It is indeed a great pleasure for me to address this august gathering, in an ambience of solemn reverence to the great soul that arrived amidst us exactly a hundred years ago. On receiving the invitation, I readily confirmed my participation not just because the focal topics were all very dear to my heart. It was equally for the reason that I could associate myself with this commemorative occasion for a great visionary and patriot, who epitomized all the very best in ethics, value and principles. I consider it a rare honour for me.

The reason why I have chosen this topic for my deliberation is mainly two-fold: First, it is in rural development that lies the crux of development of the country. What Gandhiji had remarked long back - that India lives in villages - is true even today. Lal Bahadur Shastriji, one of the greatest disciples of the Mahatma, not only had a distinct vision for the development of rural India, but also had certain well though — out formulae for translating his vision into action. A realist as he was, for him the upliftment of the rural masses would never take place unless the grand vision was actually transformed into concrete action. Secondly, through my own education and profession, I have had ample opportunity to experience the problems and prospects of rural India. On this occasion, therefore, it is but natural that I would like to appreciate the wise thoughts of Shastriji on this vital aspect concerning the country and, in the process, share some of my own humble thinking on the same.

‘Developments’ is a multi-faceted concept, the contours of which vary depending on the context, space and time. It is the context which determines the focus. Here the context of rural development has its focus on enhancing social equity. Admittedly, the agenda is vast-with numerous ingredients of both the context and the focus. Surely this cannot be done justice with here within the limited time available, and only some particular segment has to be chosen for greater deliberation.

Accordingly, I would prefer to confine myself to the most important characteristic or rural India - that is, its dependence on agriculture and the allied activities, and what best can be done on that front-both in terms of quantity as well as quality-towards accelerating the development process. Agriculture is not only the pillar of our rural economy, but is estimated to account for about 22% of the country’s GDP. Although this share has been declining over the years, the growth of our GDP continues to have a strong correlation with the performance of agriculture. This is evident from the fact that, with a good monsoon and a resultant bumper harvest during last year, the agriculture sector recorded a growth of 9.1% as against a negative growth of 5.2% in the previous year, and our GDP too posted a much brighter figure. Agriculture still provided livelihood to nearly two-third of the country’s population, employing about 58% of the total workforce. Besides, agricultural products have a substantial share of 12.8% of the country’s total export earnings.

All these pieces of statistics are quite well known. However, beyond being merely statistical figures, they underline the overwhelming importance of Agriculture in our country. As agricultural production takes place only in the rural fields and by the rural people, the commensurate importance of the rural sector in the entire fabric of the country cannot also be over-estimated. The development process of the rural sector, therefore, has to start with agriculture, as it provides the means of sustenance to the vast majority of the rural people. It not only provides the livelihood, but also offers the purchasing powers to the majority of the country’s population.

Having said this, I hasten to add that agriculture is only the starting plank for me. The dynamics of rural development are far too complex to be understood in a linear model of agricultural growth alone. Besides the economy which also includes the SSI and tiny industry sector, there are numerous other issues in rural development - education, health, public hygiene, women empowerment, to name just a few - which too have a great causal correlation in this development matrix. For a correct understanding and assessment of the development process, a holistic approach is a must. Yet, there is no doubt that the economy - more specifically, agriculture-remains the most important element in this whole process, and for the rural poor it is perhaps the all-important issue. After all, “to an empty stomach, food is gods”, as Mahatma Gandhi had put it. And there lies the importance of agriculture in the development dynamics of rural India.

To appreciate where we were and where we are now, it is necessary to go back to the pre-independence days. By any standard, rural India was then generally characterized by frequent famines and mass impoverishment. The reasons behind all this were, however, not far to seek: (a) agriculture was in the unorganized sector; (b) there was total dependence on the systems of nature; (c) legal framework of the land tenure system was not at all conducive; and (d) the foreign rulers of the land extracted maximum benefits by forcing their priorities elsewhere. Beset with all these retrograde elements, agriculture was then carried on in an atmosphere of silent resignation and with a feeling of fait accompli. Dearth of food-stocks, lack of purchasing power in the hands of the rural populace and malnutrition all around helped our country earn the dubious distinction of being one of the poorest countries of the world.

