Do women like to farm? Evidence of growing burdens of farming on women in rural India

Abstract

Drawing on the findings of an extensive questionnaire-based survey conducted in two Indian states of West Bengal and Gujarat, this paper investigates whether the concentration of women's labour contributions to agriculture has improved their autonomy in decision-making. It shows that women's labour burdens have increased without associated benefits, and raises the question of the invisibility of the ‘preparatory work' that women do on and off the farm to support agriculture. The findings lead to the conclusion that for farming in India to thrive and ensure fulfilling lives for women farmers, the policymakers need to address rural women’s discontent.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjps20
The Journal of Peasant Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20
Do women like to farm? Evidence of growing
burdens of farming on women in rural India
Itishree Pattnaik & Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt
To cite this article: Itishree Pattnaik & Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt (2021): Do women like to farm?
Evidence of growing burdens of farming on women in rural India, The Journal of Peasant Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1867540
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1867540
Published online: 26 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Do women like to farm? Evidence of growing burdens of
farming on women in rural India
Itishree Pattnaik
a
and Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt
b
a
Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad, India;
b
Crawford School of Public Policy, College
of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
ABSTRACT
Drawing on the findings of an extensive questionnaire-based
survey conducted in two Indian states of West Bengal and
Gujarat, this paper investigates whether the concentration of
women’s labour contributions to agriculture has improved their
autonomy in decision-making. It shows that women’s labour
burdens have increased without associated benefits, and raises
the question of the invisibility of the ‘preparatory work’that
women do on and offthe farm to support agriculture. The
findings lead to the conclusion that for farming in India to thrive
and ensure fulfilling lives for women farmers, the policymakers
need to address rural women’s discontent.
KEYWORDS
Women in agriculture;
preparatory work; decision-
making; control over
incomes; rural India
1. Introduction
There is a prominent analytical divide surrounding women’s labour contributions to the
agricultural sector in India, and incongruent official statistics are largely responsible for
this (Abraham 2013; Siddiqui et al. 2017). Women’s share in the overall labour force has
declined in the last census (Mehrotra and Sinha 2017), while 65% of the total female work-
force (as against 42% of the male workforce) is still engaged in agriculture (Pattnaik et al.
2018). This extraordinary concentration of women’s labour in agriculture is termed as the
‘feminization’of agriculture (GOI 2018). Yet, interpreting this ‘feminization’and providing
concrete evidence through numerical data are not as straightforward, even though such
data provide a starting point. Earlier, scholars (see, for example, Chandrasekhar and Ghosh
1999) had pointed out that this process is driven by distress-induced rural male outmigra-
tion and casualization of the rural workforce
1
as compared to other parts of Asia where
the general trend is for rural male labour to shift from low-paid agriculture to better-
paid industrial or tertiary sector jobs (Horton 1996; FAO 2003). While men perform non-
farm activities, rural women’s labour becomes more focused on agricultural activities.
This leads to questioning the nature and type of feminization to assess whether
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt kuntala.lahiri-dutt@anu.edu.au Resource, Environment and Development Program
at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, ACTON,
ACT 2601, Canberra, Australia
1
Most urban jobs that rural male migrants find are insecure and poorly paid (Shah and Harriss-White 2011), causing many
to shuttle between agriculture and non-agricultural informal employment (Binswanger-Mkhize 2013).
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1867540

