jdsg

1. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2563
T
hispaperexaminesthedecliningeconomicstakeofwomen
in agriculture, and the increasing contribution of women
to agriculture. The contribution of women to agricultural
work seems to be increasing in general for several reasons,
judging from the number of women workers in crop production
alone. If we also include the work involved in livestock, poultry,
fisheries, water conservation, forestry and work related to com-
mon property resources, the contribution of women to agriculture
would far exceed that of men.
Womenemployedaswagelabourreceivelowerwagethanmen
do. Even when women are categorised as cultivators, their
ownership and control over resources such as land, livestock,
farm machinery, and transport equipment are limited. In addition,
theiraccesstocredit,technologyandmarketinformationishighly
restricted. Their opportunities for education, skill formation and
of shifting to better paid work are also narrow. Disadvantages
experienced by women become apparent once women’s work
comes out into the open, as in the case of female wage labour
and women-headed households. Female wage labourers are the
lowest paid in the economy. The women-headed households in
rural areas are seen in the lowest income class. The first major
implicationoffeminisationofagricultureistheincreasingburden
of work on them and lower compensation.
Feminisation of Indian agriculture has been emphasised by
many. Increased involvement of women in agriculture at the turn
of the century compared to the earlier period has been noticed
in many field studies as well as district level studies.1 It has also
been emphasised that the contribution of women to agriculture
has been underestimated due to the faulty definition of work.
Even the existing census data are not comparable.2
Feminisation of agriculture is not specific to India. It has been
noticed all over Asia – south Asia, south-east Asia and in parts
of west Asia.3 It has been pointed out that the Indian case is
different from that of east Asia.4 Feminisation of agriculture
normally takes place due to outmigration of males from low paid
agriculture to high-paid industry. In India, it is believed that this
has been induced by casualisation of work, unprofitable crop
production and distress migration. Migration has been noticed
to other rural areas, to urban slums and to highly labour-exploit-
ative sectors of the economy such as construction.
Urbanisation in India over the past decade has been lower
than expected. The share of urban population has increased
only by about 2 per cent over this period.5 If we look at all the
four categories of migrants of less than one year, the distribution
shows that rural to rural migrants constitute about 47 per cent,
whereas rural to urban migrants constitute only 22 per cent
1999-2000.6
Less than a year work related migration is very low for women.
About 33.7 per cent of rural males and 44.6 per cent of the urban
males migrated for reasons of employment. In the case of women,
less than a year migration related to employment is as low as
3.6 per cent for rural migrants and 3.7 for urban migrants. Hence,
work participation of women is mostly related to family enter-
prises and local work available. Their upward mobility for
employment is highly restricted.
To that extent, increase in women’s work in agriculture is due
to outmigration of male partners. Women’s work remains invis-
ible in family enterprises. However, in specific pockets with high
levelsofmalemigration,womencomeoutprominentlyascultivator
class and entrepreneurial class in household industry.
Marginalisation of workforce that occurred in the past decade
has made one-third of all rural workers agricultural labour as
per the 2001 Census. This may have forced men to opt for high-
paid casual work in agriculture and non-agriculture, leaving
women to take up the low-paid casual work in agriculture.
In the agriculturally prosperous areas, wages are high. In high-
wage areas, labour may be progressively displaced due to
mechanisation. Whatever work is still available at higher wages,
is mostly taken up by men who migrate, leaving women to accept
low-paid work in less prosperous areas. This has increased the
number of female agricultural labourers. Unlike the other cate-
gories of workers in own-account enterprises and farming, the
female agricultural labourers are visible workers who work for
wages and their numbers cannot be hidden. Thus, at present in
rural India, about 33 per cent of cultivators and about 47 per
cent of agricultural labourers are women.
Increased Share of Women in the Agricultural
Workforce
We cannot compare the census data on agricultural workers
to note the trend over the past decade. However, for rural workers
asawholeforallIndia,comparableinformationhasbeenreleased
by the census authorities. The workforce composition of rural
India(main+marginal)showsa4percentshiftofruralworkforce
in favour of women (Table1).