Not that the country was unaware of these ground realities. Protagonists of our freedom movement were alive to this scenario and, buoyed by the Gandhian vision of rural awakening, had definite prescriptions to stem the rot. Yet, for obvious reasons, the job of policy planning was not in the hands of these right-minded thinkers, in absence of political powers. With the freedom of the country from the British Raj, however, new opportunities beckoned. Independent India embarked on the difficult job of a reconstructive surgery through a plan process, called the ‘Five Year Planss’, launched since 1951.

The vision of our rural resurgence were intended to be codified in the Five-Year Plan documents in terms of concrete action. Befittingly to the requirements of time, it was the first Five-Year Plan, which incorporated a pronounced emphasis in agricultural development, and through this a kind of rural resurgence in the country. In line with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in our Constitution, development of the country in general, and the rural India in particular, were to be carried on in an equitable basis. The policy prescriptions of the government were, therefore, to be aimed at this proclaimed ideal.

Let us now examine whether this development philosophy found its place in the Plan documents in clear and unambiguous terms, or they suffered from any inherent contradictions detrimental to an equitable yet accelerated growth in the rural sector. My purpose here is not to discuss the merits and the demerits of our planning process, for there is already a plethora of literature having done just that. Without adding any more to this, all I would like to do is to highlight certain crucial issues which still stirs my mind, and leave them for a considered judgment of this informed gathering.

In the Draft First Five-Year Plan, it was stated that the weakest area of the then Indian economy was the shortage of food and raw materials. Accordingly, relatively larger share of resources was allocated to agriculture and agri-related projects for the First FYP. Abolition of the Zamindari system, and the need for land reforms also found due recognition, although there appeared to be some contradictory opinion in respect of fixing the land ceiling per family. The differences in this regard between the Draft and the Final documents of the First FYP bring out this contradiction. In the Final document, the Planning Commissions says, “We are in favour of fixing the upper ceiling of individual land holdings”. However, the tone and tenor of the Draft document was different: “The major factors for securing increase in production are the application on a wide scale of scientific knowledge and increased capital investment in its different forms. These can be employed only if agriculture can be organized on the basis of relatively larger units of management and production than the existing holdings.” Ultimately, of course, Zamindari system was abolished, for good reason, and the land ceiling too was fixed, but the elements of confusion and contradiction in the minds of the planners themselves did not escape attention of the keen followers of the planning exercise.

Some more contradictions were also evident in the First FYP process. It was stated that “Community Development is the Method and Rural Extension the Agency through which the Five Year Plan seeks to initiate a process of transformation of the social and economic life of the villages.” But there was a conspicuous lack of clarity with regard to the implementation part of the above idea. Whether the community development programme would aim at the upliftment of all villagers, or a selected group of villages and villagers? Whether it would involve projects for intensive development of identified areas only-so as to contribute to raising the level of agricultural production - or, the aim would be to cover the entire rural India with schemes designed to promote intensive development through increased agricultural productivity?

To my mind, such contradictions and lack of clarity in the Plan document did not auger well for the ultimate objective of focusing the desired attention and resources to agriculture. The sincerity of purpose and the consummate eagerness were never in doubt, but they failed to deliver to the desired extent. True, the First Five-Year Plan did give the kick-start to a planned agrarian regime, and also succeeded in recording a considerable increase in agricultural production. But the crucial policy issues, such as that of land reforms, did not get the importance they deserved.

