#1 - Consolidate land holdings so as to make mechanization feasible.
#2 - Improve yeilds either by Hybrid seed or other means (more crop rotation or something…dunno)
#3 - Divert farm labour to other indegenous occupations - crafts and stuff like that

Will that achieve all three?

BTW, Ravages is right. In theory at least. And so is Patrix, coz this is not what we want! ;-)

BTW - the third method, diverting (excess) farm labour to other means of occupation would help reduce dependency on agriculture, improve per capita income, and give you more goods to export. If that ain’t capitalistic, I dunno what is

While India does export food grain and certain cash crops (like tea) these are usually in the form of commodities…the lowest end of the value chain. There is no export of fresh produce and packaged food stuff due to poor infrastructure and a food processing industry that remains in perpetual infancy.

The task is cut out - first, improve rural infrastructure; roads, electricity, irrigation, logistics and supply chain and second, incentivise food processing industry.

(also posted on Emergic.org)

I have also heard people argue for removing land ceiling and for freeing agricultural marketing. But I dont know what the current status is. Any idea?

—-
By the way, I dont see any problem with this: “60% of the population gets 30% of the country’s income”. Is it not the same old 80:20 rule. The real problem with the income distribution here is 30% of the population go to bed hungry. Their basic needs are not taken care of: no education, no healthcare and almost no decent water and food. If you are making a policy, you should look at tackling this (providing basic necessities), rather than bringing down the inequities. If bringing down inequality is your goal, you tend to focus on distribution of wealth, rather than generation. And you also tend to see wealthy people as crooks and exploiters.

The problem with Indian policy making is, I think, we have been raising a lot of noice about removing inequality, instead of looking at ways to ensure basic needs; and have ended up doing neither.

But my point is really simple. Its ok to have 60% of popultaion getting only 30% of income, as long as that 30% is not denied water, food, health and education.

I share the same views about the anti-globalization movement you have expressed (did not for long even know what it was about).

Here you seem to be arguing partly against the straitforward capitalist way. And in my opinion you’re right!

For one, in general, just merely copying the Wester capitalist ways and technologies does introduce all its disadvantages (which are quite severe), too! Why not only take the better elements or improve upon it?

Secondly, the mere definition of ‘productive’ has to been reviewed very careful! The Western capitalism definition of productive is ‘consuming a heavy amount of fossil fuels and relying on sophisticated heavy machines’!

This has two disadvantages:
a) Agriculture should be about producing good and healthy food in a sustainable way. The focus on mere quantity is wrong. This has led to destruction of soils (through overuse, pesticides, fungizides, fertilizers; but also through compressing it with heavy machines), demineralized soils, uniform crops etc.
b) it is very energy intensive and needs complex technology (building the machines, logistics); and what if fossil fuels become too rare before sufficient replacement is there?

Maybe producing one’s own food with human power is the most productive way! Of course, there is lot of room for improvement, absolutely!

If one farmer improves his productivity, he gets rich, but if they all improve their productivity, they get poorer as a class, but the country as a whole becomes better off, because it spends less on the farmers’ produce.

So improving farm productivity, will mean either that, farmers will be worse off, or over a period of time there will be a consolidation of land holdings, and an exodus of labour from the agricultural sector. So think I and Wicksell.

Total Produce/Total No. of People engaged in Production

Typically, if you increase capital intensity, you will get higher productivity. Producing your own food with human power, maybe a little like what Pol Pot tried to do.

Though I agree with what seems to be avelin’s sentiment, that maybe an imitative development process maynot be the best deal, especially since the West is straying from the principles of Capitalism itself.