The comparable data for rural sector over the decade shows
an increase in the share of main female workers to all main
Feminisation of Agriculture and
Marginalisation of Their Economic Stake
The government as well as international organisations have implemented many
programmes aimed at rural women. But actually their programmes do not touch upon the
issues related to women’s higher income work opportunities, upward economic mobility, rights
such as equal wages for equal work and property rights. This article analyses the declining
economic stake of women in agriculture in spite of their increasing contribution.
SWARNA S VEPA

2. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052564
workers. It has increased from 25.19 per cent in 1991 to 26.27
per cent in 2001. Percentage increase in the female main workers
has been 7.2 per cent over the decade compared to an increase
of only 3.2 per cent for men main workers (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
Thus, it is evident that female main workers are replacing male
mainworkersinruralsector.Themagnitudereportedhas,however,
been very small. This is probably due to classifying women in
familyfarmsandfamilyenterprisesasmarginalworkers.Another
reason could also be that the seasonal migration of men in search
of work leaves the women to manage agriculture, but they are
not acknowledged as main workers.
As has been pointed out earlier, in the rural sector, women
are likely to be employed more in agricultural activities such as
farming, livestock, fisheries and forestry rather than in non-
agricultural activities. The Census 2001 data shows that 39 per
cent of the total workers in farming (cultivators + agricultural
labour) are women. Some of the workers categorised under other
work could also be related to livestock, fisheries and so on. In
this category of other workers, 23 per cent were women. About
33 per cent of the cultivators and about 47 per cent of the
agricultural labour are women. This includes both main and
marginal workers. We do not have a further break-up between
marginal and main workers. Comparable data for 1991 is not
available to study the change over the decade and establish
increasing feminisation of agriculture. If we add female workers
in livestock, fisheries and forestry-related enterprises, their
percentage is likely to increase.
As per the Economic Census 1998, more than two million
women are employed in non-crop agricultural enterprises.
About 34 per cent of all workers are women in these enterprises.
The data shows that most of these enterprises are own-account
enterprises. It means that they could combine housework and
enterprise-related work in the same premises. There is scope for
considerable underestimation of the number of women in ag-
riculture and agricultural enterprises than in non-agricultural
enterprises.
The Time Use Surveys may throw some more light on this
aspect. But, they are available only for six states. They show that
women’s total contribution to work is apparent not only in crop
production, but also in the other activities that form part of the
System of National Accounts (SNA). In all the six states, women
had spent as much time or much more time on non-crop pro-
duction and SNA activities as on crop production. The first item
called, ‘primary production’ in the Time Use Surveys included
only crop production activities. The non-crop SNA activities
include livestock, fisheries, forestry, processing storage, etc. An
average of 10.20 hours per week has been spent by women on
crop production activities in the year 2000. This alone has
translated into 43 per cent of female workers to total workers
in crop production in the year 2001 in these states. An additional
10.37 hours a week, was spent on non-crop agricultural
activities by women. Total time spent on agricultural activities
was about 20.57 hours per week by women, which would mean
either more women workers in agriculture than reported in the
census or more main workers spending more time on these
activities (Table 5).
The average time spent on non-crop agricultural activities was
higher for women than for men in five out of six states. This
would mean that either there are more women workers contri-
buting to work or more women are main workers working longer
hours on SNA activities. Thus, what has not been captured in
Table 1: Workforce Composition of Rural Workers
(Persons in millions)
1991 Proportion 2001 Proportion
Female 80.43 0.32 111.46 0.36
Male 168.60 0.68 199.20 0.64
M+F 249.03 1.00 310.66 1.00
Source: Census of India 2001.
Table 2: Share of Female Workers among the Main and
Marginal Workers
(in per cent)
Female Main Female Main Female Female
Workers to Workers to Marginal Marginal
all Main all Main Workers to Workers to
All India Workers Workers all Marginal all Marginal
Workers Workers
1991 2001 1991 2001
Total 22.48 23.20 90.41 60.89
Rural 25.19 26.27 91.38 63.12
Urban 12.81 14.75 72.59 39.24
Source: Census of India 2001.