It is interesting to observe that the idea of ‘intensive development‘ - inherent in the First Five Year Plan-was really implemented much after the Plan period (1951–56) was over - from the year 1960. Christened “Intensive Agricultural Districts Programmes” (IADP), it continued for about next 7–8 years as the basic structure of the government’s efforts toward raising farm output. Acknowledging that the scarce resources-such as, capital, seeds, water, etc. - could not be equally deployed into all cultivable land in all villages through out the country, a regime of “intensive farmings” was witnessed in selected rural pockets where these resources were deployed intensively to bring about higher production. A few villages in each State were selected for the purpose, and named the IADP Villages. Even within such villages, a few eligible farmers - called the “Progressive Farmerss” - used to be selected for greater benevolence from the government in terms of easier availability of seeds, fertilizer, irrigation water, etc. No doubt this resulted in definite acceleration in the growth of farm output, but also give rise to a creamy layer of rich farmers in the country. Thus, even though in statistical terms our per capita farm income grew substantially, in terms of equity and creating an equitable rural society this “intensive farmings” appeared to be counter-productive.

Till around the mid-sixties, our country witnessed a spurt in agricultural production, but thereafter two consecutive years (1965–66 and 1966–67) witnessed an unprecedented slump. Successive draughts underscored the limitation of the hitherto pursued government initiatives, and also highlighted the continued dependence of our agriculture on the natural elements. Yet, the impact would have been still worse had it not been minimized on account of a very important factor that appealed to the hearts of all countrymen, particularly the rural people. It was Shastriji’s foresightedness that gave direction to the country at that difficult hour through the new slogans, such as, “Grow More Foods” and “Jai Jawan Jai Kissans”. “Jai Jawan” referred to the prevailing threat from outside, while “ Jai Kissan” referred to the threat from within - of famine and natural calamities. These two concepts were beautifully woven into yet another (“Jai Hind”) - appealing to the patriotic feelings of the countrymen. The country had a go, with this passionate call of Shastriji.

Simultaneously with these, it was increasingly being felt that per acre productivity in agriculture had to be increased, as the area of our cultivable land showed up its limitation in the face of fast growing population. What was, therefore, required was new technology. It was a conscious decision of the Planning Commission to ensure and encourage those who could adopt this new technology for being given all assistance. Even if the that entailed widening the gap between the rich farmers and the poor farmers, so be it. After all, expediency demanded that food production had to be increased anyhow, even if that led to some sort of social inequality in the farm sector. To put it in the words of the Fourth Five Year Plan document, “In view of the urgency of the need, it was decided to direct state effort in the first instance to those areas which were best endowed for food production. This was the basis of what has come to be known as the new strategy of agricultural development.”

With better irrigation and high yielding seeds being made available, this mechanization in farming brought about a sea change in the quantum of crop production. This was the so-called Green Revolution witnessed by the country - or rather, some parts of the country, notably in the States of Punjab, Haryana, UP, Gujarat, Maharashtra, etc., in certain food-crops notably wheat.

It is a common knowledge now that this Green Revolution ushered in a quantum jump in food-crop production. It would, however, be interesting to see whether this was matched by similar increase in percentage contribution of agriculture in our national income. During the 14-year period from 1950–51 to 1964–65, the per-year average growth in agricultural income was 2.4 per cent. On the other hand - and contrary to general perception - this growth rate has been 2.2 per cent during the 14-year period from 1967–68 to 1981–82, i.e. the peak period of the Green Revolution. All these statistics, however, does not take away the undisputed contribution of Green Revolution in feeding the teeming millions of the country at a time when, without this, we would have been in the brink of disaster.

Nevertheless, my focus here is not so much on the efficacy of the government initiatives in this regard, but more on to see whether that resulted in an equitable development of the rural India. As has been discussed above, it was sheer expediency which drove our planners to take certain measures which, in the process, helped convert the earlier “progressive farmer” into a class of really rich farmers. It is often remarked that, with this, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer. This may not be true. Today’s poor class is definitely not as poor as those of the yesteryears. Only in comparative terms, the gap between the richer farming class and the rural poor may have increased, as because earlier there was hardly a really rich farmer. Thus, ‘equitys’ per se may not have been ensured, but the general development index in rural India-reflected in betterment of the quality of life - has definitely improved today. But was it the case about three decades back?

