PUNJAB— EXPLOR ING PROSPECTS
january 21, 2017 vol lIi no 3 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
30
Cropping Pattern in Punjab
(1966 –67 to 2014–15)
R S Mann
While rice and wheat occupied
90.1% of the area in Punjab
and contributed 76.9% towards
production in 2014–15, the
combined area under other crops,
which in 1966–67 was 54.54%,
has decreased drastically to
9.87% in 2014–15. This changing
cropping pattern is of key
signifi cance for the present state
and future prospects of
Punjab economy.
Punjab with a 1.53% share in the
geographical area of India, pro-
duced 27.92% of the total wheat
and rice produced in the country in
2014–15.1 Punjab’s contribution towards
India’s food self-suffi ciency has been
widely acknowledged. In this article, we
review the changing cropping pattern in
Punjab between 1966–67 and 2014–15.
The crops considered here include rice,
wheat, tur, gram, bajra, barley, jowar,
ragi, maize, small millets, groundnut,
sesamum, sunfl ower, linseed, rapeseed
and mustard, sugar cane, and cotton.
Area under Major Crops
From all the agricultural crops grown in
Punjab, the above mentioned 17 crops
occupied 7,100 thousand hectares (90%)
of the total cropped area in Punjab in
2014–15.2 Hereafter, unless mentioned
otherwise, the term total cropped area
would refer to the total cropped area
under these 17 crops. The total area under
the major crops in 1966–67 was 4,179
thousand hectares, which in 2014–15 has
risen to 7,100 thousand hectares with
an increase of 2,921 thousand hectares
duri ng thi s p eriod (Table 1, p 31).
Out of the total cropped area in 1966–
67, rice and wheat together occupied
1,900 thousand hec ta res (45.46%) when
compared to the 2,279 thousand hec-
tares (54.54%) under all the other crops
put together (Table 2, p 31).
With the advent of green revolution,
the area under rice and wheat expanded,
and as per the latest data available for
2014–15, rice and wheat together occu-
pied 6,399 thousand hectares (90.13%),
whereas the area occupied by all the
other crops has reduced drastically to
701 thousand hectares (9.87%).
The area under wheat which in 1966–67
was 1,615 thousand hectares (38.64%)
has grown to 3,505 thousand hectares
(49.37%) in 2014–15. Thus, from 1966–
67 to 2014–15, the area under wheat
increased by 1,890 thousand hectares.
The area under rice which in 1966–67
was a meagre 285 thousand hectare
(6.82%) has increased phenomenally to
2,894 thousand hectares (40.76%) in
2014–15. Thus, from the period of
1966–67 to 2014–15, there was an in-
crease of 2,609 thousand hectares of
area under rice.
The interesting point to note is that
the area under wheat touched 49% of
the total cropped area in the early phase
of green revolution (in 1970–71) and has
stabilised since then, hovering around
the value of 49%.
In contrast with that, rice touched its
peak in y ear 2014–1 5 w ith 40.76% of the
total cropped area under it. Unlike
wheat where the area stabilised in the
early 1970s, there was a slow and gradu-
al increase in the expansion of area
under rice.
The area under the other crops which
was 54.54% of the total cropped area
during 1966–67, has come down drasti-
cally to 9.87% in 2014–15. The area
under the other crops has been mainly
can nibalised by the expansion of area
under rice.
From Table 1, it can be seen that
among the other crops, gram was the
only crop which occupied 15.16% of the
total cropped area in 1966– 67. Apart
from gram, only two other crops, maize
and cotton managed to occupy more
than 11% of the total cropped area, but
were never able to go beyond 12%.
Major Crops in Production
It is no surprise to see that the other
crops (tur, gram, bajra, jowar, ragi,
maize, small millets, groundnut, sesa-
mum, sunfl ower, linseed, rapeseed and
mustard, sugar cane, and cotton) con-
tributed towards the major share of
production during the years 1966–67,
1970–71 and 1975–76 (68.4%, 54.9%
and 53% respectively) (Table 3, p 31).
Thereafter, the contribution of other
crops started declining and touched the
lowest during 2010–11 (15.8%). Amongst
the other crops, the major contribution
was from sugar cane (48.7%, 40.8% and
39.8% in 1966–67, 1970–71 and 1975–76
respectively) and thereafter started
to decline.
R S Mann (15132198@brookes.ac.uk) is a
research scholar at the Department of
Accounting, Finance and Economics, Ox ford
Brookes University, Oxford.