Table 3: Composition of Workers in India – Rural
(Persons in millions)
Female Male Persons
1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001
Total workers 80.43 111.46 168.60 199.20 249.03 310.66
Main workers 56.00 60.34 166.29 169.33 222.29 229.67
Marginal workers 24.43 51.12 2.31 29.87 26.74 80.98
Percentage of
main workers to
total workers 69.62 54.14 98.63 85.01 89.26 73.93
Percentage of
marginal workers
to total workers 30.38 45.86 1.37 14.99 10.74 26.07
Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com
Table 4: Percentage Increase in Main and Marginal Workers in
Rural India from 1991 to 2001 – Rural
(Persons in millions)
Total (Main + Marginal) Main Workers Marginal Workers
Persons Male Female Persons Male Female Persons MaleFemale
(M+F) (M+F) (M+F)
1991 249.03 168.60 80.43 222.29 166.29 56.00 26.74 2.31 24.43
2001 310.66 199.20 111.46 229.67 169.33 60.34 80.98 29.87 51.12
Difference 61.63 30.60 31.03 7.38 3.04 4.34 54.24 27.56 26.68
Percentage
increase 19.84 15.36 27.84 3.21 1.80 7.20 66.98 92.28 52.20
Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com
Table 5: Weekly Average Time Spent on Crop Production and
Other SNA Activities
State Crop Non-crop All Agri Other All SNA Percen- Percen-
Produ- Agri Acti- Acti- Acti- tage of tage of
ction Acti- vities vities vities Unpaid Female
vities Work Workers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gujarat 11.99 9.63 21.62 2.28 23.90 44.67 41.71
Haryana 3.14 18.04 21.18 2.26 23.49 85.99 45.52
Madhya
Pradesh 13.56 6.51 20.07 2.55 22.62 52.40 43.77
Meghalaya 13.57 12.32 25.89 3.23 29.12 76.39 45.80
Orissa 6.61 10.15 16.76 2.27 19.03 69.44 35.70
Tamil Nadu 12.35 5.57 17.92 5.54 23.46 32.45 45.52
Average 10.20 10.37 20.57 3.02 23.60 60.22 43.00
Note: Columns1-6: CSO, ‘Time Use Survey’ April 2000.
Column 7: Census of India 2001 (per cent of female workers to all farm
workers).
SNA = System of National Accounts.

3. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2565
the census is obvious in time use data. Women’s contribution
to agricultural work has been high.
Even within SNA time use, women’s work could be under-
estimated.Thepercentageoftimespentbywomenontheactivities
entered into SNA was 13 per cent and the extended SNA (that
includes the household work that would cost money if purchased
from the market) was 20 per cent. About 33.62 per cent of the
women’s time is spent on work, while only 27.41 per cent of
the men’s time is spent on work.
The average work done by women may be the same as men
in the SNA activities, though the number of hours assigned
were14 per cent less. Mostly, rural men work far away from home
and spend more time in travelling to and from work, while rural
women work closer home. The time spent on travelling to work
has been added to the SNA work. Unless a more detailed break-
up of the work for various occupational groups such as cultivators
and agricultural labour is made available, it is not possible to
get an accurate picture of men’s work and women’s work in
similarjobs.TheTimeUseSurveysalsoclearlyshowthatwomen
in their double roles have to work more than men, but their role
in the main economic activity has been marginalised.
A total of 23.6 hours a week have been spent on economic
activities by women on an average, but they receive payment
only for 60 per cent of their work. This clearly shows the
marginalisation of their economic stake, despite their substantial
contribution to agriculture. The unpaid work of women is high
in some states and less in others. It appears that it is high in
Haryana and Meghalaya, where the participation of women was
relatively high in non-crop agricultural activities such as live-
stock, fisheries, forestry, processing, storage, etc. In Gujarat and
Tamil Nadu, where the unpaid work is lower than in other states,
the urbanisation is high. This may have made many female
workers as wage labourers (Table 5).