Three decades ago the number of rural poor might have increased in different ways. Number of small and marginal farmers increased; so did agricultural labourers. Increase in their number was unfortunate, but not unexpected. The main reason behind this was the high rate of population growth. Population dependent on agriculture was increasing, with the area of cultivable land remaining stagnant. This gave rise to both disguised unemployment as well as seasonal unemployment, as the switch over from mono-cropping to multi-cropping had not really taken place till then.

The picture of rural unemployment - and the consequent poverty-becomes clear from the Sixth Five-Year Plan document: “The Rural Labour Enquiry has shown that between 1964–65 and 1974–75, the number of days for which employment was available for rural labourers declined by 10 per cent for men, 7.5 per cent for women and 5 per cent for children. The data on average earnings from these enquiries when corrected for inflation also show a decline.” To overcome this problem, certain measures emanated from the planners of our economy. “FOOD FOR WORK” was one of them, while numerous Self-Employment programmes were the others. These measures did have some effect on the rural sector, but cannot be said to have brought about a fundamental change in the development scenario of rural India.

I again go back to the piece just quoted above from the official Sixth Plan document. In the cluster of statistical information which appear rather innocuous and innocent, lies a shameful commentary on the state of our society and economy. The official document laments the fall in employment rate of, among others, children. Today we bow our head in shame to acknowledge the existence of child labour in our country. Today there are legislative Acts which ban engaging child labour. We therefore allow our conscience a reprieve, and prefer to gloat over on how brilliantly we have eradicated this ill from our social economy. In the process, however, all we do is to shove the shameful reality under the glossy carpet. Child labour still exists - in all its shape and size. They are seen more in urban areas, but prevail equally in the rural sector but go rather unnoticed. The official document, quoted above, at least does not resort to any hypocrisy and tells us about the real facts.

Indeed, all the talk of ushering in an equitable rural development in India cannot be achieved until and unless children are actually freed from their duty of being supplemental bread earners, and instead sent to schools. Our vision in this regard has so far mostly fallen flat against heavy odds. There is also a conspicuous lack of social and political will to translate this vision into concrete action. Only schemes like “Mid-day Meals” in schools are at best feeble attempts wide off the mark.

However, without further elaborating on this vital requirement, all we can say is that with the passage of time, and with a resurgence of the industrial sector of our economy, the rural scenario too has undergone a paradigm shift. Even hitherto deficit States like West Bengal, Orissa, and States in the country’s North East joined the race of agricultural development and introduced scores of reforms through the Panchayati system. Now their agricultural growth rate is no less than any other State in the country. Rather, they have emerged as leaders in agricultural development. Country has now surplus food, with some stability in price.

When this karmayogya was going on, there was also a serious dearth of financial resources in the rural sector. Because, the most important input is credit, which was predominantly handled by indigenous money lenders, with just a feeble intervention from the co-operative sector.

It was during the late 1960s that an awareness started growing for bringing in some degree of social control in the rural sector. It was increasingly felt that farmers must have an access to the wealth accumulated in the vast number of banks across the country. Basically it was this awareness that ultimately resulted in the nationalization of major banks in July, 1969 with their ownership changing hands from private groups to the government. With this epoch-making measure, agricultural reforms process got a real kick-start in the country. The visions of Bapuji and Shastriji were thus partially translated into reality.

Vision generally does not change. However, some modifications necessitate over a period of time on temporal and spatial factors. Once modified and settled that way, we may term it a “Neo Vision”. And to translate this neo vision into action, certain need-based systemic modifications would be called for.

I would now elaborate my thoughts on this.

There is no specific data on the (ideal) economic size of land holding, which would indicate the break-even point and the size required for surplus generation. This is necessary in view of the in-built threat in the system: to generate adequate income for self and family (i.e. consumption need) and thereafter to pay back the bank loan installment (i.e. repayment need). Here the planners of the country’s economic fortune-notably the Planning Commission - should come forward and remove the ambiguity once and for all by deciding the economic size of holding.