PUNJAB— EXPLOR ING PROSPECTS
Economic & Political Weekly EPW january 21, 2017 vol lIi no 3 31
Rice and wheat together contributed
31.6% towards the production in 1966–67,
which touched the highest during
2010–11 (84.2%), before resting at 76.9%
in 2014–15. The contribution of wheat
which was 27.9% of the total production
during 1966–67, increased to 47.5% in
1980–81, and thereafter, remained be-
tween 43% and 50%. Surprisingly, rice
which contributed only 3.8% to the total
production during 1966–67 saw a gradu-
al increase in its contribution towards
total production (Table 3).
Yield of Major Crops
In terms of yield increase during the
period 1966–67 to 2014–15, barley saw
the major increase by 4.22 times from
848 kg/hectare in 1966–67 to 3,582
kg/hectare in 2014–15. The second
in this series is rice whose yield in-
creased 3.24 times between 1966–67
and 2014–15. The yield of wheat, third
in this pecking order, increased by 2.78
times. The other crops whose yield
doubled during this period include
jowar, maize, rapeseed and mustard,
cotton, and sugar cane. There has been
a variation in the yield of wheat which
in 2000– 01 was 4,563 kg/hectare,
followed by 4,179 kg/hectare, 4,693 kg/
hectare and 4,294 kg/hectare for the
year 2005– 06, 2010–11 and 2014–15
respectively. In contrast with that, the
yield of rice has stabilised, with 3,506 kg/
hectare, 3,858 kg/hectare, 3,828 kg/hec-
tare and 3,838 kg/hectare during the
year 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11 and
2014–15 respectively (Table 4, p 32).
MSP and Cropping Pattern
The increase in the minimum support
price (MSP) for major crops is given in
Table 5 (p 32). It can be noticed that al-
though the increase in the MSP of other
crops such as gram, arhar (tur), ra pe-
seed and mustard, sunfl ower, ground-
nut, cotton and moong was greater than
the increase in the MSP of wheat and
paddy for the same period, still the area
under wheat and mainly under rice
Table 1: Area unde r Major Crops in Pu njab (‘000 hectares)
Year Wheat Rice (R) W+R Tur Gram Bajra Barley Jowar Ragi Maize Small Ground- Sesamum Sun- Li nseed Rapese ed S ugar Cot ton Other s To tal
( W) Millets nut flowe r and Mustard Cane Tot al
1966–67 1,615 285 1,900 1.7 633.6 184 103.8 5.8 0.5 444 0.4 181.6 17.9 — 2 116 156 432 2, 279.3 4,179.3
1970–71 2,299 390 2,689.1 3 357.9 207.1 56.6 5.1 — 554.6 0.7 173.8 14.6 — 2.7 103 127.7 397.4 2,004.2 4,693.3
1975–76 2,439 567 3,005.6 5.6 381.2 181.7 120.2 5. 2 — 577.3 — 168.4 23 — 2.1 122 114.2 58 0.4 2,281.3 5,286 .9
1980–81 2,812 1,178 3,990 17.9 258 71 65 1.2 — 378 — 83 17.3 — 1.7 146 71 64 8 1,758.1 5,748.1
1985–86 3,112 1,714 4,826 40 108 31 49.8 — — 260 — 45 13.7 — 1.3 146 78 559.6 1,332.4 6,158.4
1990–91 3,272 2,024 5,296 13.6 60.7 11 37 0.3 — 188 — 10 18.1 14 0.6 73 101 701 1,228.3 6,524.3
1995–96 3,223 2,161 5,384 9.8 19.5 8 38 2.6 — 171 — 9 22.7 103 0.5 117 132 750 1,383.1 6,767.1
2000– 01 3,408 2 ,611 6,019 8.7 7.7 5 32 0.1 — 165 0 4 19.2 9.7 0.6 53 121 474 900.0 6,919.0
2005–06 3,468 2,642 6,110 7.8 4 5 19 — — 148 3 3.4 11.3 17.8 0.2 49 84 557 909.5 7,019.5
2010–11 3,510 2,831 6,341 4.2 2.1 3 12 0 — 133 0 2.2 5.7 14.6 — 31 70 530 807.8 7,148.8
2014–15 3,505 2,894 6,399 2.6 1.8 0 11 — — 126 — 1.4 4.7 8.5 — 31 94 420 701.0 7,100.0
Table 2: Percent S hare of Area un der Major Crop s in Punjab (%)
Year Wheat Rice (R) W+R Tur Gram Bajra Barley Jowar Ragi Maize Small Ground- Ses amum Sun- Linseed Rapese ed Sugar Cotton O thers Tota l
( W) (%) Millets nut flower and Mustard Can e Total
1966–67 38.64 6.82 45.46 0.04 15.16 4.40 2.48 0.14 0.01 10.62 0.01 4.35 0.43 0.00 0.05 2.78 3.73 10.34 54.54 100
1970–71 48.99 8.31 57.30 0.06 7.63 4.41 1.21 0.11 0.00 11.82 0.01 3.70 0.31 0.00 0.06 2.19 2.72 8.47 42.70 100
1975–76 46.13 10.72 56.85 0.11 7.21 3.44 2.27 0.10 0.00 10.92 0.00 3.19 0.44 0.00 0.04 2.31 2.16 10.98 43.15 100