women are empowered or disempowered by their increased involvement in agriculture.
This paper also probes if feminization empowers women’s decision-making ability in agri-
culture at the household level. A related challenge is the redefinition of ‘agricultural work’
to reflect the myriad activities that women perform in the field. The limited literature that
notes the declining proportion of women’s labour in agriculture, or de-feminization of
agriculture (Abraham 2013; Mehrotra and Sinha 2017), relies upon official statistics,
which fail to capture ‘preparatory work’,‘pre-production work’, and work as ‘helpers’,
and consequently do not consider women’s full labour contributions to agriculture.
One can surmise that policymakers’perception of ‘activity status’is gendered, and a
lack of attention to women’s involvement in such activities can omit crucial gendered
dimensions.
The paper is divided into six sections. Following the introduction, the second section
conceptualizes the paper with the help of past studies. Section three provides the ration-
ale behind selecting the study areas and the methodology for analysis. The fourth section
discusses women’s extensive labour contribution in the field vis-à-vis their autonomy in
decision-making. Analysis based on class, caste, and region is presented thereafter.
Section five presents the narratives of women who note their preferences and aspirations,
and alternative opportunities, if any. The final section offers recommendations.
2. Feminization of Indian agriculture: a reality check
A discussion on the cause of feminization of agriculture in India reflects both extremes of
political alliance. Those viewing from a neoliberal perspective emphasize the demand or
the pull factor that draws women into agriculture. In contrast, Marxist scholars lay impor-
tance on the push factor that is driving men out of dysfunctional agrarian systems. Agri-
cultural growth led by the Green Revolution of the 1960s raised a demand for labour
(Walker and Ryan 1990). Growth in the crop sector influenced male migration and
income diversification towards the non-farm sector, and with this women got control
over agriculture (Azad et al. 1985; Bennet 1992; Chand, Sindhu, and Kaul 1985). The con-
tradictory views discuss that women’s increased participation in farmwork does not reflect
upward mobility, but is merely the result of increased pauperization of smallholders
(Agarwal 1985; Byres 1981). The Green Revolution also increased the need for cash
income to cover the cost of technological inputs throwing women into the fields or
work as unpaid family labourers (Duvvury 1989). Recent studies also emphasize agrarian
crisis and distress-led male migration as primary causes of this feminization (Agrawal and
Chandrasekhar 2015; Garikipati and Pfaffenzeller 2012; Lahiri-Dutt 2014).
As per official statistics, the share of women as cultivators declined conjointly with an
increase in agricultural labourers during 1961 and 1981. The decline was due to increased
pauperization of the Indian countryside during this period, and not because women with-
drew from productive work due to an increase in income during the Green Revolution
(Duvvury 1989). From 1981 to 2011, the share of female cultivators declined from 37%
to 24%, but their share as agricultural labourers remained almost constant, falling only
three percentage points from 44% to 41%, while the share of men as cultivators and agri-
cultural labourers declined (Pattnaik et al. 2018).
While official surveys do not capture the actual contributions of women, time-use
surveys reveal smaller gender gaps. Hirway and Jose (2011) show that women’s work is
2I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

more scattered through the crop value chain and around the household. They undertake
multiple jobs and the burden of their unpaid work is a constraint on their accessing other
job opportunities. Around 35% female and 30% male workers performed more than three
activities outside of home, while around 6% female workers performed more than five
activities. Performing multiple jobs restricts women within low-wage, manual, and low-
productive activities, limiting their upward mobility in the labour market (Jain 1996; Satya-
vathi, Bharadwaj, and Brahmanand 2010). Therefore, feminization of agriculture in India is
evidenced in the higher rate of concentration of women as agricultural wage labourers
which is mainly driven by distress in this sector.
How much cash incomes from working in others’fields empowers women in terms of
decision-making or bargaining power at home and on farm remains unclear. The signifi-
cant gap between male and female wages in agriculture (Agarwal 2014) continues to dis-
advantage women, as do the remarkable wage gaps between the farm and non-farm
sectors (Himanshu and Kundu 2016). It remains doubtful whether feminization of agricul-
tural labour translates into managerial feminization of agriculture (as distinguished by
Gartaula, Niehof, and Visser 2012 in the case of Nepal) to make women agents of
change in the existing gender-power landscape in rural areas. Research has established
that an over-representation of women in agricultural wage labour limits their work to
the ‘peripheral’segment, prevents any form of skill development, and denies them
decision-making power (De Schutter 2013). Decision-making or capacity to make ‘stra-
tegic’choices is a process towards empowerment (Kabeer 2016), not just an individual’s
rights over assets (Alkire et al. 2013; Ibrahim and Alkire 2007). Women’s economic empow-
erment is a prerequisite for household food security, inclusive growth, and gender equal-
ity (Agarwal 2011; Das et al. 2015;Duflo2005). Any increase in women’s participation in
the workforce might seem to bear potential for improving their quality of life, but working
conditions in the agricultural sector are unregulated and the possibility of achieving parity
of income and status with their male counterparts is blocked by structural challenges. One
such challenge is that men make major decisions related to farm management (Lastarria-
Cornhiel 2006). Other challenges include the fact that only a few women in rural India
enjoy property or land rights, or own or lease the land they work on (Agarwal 2012), or
even receive recognition for their work (Deere 2005). This gendered nature of control
over productive resources has been noted elsewhere by scholars as having undermined
women’s autonomy. Concluding her research on feminization of agriculture in Africa, Las-
tarria-Cornhiel (2006, 18) observes:
Neo-liberal policies have intensified and extended reproductive (and unpaid) labour. Since
the gender division of labor assigns reproductive and domestic work to women, their
workday has been extended because of the decline of social services and the rise in costs
of food and other household basic needs.
Even if household income increases as a result of their farm work, women generally have
little or negligible control over deciding how it is spent (Duvvury 1989; Garikipati 2006).
Despite additional responsibilities, women single-handedly run the household and care
for children and the elderly (Subhanil 2011). Thus, over-representation of women in agri-
culture is often associated with tenuous and underpaid employment, which is ultimately
disempowering (Kelkar and Wang 2007).
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 3