To address the issue properly, a major legal reform would be called for in respect of the land tenure system of the country. The Hindu Succession Act - which deals with the inheritance of properties amongst the Hindus - has its genesis in the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga rules of inheritance, and the major part of the country is governed by these. We must not, however, forget the Shariyat laws and also some of the local tribal rules. All these laws lead us to consciously accepting a legal dictum for fragmentation of the land, which is against modern agricultural practices, including farm mechanization, to make agriculture viable.

Yet, going down the ages, we find a picture altogether different, where the prevailing laws or practices did not force such fragmentation of land. Out of four sons of the King Dasaratha, while Rama was enthroned, the remaining three brothers were allowed their respective share of revenue, without fragmenting the kingdom. Over the years, such beautiful practice - which meant enormous commercial sense - was carried forward through the Joint Family approach. But today, joint family is making way for nuclear families and, as the law does not prohibit fragmentation, the same piece of land is now getting fragmented over and over again, with a fast increasing population.

If we take a world-wide perspective, it would be seen that today’s developed countries - the USA and Great Britain - have all recorded very high level of farm output with the individual land holdings getting larger and larger. This is, of course, expected in a purely capitalist structure of the political economy - with the concentration of capital in the hands of bigger players propelling them to get further biggesr, in a congenial capitalistic legal framework. Although the French experience of the 19^th century or the Japanese experience of the post-war period does show that smaller holding units too can successfully compete with the larger holdings in the same capitalistic structure, such are instances are only exceptions. On the other hand, existence of small and marginal pieces of land holding used to be generally perceived as typical characteristics of a semi-feudal set-up, but has now co-existed in capitalistic structures as well. In general, however, capital formation in the agrarian sector has historically shown a distinct propensity for withering away of smaller units, and consolidation into larger and larger units of land holdings.

However, as for our own country, it has basically embraced the capitalistic structure of economic development with varying degrees of state control in core sectors, leading itself to a Mixed Economy. It is important to see how far the above capitalistic model can work in our country - especially from the angle of social equity. In fact, it is this ‘equitys’ concept that later on led the controllers of the country’s fortunes to re-phrase the Directive Principles of our Constitution. The aim is now to go for developing a democratic economy with a ‘socialistics’ ethos, yet within the basic capitalistic set-up. This mooring, therefore, makes the task in our country all that complex than that in an outright capitalist country or in a purely socialist regime. In an otherwise poor and over-populated economy struggling to maintain its foothold in the comity of developing countries, considerations of social equity demand that we recognize the existence of small and marginal farmers and help them earn a respectable living out of their fragmented pieces of holdings. It is indeed gratifying that the recent Mid-term Monetary and Credit Policy announced by the Reserve Bank of India has definite directions and policy prescriptions for the banks towards the small and marginal farmers of the country.

Yet, even though the country has to move along with the small fragmented pieces of holdings, the distinct drawbacks of fragmentation stick out glaringly. Per unit of land often becomes so small that even the family cannot be sustained through out the year from the small surplus out of the land. Resultantly, it generates more number of landless labourers who either get stuck into the same piece of land by way of disguised unemployment, or go on to others’ land as share croppers. Although in some States (notably, in West Bengal and Kerala) such share croppers are given patta i.e. some sort of ownership documents, that is more out of political expediency rather than any ermanent legal solution to the problem.

To deal with the problem of fragmentation, our country has experimented with cooperative farming where the advantage of consolidation of holding does exist. It is indeed fascinating to find about the tremendous importance accorded on cooperative farming way back in 1949 in the Reporter of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee. It was rightly recognized - rather emphasized on - the fact that cooperatives could well be formed not just for credit dispensation or for marketing of produce. It could be an equally effective vehicle at the agricultural production stage. However, in absence of a sound and appropriate legal framework, we have not been able to make much headway in this. Moreover, co-operative has to be looked upon and practised as a movement which, unfortunately, did not gain much ground in our country. Thus, a grand vision of land reforms could not be translated into action.