About 80 per cent of all female workers are in agriculture,
leaving about 5 per cent in household industries and about 15
per cent in other types of work. Only 70 per cent of rural men
areinagriculture.Nodoubt,agricultureisthesinglemostimportant
contributor of employment in the rural sector and more so to
the rural women (Table 6).
In family farms and enterprises, normally, the entire income
is apportioned to the male members. In any case, the female
members in family farms and enterprises normally do not own
resources. Neither they take managerial decision nor have they
access to the income that is earned. Contributing to work on an
enterprise, without any control over the income that accrues to
the worker, amounts to marginalisation of their economic stake.
Increase in Female Marginal Workers
Primarily, work opportunities did not keep pace with the
demand for work in the economy as a whole and, particularly,
in the rural sector. Being poor, people accept even marginal work
rather than remaining unemployed. Hence, the share of marginal
workforce has increased. The number of marginal workers in-
creased in the total workforce both in urban and rural areas and,
more so, in rural areas over the past decade. Female marginal
workers are found both in crop and livestock enterprises – mostly
family enterprises as well as agricultural labour. However, the
break-up is not available.
In rural workforce, the share of marginal workers increased
from10.74percentto26.07percentwhiletheshareofmain workers
declined from 89.26 to 76.93 per cent. The magnitude of marginal
workforce is even more appalling. The number of marginal
workers increased from 26.73 million in 1991 to 80.98 million
in 2001 (Table 7). Among the marginal workers, there were more
womenthanmen.In2001,therewere51.12millionfemale marginal
workers and only about 30 million male marginal workers in rural
India. The composition of main to marginal workers among
female workers changed from 70:30 in 1991 to 54:46 in 2001.
Thecompositionofthemaleworkersisstillheavilytiltedtowards
main workers – from 98:2 in 1991 to 85:15 in 2001 (Table 3).
A decade ago, almost all marginal workers were women. In
the past decade, male work is also being marginalised. The share
Table 6: Distribution of Rural Workers
(Persons in million)
Cultivators Percentage of Agricultural Percentage of HH Percentage of Other Percentage of Total Percentage
Cultivators Labourers Agricultural Industry HH Industry Workers Other Workers
to Total Labourers to to Total Workers to (Main +
Workers Total Workers Workers Total Workers Marginal)
Male 84.05 (42.19) 54.75 (27.48) 5.64 (2.83) 54.76 (27.49) 199.20 (100)
Percentage of male
cultivators to total
cultivators (67.40) (53.09) (48.18) (76.97) (64.12)
Female 40.64 (36.45) 48.37 (43.40) 6.07 (5.44) 16.38 (14.69) 111.46 (100)
Percentage of female
cultivators to total
cultivators (32.59) (46.90) (51.81) (23.02) (35.87)
Persons (M+F) 124.68 (40.13) 103.12 (33.19) 11.71 (3.76) 71.14 (22.90) 310.66 (100)
Source: Census of India, 2001
Table 7: Main and Marginal Workers in Rural
India over a Decade
Total Main Marginal Main Marginal
Workers Workers Workers Workers to Workers to
Persons Persons Persons Total Workers Total Workers
(M+F) (M+F) (M+F) (Per Cent) (Per Cent)
India – Census 1991 (persons in millions)
Total 314.13 285.93 28.20 91.02 8.98
Rural 249.03 222.29 26.74 89.26 10.74
Urban 66.10 64.64 1.46 97.79 2.21
India – Census 2001 (persons in millions)
Total 402.51 313.17 89.34 77.80 22.20
Rural 310.66 229.67 80.98 73.93 26.07
Urban 91.86 83.50 8.36 90.90 9.10
Source: Census of India 2001, Indiastat.com

4. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052566
of female workers among the marginal workers has come down
from 91.38 per cent to 63.12 per cent over the past decade. The
share of men among marginal workers increased from 2 per cent
in 1991 to 37 per cent in 2001. The rural distress in the past
decade has forced more men to accept marginal work so much
so that male workers categorised as marginal workers more than
doubled.