This bleak scenario raises the following question: Has feminization of Indian agriculture
improved women’s well-being and autonomy? Specifically, is their added participation
leading to increased decision-making or is it only adding to their burden? What do
women feel about the situation, and do they want to continue working in agriculture?
Do they choose this work or are they driven by economic compulsions? How do other
social determinants, such as the caste structure, influence their participation? Finally,
how should the government respond to this emerging phenomenon? To seek answers
to these questions we carried out an extensive household survey during 2015–16.
3. Locating the study and methods
For the purpose of our study, we considered the two Indian states of Gujarat and West
Bengal because of their diverse agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions as well as
disparate cropping patterns. The states are dissimilar from each other in many ways:
Gujarat’s per capita net income is much higher than West Bengal’s,
2
and from 2011–12
to 2016–17 the annual agricultural income grew at 3.3% compared to West Bengal’s
1.7%. With regard to cropping pattern, Gujarat ranks first in cotton and groundnut pro-
duction, whereas West Bengal tops paddy and jute production in India. Gujarat is a
cash-crop-dominated agricultural economy,
3
and the degree of commercialization and
market interference too are relatively better here than West Bengal.
4
However, the rate
of rural poverty in both states remains the same at around 22%, confirming that irrespec-
tive of cropping pattern rural distress is acute.
A decline in the female work participation rate (FWPR) is detected by comparing data
from 2011 and 2017.
5
Gujarat faced a steeper decline in rural FWPR, from 28% to 17%,
than West Bengal, from 20% to 15% (GOI 2014,2019). Concentrating on individual
sectors, in Gujarat the decline is highest in agriculture, from 86% to 81%. However, com-
pared to 5% in 2011, FWPR in the manufacturing sector increased slightly to 6% in 2017.
Contrary to Gujarat’s trend, during the same period FWPR in West Bengal increased in
the agricultural sector from 41.7% to 51.9%. Though the overall FWPR has declined in the
state, the share of female workers in agriculture has increased, but declined in the man-
ufacturing sector, from 42.2% in 2011 to 25% in 2017. This decline needs careful analysis.
The probable causes could be demonitization, introduction of GST, and crisis especially in
the jute industry. The impact of GST has been greatly felt as West Bengal comprises a large
portion of unregistered and submerged informal businesses (Business Standard, April 8,
2019;First Post, April 29, 2019). Recent years have however seen a return of female
workers from other non-farm sectors to agriculture in the state.
2
During 2017–18 the per capita income was Rs 131,853 (∼USD 1,803) for Gujarat and Rs 65,978 (∼USD 902) for West
Bengal; the national average during this time was Rs 86,668 (∼1,185) (GOI 2019).
3
The total area under foodgrain constituted around 65% of the gross cropped area (GCA) in West Bengal compared to
25% in Gujarat in 2018. Major cash crops of Gujarat –cotton, groundnut, castor, and tobacco –together constituted
around 40% of the total area in 2018. Major cash crops of West Bengal –jute, tea, sugarcane, and tobacco –collectively
constituted only about 12% of area in 2017 (GOG 2019; GOWB 2018).
4
This is evident from a number of factors. The marketed surplus of foodgrains in Gujarat was 97% in 2015 compared to
68% in West Bengal. Among oilseeds, the marketed surplus of groundnut in Gujarat was 95% as against 77% in West
Bengal of mustard, the state’s major oilseed (GOI 2019). The number of markets, an indicator of infrastructural devel-
opment, show that the number of principal regulated markets in Gujarat (199) was greater than West Bengal (42).
However, the submarket yards are quite high in West Bengal (415) compared to Gujarat (400).
5
Authors’calculation based on unit level data from the NSS Quinquennial survey, 68th Round (GOI 2014) and Periodic
Labour Force Survey (PLFS 2019).
4I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