The ills of fragmentation can also be overcome by yet another means: Collective Farming. But that Smacks of a totalitarian regime of wholesale State ownership, which is altogether unacceptable in a democracy as ours, with the right to property ingrained in our constitution as a fundamental right. Thus, within the perimeters of democratic norms, certain legal reforms is definitely called for whereby the problem of fragmentation of holding will be adequately addressed to, and at the same time the rights of inheritance and property will be duly protected too. Having said this, I also acknowledge that such legal reform can take place only if there is a strong political will. An optimist as I am, I do feel there is no dearth of such political will at present, and that has been demonstrated a number of times in the recent past.

In this backdrop, we also need to simultaneously develop the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy on a more concerted way, so that the excess pressure on land can be fruitfully absorbed. All this, however, requires a mass education in the rural areas. Here I cannot help but recalling how beautifully Gandhiji had enunciated his Nai Talim as a vehicle to educated the rural masses from within. Unless the landless labourers themselves realize the benefits of gainful employment by migrating to secondary and tertiary sectors, no amount of formal education can spur them to go for that. A down-to-earth practical approach in education could be of real help in this regard.

Beside legal reforms and mass education, yet another requirement is a proper synergy of the rural populace with the NGOs and the Panchayati system. As is well known, the per capita quantum of rural credit is rather small compared to the level of credit dispensation in urban and metro centers. There is, therefore, a prevalence of micro financing in rural areas. Although from the banker’s point of view risks in micro financing is diversified, yet such small doses of credit also requires constant supervision and monitoring in creation of assets and achieving the desired level of income for the rural people. This is what is called Supervisory Credit. But very few bank managers are capable of accomplishing this in the true sense. This requires genuine people’s participation, which can only be achieved through the NGOs and the Panchayati Raj system. The NGOs will supplement the bankers’ expertise and acts as vehicles to carry the benefits to the people. People’s participation will thus take the complete shape. Similar synergy from the Panchayat will also serve the purpose in a more formal way provided, of course, the Panchayat is free from day-to-day political intervention.

There are also some perennial ills dogging our agriculture, which in turn are pulling back rural development: Lack of market, and Unstable pricing. These are, however, issues which are also engaging the attention of our policy planners - by way of fixing Minimum Support Price or arranging for Regulated Markets. Yet, obviously a lot more remains to be done in the right direction. The agricultural markets are highly regulated by State APMC Acts which in many cases prevent entry of the private sector in direct procurement, and do not pass on the benefits of higher prices to the farmer due to a number of intermediaries involved.

Shortage of storage and preservation facilities also exist, as does deficiencies in the distribution systems. Unless there is a marked improvement on these fronts-especially the timely distribution of stored grains amongst different areas of the country the Kalahandis of Orissa will surface from time to time in all parts of our land. Also, the complicated distribution system followed in the country needs to be de-layered and revamped, given the perishable nature of a large variety of agricultural produce.

At the same time, there is a need to focus our thinking on some new issues and areas in Indian agriculture. Co-management of Water and Energy in one such issue that has remained more in the realm of academics in the past couple of years than being applied in the field. We all know that water and energy are two very important ingredients for efficiency in agriculture. The agricultural sector in India uses about 85 per cent of the country’s available fresh water; but our irrigation efficiency is measured at only 10–25 per cent. Thus, to put it plainly, the prevailing agricultural practices in the country waste up to half of the country’s fresh water supply. Although from a basin perspective, much of the wasted is re-used, significant fresh water is still wasted mainly due to irrigation inefficiencies. On the other, hand, similar inefficiency is perceived in the use of electrical energy too - primarily in the energy losses in distribution of electricity and deficiencies in the electrical motor pump system. Although individually both water and electricity have been taken up for enhancement in their efficiency through several energy sector reforms, co-management of water and energy in Indian agriculture has not been adequately addressed to so far.

Power supply cannot be taken for granted. Falling water tables are also reality. These realities may one day pose severe challenge to our agricultural productivity-resulting in a slowing down on the rural developing initiatives, with serious socio-economy repercussions. The agricultural sector offers tremendous demand for these costly resources, and also has the greatest potentials to make improvements in their efficient use. One of the solutions may lie in the expansion of water energy co-management to include biomass resources, including crop residue. Sooner such water-energy co-management practices are adopted, better it will be for Indian agriculture.