Concentration of Female Agricultural Labour
As per the 2001 Census, one-third of the rural workers are
agricultural labourers. This shows the magnitude of casualisation
of work in the rural areas. As per the census, female agricultural
labour is high in some states compared to others. Agricultural
labourisnormallyhiredforcropproduction(Appendix).Demand
for hired labour is high in the areas where mechanisation is low,
crop intensity is high and area irrigated is high. Further, rice
cultivation normally uses more labour than wheat cultivation.
One can expect predominantly rice-growing areas to have higher
labour demand (Table 8). The states of Punjab and Haryana have
lower demand for human labour as the levels of mechanisation
is high. In Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, for example, both
machine labour use and human labour use have been high. This
only reiterates the point that in these states, labour demand is
high due to the importance of two/three crops of rice in kharif
as well as in the rabi and summer seasons, unlike in Haryana
and Punjab, where only one crop of rice is possible. Another
important point is that use of machine labour in southern states
may have reduced the overall demand for labour in agriculture.
However, the mechanisation is mostly due to shortage of local
labour. Female labour is important for rice cultivation. Yet, due
to limitations of migration, women cannot take up work in high
demand, high wage areas.
In some states, there are more women than men cultivators.
In others, women are engaged more as agricultural labour than
men.InthestatesofAndhraPradesh,Gujarat,Karnataka,Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, more than 50
per cent of agricultural labourers are women. In these states, the
percentage of female cultivators is also high at about 30 to 40
per cent. But what is more interesting to note is that, with the
exception of Tamil Nadu, states that offer moderate to lower
wages, employ more women. In West Bengal, Haryana and
Kerala, there are more men than women as agricultural labourers,
since the wages are high.
The role of women in agriculture becomes clear, if we consider
the district level data. Out of the total 582 districts for which
data is available, about 46 per cent of the districts have more
female labourers than men. In some districts more than 60 per
cent of agricultural labourers are women. Only 8.70 per cent of
the districts have more than 50 per cent women as cultivators.
The situation is particularly alarming in the backward districts.
In the 150 districts that have been chosen for Food for Work
Programme and also likely to have the launch of the Employment
Guarantee Schemes, the situation is even more alarming. Census
data is available for such 142 districts. In 83.7 per cent of these
backward districts, female agricultural labour has more than 40
per cent share. In 87 backward districts, (61 per cent of the
backward districts), female agricultural labour constitute 50-70
per cent. Female cultivators also constitute more than 40 per cent
of all cultivators in about 41 backward districts, (29 per cent of
the backward districts). Thus in the backward districts agriculture
has more than the average share of women as cultivators and
labourers (Tables 9 and 10).
A few districts in some states illustrate this point that female
labour is concentrated in backward districts. In Andhra Pradesh,
for example, the percentage of female labour is as high as 60
and above in the relatively backward districts and less prosperous
districtsofWarangal,Nalagonda,Mahaboobnagar,Vizianagaram
and so on. The more prosperous arrears such as east and west
Godavari districts employ relatively fewer women as labour. The
wages are likely to be high in peak seasons in the rice growing
irrigated areas of east and west Godavari districts. Women
cultivators are fewer than men in the most prosperous districts
ofthestate.InmoredifficultterrainssuchasVizianagaram,about
40 per cent of the cultivators are women.