1980–81 48.92 20.49 69.41 0.31 4.49 1.24 1.13 0.02 0.00 6.58 0.00 1.44 0.30 0.00 0.03 2.54 1.24 11.27 30.59 100
1985–86 50.53 27.83 78.36 0.65 1.75 0.50 0.81 0.00 0.00 4.22 0.00 0.73 0.22 0.00 0.02 2.37 1.27 9.09 21.64 100
1990–91 50.15 31.02 81.17 0.21 0.93 0.17 0.57 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.15 0.28 0.21 0.01 1.12 1.55 10.74 18.83 100
1995–96 47.63 31.93 79.56 0.14 0.29 0.12 0.56 0.04 0.00 2.53 0.00 0.13 0.34 1.52 0.01 1.73 1.95 11.08 20.44 100
2000– 01 49.26 37.74 86.99 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.46 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.06 0.28 0.14 0.01 0.77 1.75 6.85 13.01 100
2005–06 49.41 37.64 87.04 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.27 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.00 0.70 1.20 7.94 12.96 100
2010–11 49.10 39.60 88.70 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.43 0.98 7.41 11.30 100
2014–15 49.37 40.76 90.13 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.44 1.32 5.92 9.87 100
Table 3: Percent S hare of Major Cr ops in Produc tion in Punjab (%)
Year Wheat Rice (R) W+R Tur Gram Bajra Barley Jowar Ragi Maize Small Ground- Ses amum Sun- Linseed Rapeseed Sugar Cotton Ot hers Tota l
( W) Millets nut flowe r and Mustard Cane Total
1966–67 27.9 3.8 31.6 0.0 5.7 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 48.7 1.5 68.4 100
1970–71 39.8 5.3 45.1 0.0 2.2 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 40.8 1.1 54.9 100
1975–76 37.6 9.4 47.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 39.8 1.4 53.0 100
1980–81 47.5 19.9 67.4 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 24.2 1.2 32.6 100
1985–86 48.6 24.1 72.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 22.3 1.1 27.3 100
1990–91 47.4 25.5 72.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 23.4 1.3 27.1 100
1995–96 43.2 23.3 66.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 29.7 1.1 33.5 100
2000– 01 46. 6 27.4 74.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 23.3 0.6 25.9 100
2005–06 47.5 33.4 80.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 15.9 1.3 19.1 100
2010–11 50. 8 33.4 84.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 12.8 1.1 15.8 100
2014–15 44. 2 32.6 76.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.7 0.8 23.1 100
PUNJAB— EXPLOR ING PROSPECTS
january 21, 2017 vol lIi no 3 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
32
expanded due to the assured procurement
and higher yields of these crops. In the
recent times, although there have been
major increases in the MSP of pulses,
there is negligible interest on the part of
the farmers in adopting pulses. This is
mainly due to the absence of marketing
of these crops and their low yield levels.
Fertiliser and
Pesticide Consumption
The comparison of the fertiliser usage
for the last fi ve years in lakh tonnes, kg/
hectare and NPK ratio (nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium) of Punjab and at
all-India level is shown in Table 6. It can
be seen that in 2014–15 the usage of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
was 179.03, 43.46 and 4.97 kg/hectare
respectively.
The common and strongly-held view
in India is that balanced fertiliser use re-
quires three major plant nutrients, name-
ly, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium,
to be used in the ratio of 4:2:1 and any
deviation in fertiliser use from this norm
would constrain growth in crop produc-
tivity (Chand and Pavithra 2015: 98).
The NPK ratio of Punjab 36:9:1 (in
2014–15) is towards the higher side
when compared to the generally accept-
ed NPK ratio of 4:2:1. The intensive culti-
vation has led to the decline in the soil
fertility status in Punjab (Singh 2008).