3.1. Selection and sampling
We selected four districts in each state based on a maximum-variation principle to capture
the variations in local agro-climatic and agro-ecological contexts (Map 1). Using data from
the 2011 Census, two villages in each district were selected, making it a total of eight vil-
lages in each state. In each of these 16 villages, a house-listing (census) exercise was con-
ducted before selecting the sample and we found 3,235 households in Gujarat and 2,770
in West Bengal. By using a stratified-random sampling technique, we then selected 50
households from each village. In total, we interviewed 800 female farmers. Our question-
naire, finalized beforehand after phases of pilot testing, aimed at retrieving the ‘hidden’
gendered data that official statistics fail to extract (Chakravarty 2020).
We only selected households owning some amount of land because these households
had women in activity-performing and decision-making roles in agriculture.
6
From each
household, we selected the ‘most involved woman in agriculture’as our respondent.
To add critical depth, we carried out extensive interviews with 28 female farmers about
their views on work, perceptions of autonomy, and ideas about the future of farming in
their areas. Insights from some interviews are included in this paper along with data gen-
erated by the questionnaire-based survey. Since the data are both quantitative and quali-
tative in nature, mixed methods were used to analyse and gain a holistic picture of the
Map 1. Location of the study.
Source: Authors.
6
Of the total number of households, 80% in Gujarat and 71% in West Bengal owned land.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 5

status of the subjects and their perception as well as changing aspirations in the two
agrarian states of India.
4. Women’s labour contributions and autonomy
Our respondents were mostly illiterate (60% and 49% in Gujarat and West Bengal, respect-
ively) with a median age of 42 and 39 years in Gujarat and West Bengal, respectively. Since
social structure in rural India (among Hindu communities) is defined mainly by caste cat-
egories,
7
our sample consisted of women from different castes. Out of all women surveyed
in Gujarat, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (47%) constituted the largest single category, fol-
lowed by Scheduled Tribes (STs) (29.4%), Scheduled Castes (SCs) (6.2%), and the general
caste (17.4%). In West Bengal, SCs comprised 37.7%, followed by general caste (23.9%),
OBCs (21.2%), and STs (17.2%). The average size of landownership is synonymously hier-
archical to caste categories in Gujarat as the average size of land owned was highest
among general caste and least among STs. However, due to land reform and distribution
of land to the landless, there was not much disparity in landownership across caste
groups in West Bengal. Here, within our survey area, we did not come across medium or
large landholders, unlike in Gujarat where all landholding categories were present.
4.1. More work, less pay
India’s rural economy has diversified dramatically with an expansion of income sources of
most landholders. During our survey, about 71% men and 74% women in Gujarat, and
65% men and 69% women in West Bengal, were engaged in more than one occupation.
Again, this reflects information collected at the national level where men outnumbered
women in work outside the agricultural sector almost by 4:1 in 2011–12 (Chand, Srivas-
tava, and Singh 2017b). Women’s involvement in sectors other than agriculture was
almost negligible in our survey. Around 86% and 79% of women reported agriculture
as their primary occupation in Gujarat and West Bengal, respectively. Only 6% in West
Bengal and 3% in Gujarat reported non-agricultural labour as their primary occupation.
Women in non-agricultural manual self-employment were only 4% in West Bengal com-
pared to 2% in Gujarat. While women are engaged in NREGA in West Bengal, making sal-
aried employment the major secondary occupation for surveyed women in the state,
livestock and petty trade (shops) featured as major secondary occupations in Gujarat.
In both states rural women are confined to work that is available within the peripheries
of the village. As agricultural sector wages in India tend to be lower than urban, non-agri-
cultural jobs, this confinement partly explains why on an average rural women, even
though they work more, earn less than men.
8
Analysis of wages in both states shows that agricultural wages are higher in West
Bengal. It is possible that political factors such as peasant movements and labour
unions contribute towards this (Bhattacharyya 2016). The average wage in our survey
7
OBC are defined as socially and educationally backward classes who are economically relatively better compared to the
SCs and STs. While SCs, also known as Dalits, face discrimination and social exclusion, and remain at the very bottom of
the caste system, STs are officially the historically disadvantaged indigenous people in India.
8
The gap between farm and non-farm income of 1:3 in the mid-1980s widened to 1:4.08 by the mid-1990s and to 1:3.12
in 2011–12 (Chand 2017).
6I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