While the sex composition of cultivators and agricultural
labourers differs from one state to the other, within the states,
itappearsthatagricultureinmorebackwarddistrictsattractlarger
percentage of women than men, and at the same time, more
prosperous districts have less number of women than men. The
case of Tamil Nadu also gives credence to the view. In the
Table 8: Human Labour Inputs Per Hectare for Rice (1998-99)
Human Human Labour ( in Rs) Machine
Labour Casual Attached Family Total Labour
State (Man Hours) (in Rs)
Andhra Pradesh 1023.36 4679.88 289.92 2486.93 7456.73 1178.46
Assam 671.41 604.31 275.33 3251.26 4130.90 98.72
Bihar 845.13 1656.97 10.51 1580.04 3247.52 272.87
Kerala 908.34 9760.98 136.21 2431.93 12329.12 1074.70
Haryana 584.09 2913.14 237.07 2657.21 5807.42 1426.81
Madhya Pradesh717.91 1537.37 51.47 1744.26 3333.10 238.34
Punjab 450.54 1755.42 566.97 1394.31 3716.70 2164.17
Tamil Nadu 1134.83 6560.92 222.34 2631.13 9414.39 1759.29
Uttar Pradesh 775.18 1750.38 31.33 2345.84 4125.55 713.68
West Bengal 1245.29 3742.90 133.20 4034.87 7910.97 302.11
Note: Machine labour for Bihar refers to 1997-98.
Source:Reports for the Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices, GoI,
New Delhi, 2002.
Table 9: Distribution of Districts as per the Percentage
of Female Workers in all Districts
Cultivators Agricultural Labourers
Per Cent No of Districts Percentage No of Districts Percentage
<30 254 43.64 94 16.15
30-40 140 24.05 76 13.06
40-50 137 23.54 143 24.57
50-60 36 6.19 202 34.71
60-70 14 2.41 63 10.82
>70 1 0.17 4 0.69
Total 582 100.00 582 100.00
Note: Data is not available in the Census 2001 for 11 Districts.
Source:Census of India, 2001.
Table 10: Distribution of Districts as per the Percentage of
Female Workers in 151 ‘Food for Work’ Districts
Cultivators Agricultural Labourers
Percent No of Districts Percentage No of Districts Percentage
<30 51 35.9 8 5.6
30-40 50 35.2 15 10.6
40-50 34 23.9 32 22.5
50-60 5 3.5 57 40.1
60-70 2 1.4 27 19.0
>70 0 0.0 3 2.1
Total 142 100.0 142 100.0
Note: Data for nine districts is not available in the Census 2001.

5. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 2005 2567
prosperousirrigateddistrictofTanjavur,thepercentageofwomen
agricultural labour is only 44, while the backward districts like
Ramanathapuram has as high as 58 per cent of agricultural labour
as women. In the districts such as Namakkal, Pudukkotai,
Tiruvannamalai and Perambalur, 55 to 60 per cent of agricultural
labour were women. It is not clear from the census data whether
they are employed in rice cultivation or other commercial crops.
The reason for higher employment of women as labour appears
to be the lower wages paid to women. Thus, women seem to
be pushed to poorest areas of the state where the wages are low
compared to prosperous districts. They get lower wages than men
even in these districts.
In the case of Chhattisgarh, in all the 16 districts, the percentage
of female agricultural labour is between 53 to 66. In the district
of Dantewada it is highest at 66 per cent and lowest at 53 per
cent in Raigarh. Similar situation exists in Gujarat also. The
percentage of female agricultural labour to the total agricultural
labour varies from 60 to 70 in the districts of Dohad, Panchmahal
and Dangs. Similarly, it is worth noting that as per the 2001
Census, the hill districts of various states such as Himachal
Pradesh and Uttaranchal recorded more number of women cul-
tivators. In Uttaranchal, in all the districts there are more women
as cultivators than men. It ranges from 68 per cent in Almora,
and 67 per cent in Garhwal to 55 per cent in Uttarkashi. In nine
of the 13 districts of Uttaranchal more than 55 per cent of the
cultivators are women. In eight districts they are more than 65
per cent.
Wages in Agriculture
The wage rates in 1998-99 show that the states of Orissa, Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh get the lowest wage rates
between Rs 30 and Rs 40. Kerala labour gets the highest wage
rate at Rs 105.84 followed by West Bengal, Haryana and Tamil
Nadu. Depressed wages also contribute to the poverty and dif-
ferential between male and female wage further means declining
economic stake of women.
The states in which wage differentials are low, the number of
female labourers is also low. To indicate the wage inequality
among the states, female wages as a proportion of male wages
istaken.Ideally,itshouldbeone,indicatingnowagedifferentials.