Punjab has approximately 4% of the to-
tal cropped area of the country but con-
sumes 11% of the total pesticides con-
sumed in India3 (TSMG and FICCI 2016).
Groundwater Level
Owing to the widespread cultivation of
rice, the groundwater levels have gone
down drastically in Punjab. As of 2011,
out of the total 138 blocks in Punjab, 110
are overexploited, four are critical, two
are semi-critical and only 22 are safe
(CGWB 2015). Thus, 84% of the blocks in
Punjab are either overexploited, critical
or in a semi-critical category, and only
16% blocks are safe.
As per CGWB (2015), Punjab has the
highest stage of groundwater development
of 172 amongst all the states in the country.
This is not a good indicator for the
groundwater status of Punjab. The ground-
water development of 100% indicates
that its consumption is equal to its re-
charge, groundwater deve lopment stage
of above 100% indicates that the “annual
groundwater consumption is more than
the annual groundwater recharge” (CGWB
2015). A very high stage of groundwater
development of 172 indicates that its an-
nual consumption in Punjab is very high
compared to its annual recharge. The
groundwater availability for future irri-
gation use for Punjab is least in the
country (Table 7, p 33). The high stage of
groundwater development gives an alar-
ming warning signal about the future
water problem in Punjab.
Value of O ut put
To see how the major crops of Punjab,
that is, wheat and paddy, compare with
the other agricultural items, the value of
output for the entire country (in rupees per
hectare) was calculated for 74 agricultural
crops for which the data was available
Table 4: Yield o f Major Crops in P unjab (kg/hectare)
Year Wheat Rice Tur Gram Bajra Barley Jowar Ragi Maize Small Groundnut Sesa mum Sunf lower Linseed Rapese ed Cotton Sugar C ane
Millet s and Mustar d
1966–67 1,544 1,186 647 802 815 848 448 200 1,383 250 1,071 369 500 526 302 27,949
1970–71 2,238 1,765 400 794 1,173 1,007 549 1,552 571 970 390 407 553 350 41,269
1975–76 2,373 2,552 500 986 1,040 1,265 596 1,465 1,045 339 524 639 362 53,678
1980–81 2,730 2,736 1,017 581 1,254 1,662 667 1,601 1,253 324 412 527 309 55,211
1985–86 3,531 3,179 1,093 911 871 2,197 1,585 962 401 538 1,014 426 64,744
1990–91 3,715 3,229 824 745 1,091 2,757 1,000 1,787 800 376 1,607 833 1,00 0 463 59,406
1995–96 3,884 3,132 878 892 1,000 3,132 846 1,795 889 379 1,544 1,000 1,111 442 65,303
2000– 01 4,563 3,506 874 94 8 1,000 3,406 1,000 2,79 4 1,000 396 1,155 1,000 1,208 430 64, 215
2005–06 4,179 3, 858 885 750 1,00 0 3,316 2,723 333 882 336 1,612 500 1,102 731 57,857
2010–11 4,693 3,828 929 1,286 1,000 3,667 3,692 1,773 40 4 1,664 1,323 674 59,571
2014–15 4,294 3,838 923 1,056 — 3,582 3,651 1,857 298 1,765 1,248 648 74,883
Table 5: Increa se in MSP for the Ti me Period* (`)
Year Paddy Wheat Gram Arhar R&M Sunf lower Groundn ut Cotton Sugar Cane Moong Urad
1975–76 to 1980–81 31 25 190 0 183 20 6 0 13 200 200
1980–81 to 1985–86 37 32 26 0 110 400 152 144 535 3.5 100 100
1985–86 to 1990–91 63 63 190 180 200 265 230 215 5.5 180 180
1990–91 to 1995–96 155 155 250 320 26 0 350 320 600 20.5 320 320
1995–96 to 2000 –01 150 230 400 400 340 220 320 475 17 4 00 400
2000– 01 to 2005–06 60 40 335 200 515 330 300 155 20 320 320
2005–0 6 to 2010–11 430 520 665 2,100 135 850 780 1020 59.62 2,150 1,8 80
2010–11 to 2014–15 360 350 1,415 2,050 1,270 1,535 1,900 1,050 90.16 1,840 1,830
* The increa se in MSP is calcu lated by subs tractin g the MSP of earli er year from the l atest year fo r the time per iod. For exam ple,
the figure of `25 for wheat f or the period 1975–76 to 1980– 81 has been arr ived at by subtr acting the M SP of wheat in
1975–76 from MSP of wheat in 1980 –81.
