per Project report.
ANNEXURE – 13
Statement showing Allotment and Expenditure under the livestock programme
(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 14
Statement showing Physical target and achievement under livestock programme
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE – 15
Statement showing expenditure incurred for strengthening of Co-operative
(Rs in lakhs)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Mikir Hills district the Apex Bank is finance the agriculturists as there is no Co-operative Centre are granted to Apex Bank.
ANNEXURE – 15
Statement showing expenditure incurred for strengthening of Co-operative
(Rs in lakhs)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|