The wage taken in the study is the average wage of non-public
works. In Tamil Nadu, the female wage as a proportion to male
wage is 0.51, in Kerala and Goa female wage is 0.53 of the male
wage, as compared to the all-India average of 0.64. In Kerala,
the absolute female wage is high compared to other states, but
the differential is also high. In states like Punjab where the wage
differential is relatively low, that is, the proportion of female
wage to male wage is 0.75, but it is also a state where the
participation of female agricultural labourers is only 25 per cent
andthepercentageoffemalecultivatorsis13.Theabsolutewages
are the lowest for women in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa but are
stillmarkedwithhighpercentageofagriculturallabourers.About
58 per cent of the women are agricultural labourers in Madhya
Pradesh7 (Appendix).
In the past decade, in general, the wages per person-day have
increased by about 80 per cent. However, they have declined
slightly in real terms in many of the most populous states such
as UP and Bihar, and have risen only marginally in others. This
is likely to have led to fall in real wage incomes given the decline
in overall wage employment in the rural areas. The position of
labour dependent population has deteriorated in more than one
way. First, the use of machines reduced their opportunities of
employment in more prosperous states. Secondly, the possible
shift of rice area to other crops poses a threat to labour employ-
ment as the other crops use less labour than rice cultivation. Last
but not the least, shortage of rice production within the state and
the consequent increase in the prices to the consumers would
force the low-income groups to consume fewer calories. Thus
aspertheNationalSampleSurvey,in1999-2000,thethreelowest
income classes in the rural areas of Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra and Gujarat had consumed fewer calories. Hence,
shortages of production and high local prices for consumers
would hurt population even in the low poverty states. Thus it
is clear that rural households depending upon female labour
income suffer the most, experiencing poverty and lower calorie
consumption.
Appendix: Percentage of Female Workers and Male-Female
Wage Differentials
Sl State Percentage of Female Wages
No Culti- Agri Farm Female Male Index
vators Labourers Workers (Rs) (Rs) of
to to to Wage
Total Total Total Equality
(M+F) (M+F) (M+F) (Female/
Cultivators Agri Farm Male)
Labourers Workers
1 Andhra Pradesh 33.34 53.75 46.24 26.48 40.67 0.65
2 Arunachal
Pradesh 51.20 45.99 50.89 42.73 67.09 0.64
3 Assam 28.92 34.17 30.27 35.55 48.82 0.73
4 Bihar 20.59 35.11 29.62 31.57 36.53 0.86
5 Jharkhand 37.93 48.06 42.20 – – –
6 Goa 48.43 55.99 51.53 46.99 83.20 0.56
7 Gujarat 32.49 52.22 41.71 34.43 43.91 0.78
8 Haryana 38.83 44.43 40.46 51.01 62.65 0.81
9 Himachal
Pradesh 57.41 40.83 56.67 50.36 67.06 0.75
10 Jammu and
Kashmir 36.35 22.09 34.52 66.07 77.04 0.86
11 Karnataka 29.61 58.66 43.20 27.14 42.51 0.64
12 Kerala 15.54 33.35 27.80 56.65 100.78 0.56
13 Madhya Pradesh 37.66 52.97 43.77 24.91 30.15 0.83
14 Chhattisgarh 42.62 59.60 49.67 – – –
15 Maharashtra 44.12 56.73 50.16 25.28 41.32 0.61
16 Manipur 44.70 56.15 46.76 47.40 59.46 0.80
17 Meghalaya 45.19 47.45 45.80 43.06 57.37 0.75
18 Mizoram 49.28 52.48 49.44 66.24 97.77 0.68
19 Nagaland 50.07 46.19 49.85 46.67 71.93 0.65
20 Orissa 20.57 48.56 35.70 23.34 31.14 0.75
21 Punjab 13.37 25.90 18.52 49.48 65.86 0.75
22 Rajasthan 46.33 59.33 48.39 37.02 55.19 0.67
23 Sikkim 46.62 49.20 46.92 40.60 50.71 0.80
24 Tamil Nadu 35.93 51.52 45.52 30.78 60.20 0.51
25 Tripura 29.17 41.43 34.94 38.66 49.14 0.79
26 Uttar Pradesh 20.00 39.45 27.33 30.08 43.50 0.69
27 Uttaranchal 56.23 26.76 52.21 – – –
28 West Bengal 16.85 31.03 24.87 35.59 44.60 0.80
29 Chandigarh 6.60 8.14 6.93 – – –
30 Delhi 29.47 29.18 29.39 N.A 80.99 (-)
31 Pondicherry 10.80 43.28 39.15 – – –
32 Daman and Diu 50.60 75.58 56.79 – – –
33 D and N Haveli 54.45 63.59 56.94 – – –
34 Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 0.00 – – –
35 A and N Island 30.01 22.19 28.52 – – –
All-India 32.59 46.91 39.07 29.01 44.84 0.65
Note: NSS 55th Round, Employment and Unemployment Situation in India,
July 1999-2000.