Source: Res erve Bank of I ndia (2016).
Table 6: Fertil iser Consump tion and NPK Rati o for Punjab and In dia
State/ Year Fertil iser Consump tion (lakh to nnes) Fertil iser Consump tion (Kg/he ctare) NPK Rati o
Countr y N P K Total N P K Total N P K
Punjab 2010–11 1,402.91 435.17 73.43 1,911.51 177.97 55.20 9.31 242.73 19 6 1
2011–12 1,416.56 448.65 52.85 1,918.06 179.70 56.91 6.70 243.56 27 8 1
2012–13 1,485.70 462.48 24.06 1,972.24 188.78 58.76 3.06 250.60 62 19 1
2013–14 1,364.02 325.23 24.02 1,713.27 174.68 41.65 3.08 219.41 57 14 1
2014–15 1,352.05 328.17 37.53 1,717.75 179.03 43.46 4.97 227.46 36 9 1
All India 2010–11 16,558.23 8, 049.71 3,514.27 28,122.21 86.15 41.88 18.28 146 .32 5 2 1
2011–12 17,300.25 7,914.30 2,575.45 27,790 88.61 4 0.54 13.19 142.33 7 3 1
2012–13 16,820.93 6,653.42 2,061.80 25,5361.15 86.15 34.08 10.56 130.79 8 3 1
2013–14 16,750.08 5,633.46 2,098.87 24,482.41 81.11 27.28 10.16 118.55 8 3 1
2014–15 16,945.43 6,098.37 2,532.32 25,576.12 84.858 30.54 12.68 128.08 7 2 1
Source: Agri cultural Sta tistics at a Gl ance (ASAG) 2013, 2014 and 2015.
PUNJAB— EXPLOR ING PROSPECTS
Economic & Political Weekly EPW january 21, 2017 vol lIi no 3 33
(data available with the author on re-
quest). The value of agricultural output
was calculated for 2011–12, 2012–13 and
2013–14 at both the constant 2011–12
prices and current prices.
When the value of output for all these
agricultural commodities was arranged
in descending order for 2013–14 (at cur-
rent prices), it was observed that the
wheat and paddy ranked 58th and 60th
(with a value of `49,918 and `45,968 per
hectare respectively) amongst the 74
items on the list. Only 14 other agricul-
tural crops, namely coriander, ajwain,
rapeseed and mustard, maize, arhar,
masoor, soyabean, cloves, gram, cocoa,
sunfl ower, sann hemp, jowar and bajra
were lower in value of output per hec-
tare than paddy and wheat.
The top 10 which provided highest
value of output per hectare include grapes
(`5,86,471 per hectare), papaya (`5,58,045
per hectare), watermelon (`44,7733 per
hectare), banana (`4,29,589 per hectare),
orange (`3,71,182 per hectare), caulifl ower
(`3,58,664 per hectare), beans (`3,44,275
per hectare), tapioca (`3,36,404 per hec-
tare), brinjal (`3,20,450 per hectare) and
dry ginger (`3,15,489 per hectare).
In spite of the fact that paddy and wheat
provide very low value of output per hec-
tare, in Punjab 81.3% of the total cropped
area is under rice and wheat.4 One of the
major reasons which keep the farmers
glued to cultivation of wheat and rice is
their assured procurement at the MSP,
which is not available for other crops.
Summary and Conclusions
With the advent of green revolution, the
area under low value rice and wheat
crops in Punjab expanded enormously.
Although these crops might have ush-
ered in economic prosperity in Punjab
for a few decades, they have now
brought in a socio-economic–ecological
crisis to the famers of Punjab and to the
state itself. Rice has double impact as it
depletes groundwater, and like wheat
also has a low value of output per hectare.
In order to improve the economic con-
dition of the farmers and save depleting
groundwater, the crops with higher val-
ue of output which are suitable for culti-
vation in Punjab must be selected and
effort must be made to expand the area
under those crops. Some of the crops
may require greater initial investment
than wheat or paddy. This requires suit-
able policy interventions. In terms of
area covered, Punjab has the highest
number of regulated markets in the
cou nt ry, however, it is not effi ciently uti-
lising these markets for crops other than
wheat and paddy. Punjab is not on board
on the electronic-National Agricultural
Market (e-NAM) and there is a need to
explore how the state can utilise e-NAM
for the benefi t of the farmers.
Notes
1 Calc ulations made by the author based on the
data available at the Directorate of Econom ics
and Statistics, Ministry of Agricult ure and
Farmers Welfare, Government of India (GoI).