Being a professional banker, I cannot help but pointing out how the banking system today is gearing itself up in transforming the rural economy. The path-breaking measures of 1969 have already been mentioned earlier. The contribution of nationalized banks in the rural fields in the wake of those measures if also well know. What is, however, commonly perceived is that the subsequent reforms in the banking sector - by way of opening it up and putting it on a level playing field of competitive surrounding - may have diluted the rural focus and put a break on ‘social banking’. The informed citizens know that this is far from true. Perhaps, in order to underscore the importance of the banking sectors yet again in transforming the rural economy, recently certain major initiatives have been taken by the country’s policy planners. As per the recent directive, scheduled commercial banks are required to raise their agricultural credit disbursement by 30 per cent this year and at twice the present level in three years.

The best part of it is that, besides the public sector banks, many private banks too have started looking up at farm credit as a profitable business proposition, rather than mere compliance with the government directive. Private banks, which had their branch network restricted to metro, urban and semi-urban areas only, have started opening their branches in rural areas as well. This should augur well for the rural sector in more ways than one, and these supplemental steps are sure to accelerate rural development in our country.

Such transformation of the rural sector is preceded by some distinct changes in the leading culture and practices. A relatively nascent trend is the lending propensity to Contract Farming projects, such as plantations, orchards, warehouses, dairy cooperatives and cold storages. These projects are perceived as more organized than individual farmers. In contract farming, while the banks’ risk is on the farmers, it is minimized by the guarantee of a corporate to purchase a part of the produce. Thus, a prominent synergy is visualized in this new lending practice - a synergy between the corporates and farm lending. Some banks are also tying up with corporate companies like those engaged in producing tractors, fertilizers, seeds, etc. and making these available to the rural borrowers-thereby accelerating rural development. Corporate growth and social equity - the focal theme of today’s Summit - appears to have been put in place.

Before I end, I go back to the beginning. I had emphasized and insisted on a holistic approach to harness rural development. Among the crucial factors that need utmost attention in this approach are education and health-care, particularly child health-care.

Generally, our entire education system still remains town-centric, and it is mainly he urban student who has the inclination or opportunity to go for formal education beyond the school level. For the rural dwellers, it is mostly an wastage of time and hard-earned money to send his ward to a college, that too for getting ‘contaminateds’ by urban values. It is a combination of factors that is at the root of all this. Lack of financial support and the ‘opportunity costs’ factor pull back the village from sending his ward to the college, while the curriculum is perceived as devoid of any practical use. At the school level too, our eagerness is to increase the number of literates in villages than to make them educated.

Similar-or even worse - is the scenario of the health-care front. It is painfully amusing to listen to the argument that mortality rate has gone down drastically and therefore our rural health-care system is fine. This is to suggest as if all those who are not included in the mortality list are in pink of their health. I only wish the protagonists of this argument visit the dilapidated rural health centers where hordes of children and adults suffering from malnutrition flock every day for some relief.

Our vision of an educated and healthy villager will remain a distant dream unless the deficiencies in the system itself are properly addressed to. Till then, the villagers will try their best to carry on the rural development process amidst all limitations. And also till then, our agriculture-which is the back-bone of the rural economy-will miss out on the essential synergy with other ingredients of this development process.

To conclude, I would like to sound optimist by quoting from a recent survey on Indian agriculture: “Indian agriculture has evolved a long way since independence; from food shortages and imports in 1950’s to the ‘greens‘ revolution in wheat and rice in 1960’s and 1970’s the ‘whites’ revolution in milk, the ‘yellows’ revolution in oilseeds to development of HYV seeds in 1980’s and now testing genetically engineered seeds; thus modernizing and moving towards self-sufficiency and exports.”

All these shining achievements in agriculture have not only catapulted our country as the second largest producer of food, next only to China, but have also put rural India on a much higher platform than ever before. This can be perceived as a result of distinct efforts from our policy planners in translating some noble vision into concrete action. Whether such development has been