was Rs 233 (∼USD 3) for men and Rs 154 (∼USD 2) for women in West Bengal, and, in
Gujarat, Rs 217 (∼USD 2.97) for men and Rs 169 (∼USD 2.31) for women. In addition, sea-
sonal variations in wages were reported by surveyed women in Gujarat. In Patan, for
example, wages rise to Rs 300 (∼USD 4) during the peak season with a high demand
for labour and falls to around Rs 50 (∼US 68 cents) during the lean season. During this
time men generally migrate from villages in search of cash incomes, leaving women to
accept any available work in the village at low wages. The seasonal gap further widens
the wage gap between those who stay back at villages (mostly women) and those who
migrate (mostly men). The surveyed women do not see this wage differential as
gender-based discrimination and state that since men do more and physically heavier
work, their better wages are justified.
4.2. Women as agricultural wage labour: working in others’farms
Women are involved primarily in agriculture either on farms owned by their family or as
agricultural labour on farms owned by others. In our survey area women belonging to the
upper caste do not engage in agricultural wage labour as their primary or secondary occu-
pation, but for women from SC and ST communities this is their main subsidiary occu-
pation, especially in West Bengal. Most women from the SC and ST communities in
Gujarat work as agricultural wage labourers in other people’sfields as their primary occu-
pation. Working on others’fields has a cultural bias among the upper caste women –
Darbar and Rajput women in Gujarat never work in others’fields. Besides culture, other
reasons that influence the location of work include the size of the land: the smaller size
of their land force SC and ST women to work in others’field as the primary occupation
and in their family field as the subsidiary occupation. Scholars are concerned about
how lucrative wage labour is for rural women (Agrawal and Chandrasekhar 2015;
Chand, Srivastava, and Singh 2017a). For women, increasing labour hours widens the
gender gap in income (Banerjee 1999) because it lowers cash income, devalues labour,
renders them invisible in official data, and increases their work burden. Working as
causal wage labourers with other women in similar situations may confer better bargain-
ing strength. However, there is no concrete evidence to show that women’s involvement
in casual agricultural wage work has led to a decline in their reproductive responsibilities.
In this study, most women from landowning households who worked as casual labourers
reported that their reproductive chores in households remained unchanged. Improved
cash incomes too did not translate into greater autonomy in their spending power or
decision-making.
Women also tend to work in the fields of those belonging to their own caste, or
exchange labour with same-caste households. Again, this restriction limits women’s bar-
gaining power to demand better wages because the employer and employee relation
keeps changing, an observation also made by Rao (2011) in a study of south India.
4.3. Women in crop production
Women are involved in almost every type of activity associated with farming, from time-
consuming, strenuous activities such as weeding and harvesting, storing grains post
harvest, seed collection and preparation, and threshing, to minor activities (not ‘minor’
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 7

in terms of burden) such as drying seeds and grains, transporting various small items, and
carrying food from home to the field. For particular crops only women perform the related
tasks, such as extracting groundnut kernels (in Rajkot); preparing potatoes for planting (in
Malda); extracting fibre from jute (in Cooch Behar); transplanting rice seedlings (across
districts in West Bengal); winnowing wheat and pulses; and cleaning, preparing, and
arranging farm products for sale, and drying agricultural products such as tobacco
leaves (in both states). Lack of training or experience restricts the involvement of
women in some customarily masculine activities, such as sowing mustard and castor
bean seeds, an acquired skill few women have had the chance to learn. Overall the
data for this study is in line with Baliyan (2016), which records that women in rural
Uttar Pradesh performed menial agricultural tasks, while men performed almost all
market-related activities, like buying agricultural inputs, hiring labour, and sale of output.
The present study confirms that more women than men participated in agriculture, but
the proportion varied by region and women worked jointly with men in almost all major
farm activities. In Gujarat women worked primarily in weeding and harvesting; in West
Bengal they carried out a much wider array of tasks (Figures 1 and 2) such as land level-
ling, irrigating plants, weeding, harvesting, sowing seeds, and even transplanting.
Mechanization is relatively advanced in Gujarat, which could be the reason for a lesser
requirement of agricultural labour and the limited role of women’s labour on farms
(Akter et al. 2017). In our findings we saw groups of seven to fifteen farmers purchased
land levellers and other farm machinery for communal use in Gujarat. In West Bengal
land levelling was still done manually, sometimes with the assistance of buffaloes and
oxen. Mechanization requires additional investment, the absence of which forces
Figure 1. Women and their farm activities in Gujarat.
Note: Only major activities are presented here. Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
8I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