NSSO, GoI, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Census of India – 2001.

6. Economic and Political Weekly June 18, 20052568
Implications to Policy
Many programmes by the government as well as the interna-
tional organisations are aimed at rural women. They help dis-
advantaged women by way of additional work and microcredit.
The aim is to improve their economic position. The prescriptions
suggested include devises and tools and machinery that help them
earn livelihoods on one hand and reduce their drudgery on the
other in their present roles. Women normally occupy the places
vacated by men. But still, there has not been any effort to promote
employment of women as regular wage labour. There was hardly
any upward mobility for women. Community participation and
awareness creation activities sometimes overburden the women
with work related to natural resource conservation, biodiversity
conservation and free contribution of labour to community work
that does not bring them any direct monetary benefit. Hence,
governmentprogrammesneedtourgentlyaddresstheproblems of
lowwages,lackofincentivesforwork,lackofskillsandaccess to
resources. Most of the organisations do not touch upon the issues
related to higher income work opportunities, upward economic
mobility, property rights and rights such as equal wages for equal
work. In addition since poor labour households in backward
districts need more income, Employment Guarantee Schemes
should pay special attention to create tailored-made employment
opportunities for women at stipulated minimum wages to help
them in the short run. They may be employed in water conser-
vation, regeneration of forests, and other environmental resto-
ration activities that would also enhance the availability of water,
fuelwood and other free goods from common property resources,
such as wild foods. Similarly, in the backward districts with
higher percentage of women cultivators, right to land and access
to credit and technology are of utmost importance. Gender justice
through equal wages, equal opportunities of upward mobility,
right to land, avenues of acquiring of skills, are as important to
rural women, as the community participation and gainful self-
employment and credit in wage-based livelihood system.
Email: svepa@mssrf.res.in
Notes
1 Anuradha Talwar and Swapan Gunguly, ‘Feminisation of India’s Agricul-
tural Workforce’, West Bengal Agricultural Workers Union, 2001-2002.
2 Census data of 1991 and 2001 are not comparable in the strict sense.
The 2001 Census worker classification as cultivators and agricultural
labourers consists of both main and marginal workers. The 1991 worker
classification is only for main workers. So far the Census 2001 has not
beenreleasedtheoccupationaldistributionseparatelyformainandmarginal
workers. Census 1991 pertains only to main workers.
3 Asia’sWomeninAgriculture,EnvironmentandRuralProduction,Country
papers on Sustainable Development Dimensions 2003, FAO.
‘Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in the
Changing World’, 2001, FAO – World Bank study.
4 C P Chandra Sekher and Jayati Ghosh ‘Indian Economic Reform Process
andtheImplicationsofSouth-EastAsianCrisis’,EmploymentandTraining
Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1999.
5 Food Insecurity Atlas of Urban India, October 2002, MSSRF.
6 NSS Report No 470, ‘Migration in India’, 55th Round 1999-2000, p 22.
7 Atlas of the Sustainability of Food Security in India 2004, MSSRF and
WFP.
-29