Th is da ta sour ce is t he sa me fo r Table s 1 to 4.
2 T he fi gure for 90% is arrived at by dividing the
area under the 17 crops in 2014–15 wit h the
area under all the c rops grown in Pu njab for
year 2012–13 . The data source is Di rectorate of
Economics and Stat istics, Ministr y of Agri-
culture and Farmers Welfare, GoI and A SAG
(2015 ).
3 Calculation for percentage of total cropped
area here refers to area under all the crops
grown i n Punjab; and is based on t he data for
2012–13, ob tained from ASAG 2015.
4 The fi gure for 81.30% is arrived at by dividing
the area u nder wheat and rice (2014–15) with
the area under all t he crops g rown in Punjab
for 2012–13. The data source is same as men-
tioned in note 2.
References
ASAG (2013): “Agricultural Statistics at a Glance,”
Ministry of Agriculture a nd Farmers Welfare,
Department of Agriculture Cooperation and
Farm er’s Welf are, Go I.
— (2014): “Agricult ural Statistic s at a Glance,”
Ministry of Agriculture a nd Farmers Welfare,
Department of Agriculture Cooperation and
Farm er’s Welf are, Go I.
— (2015): “Agricultural St atistics at a Glance,”
Ministry of Agriculture a nd Farmers Welfare,
Department of Agriculture Cooperation and
Farm er’s Welf are, Go I.
CGWB (2015): Ground Water Yearbook—India 2014–15,
Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water
Resource s, River Development and Ganga Reju-
venation, GoI, pp 39–42.
Chand, R a nd S Pavithra S (2015): “Fertilizer Use and
Imb alan ce in I ndia: A nalysi s of Sta tes,” Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol 50, No 44, pp 98–104.
NAS (2016): “Disaggregated Statements,” National
Accounts Statistics, Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation, GoI.
RBI (2016): Database on Indian Economy, Reserve
Bank of India, HBS Table No 26 and 27.
Singh, P (2008): Federalism, Nationalism and De-
velopment: India and the Punjab Economy, Lon-
don/New York: Routledge.
TSMG and FICCI (2016): Next Generat ion Indian
Ag ri cu ltu re: Rol e of Cr op P rot ect io n So lut ion s: A
Report on Indian Agrochemical Industry (July
2016), Tata Strategic Management Group and
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce
and Industry, p 14.
EPWRF India Time Series
Expansion of Banking Statistics Module
(State-wise Data)
The Economic and Political Weekly Research Foundation (EPWRF) has added state-wise
data to the existing Banking Statistics module of its online India Time Series (ITS) database.
State-wise and region-wise (north, north-east, east, central, west and south) ti me series data
are provided for deposits, credit (sanction and utilisation), credit-deposit (CD) ratio, and
number of ba nk of fi ces and employees.
Data on bank credit are given for a wide range of sectors and sub-sectors (occupation) such
as agricultu re, industry, transport operators, professional services, personal loans (housing,
vehicle, education, etc), trade and fi na nce. These state-wise data are also presented by bank
group and by population group (ru ral, sem i-urba n, urban and metropolita n).
The data series a re available f rom December 1972; half-yearly basis till June 1989 and annual
basis thereafter. These data have been sourced f rom the Reserve Ban k of India’s publication ,
Basic Statistical Returns of Scheduled Commercial Banks in India.
Including the Banking Statistics module, the EPW RF ITS has 16 modules covering a range
of macroeconomic and fi nancial d ata on the Indian economy. For more details, visit www.
epwrfi ts.in or e-mail to: its@epwrf.in
Table 7: Groundw ater Resource s Availabilit y, Utilisatio n and Stage of Devel opment in Punj ab
(as on 2011, in billion cubic meter)
State Annual Re plenishabl e Groundwa ter Resourc es Natural Net Annual G roundwate r Draft Projec ted Ground - Sta ge of
Monsoo n Season No n-monso on Season Total Discha rge Annual Irri gation Dome stic Total Demand wa ter Ground -
Recharge Recharge Recharge Recharge during Ground- and for Domestic Avail- water
from from from from Non- water Industrial and ability for Develop-
Rainfall Other Rainfall Other monsoon Avail- Uses Industrial Future ment
So urces Sour ces Season ability Uses up to Irri gation (%)
2025 Use
Punjab 5.82 10.64 1.33 4.74 22.53 2.21 20.32 34.17 0.71 34.88 0.98 -14.83 172
Source: Adap ted from CGWB (2015).