peasant households to involve women on farms and at times even children and the
elderly. Other studies show that mechanization continues to displace women’s labour
(Agarwal 1981; Siddiqui et al. 2017; Satyavathi, Bharadwaj, and Brahmanand 2010). Jan-
natben, one our participants from Malda (West Bengal), confirmed this finding:
When we receive a good income the first thought is to buy a tiller or a wheat thresher, but the
last thing that we can ever think of is buying equipment that can reduce the workload of
women on farms. So, the purchase of equipment such as a paddy winnower, wheel hoe,
or cono-weeder that helps in weeding are never the priority, though they are not that
expensive.
Upper caste and Muslim women in both states reported that earlier they rarely worked on
farms. Women from upper castes and higher landholding households are however in
charge of keeping track of hired, especially female, labourers. Caste barriers to women’s
work participation in agricultural activities –other than weeding and harvesting –are stron-
ger in Gujarat. Generally, besides caste restrictions on certain types of work, the economic
strata of the family appear to be the major determinant in women’s work participation. We
found that in both states across caste groups women from smaller landholding households
are more active in agriculture compared to higher landholding households.
4.4. Preparatory work
Our questionnaire allowed respondents to identify which household member had the
main responsibility for each task, and the case studies highlighted that even in jobs ident-
ified as male-centric, women were often involved as helpers. Thus, it may appear that
women do less work and participate in a smaller range of farm activities, which is far
from reality. Women make every necessary on- and off-farm arrangement for all farm
Figure 2. Women and their farm activities in West Bengal.
Note: Only major activities are presented here. Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 9

activities. The preparatory work is arduous and time-consuming (Boxes 1 and 2), such as
cooking food for the hired hands, but it is often overlooked by researchers and society.
Past studies question if Indian women’s unpaid work at home should be regarded as
an ‘economic activity’(Rawal and Saha 2015; Siddiqui et al. 2017), but not the work
they undertake as ‘helpers’in the agricultural sector. Although overlooked, they play
the central role in Indian agriculture and at all stages of the cropping cycle, though
their work is noticeable only in rearing livestock and preparing fields for sowing.
Box 1
Ramaben lives in Patan district of Gujarat. She has over 20 years of experience in farming. Her family owns three
hectares of land and she works on her family farm. She takes part in almost all kinds of farming activities, except
ploughing and land levelling (which are mainly performed by men). When asked who does what work on the farm,
she explained:
If you ask us about who practically applies pesticides it is men, but all the preparatory activities surrounding it are
performed exclusively by women, be it preparing the mixture, mixing the pesticide with water, helping the man wear
the heavy spray container on his shoulders, cleaning the container, and so on. Our labour is not visible and it appears
as if men are doing all kind of operations, but in reality we also participate in each and every task that men do on the
farm.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
Box 2
Tulika Rani of Midnapore district in West Bengal has been working on her family farm as an unpaid labour and also as
a wage labourer. She is engaged in other non-farm activities, but government data-collecting agencies do not
consider it paid work. Her son goes to the nearby town to sell snacks such as puchka (a fried, crisp, hollow sphere
made with wheat flour, filled with a mixture of potato, tamarind, sugar, spices, mint, and chickpeas, and then dipped
in flavoured water). Tulika Rani prepares all the ingredients at home. She wakes up early every morning to first
prepare the snack for her son. Only then does she go to the field. She says: ‘As a mother it my duty to help my child.’
While inquiring about who keeps the income, she replies: ‘It is my son’s income and he keeps it, but occasionally he
gives a share for household consumption.’Tulika Rani’s son is coded as ‘worker’(self-employed) by the government
record but her contribution is not recognized anywhere.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
4.5. Decision-making and control over incomes
Women’s autonomy is used with the indicator of landownership and decision-making to
examine their level of empowerment. With limited decision-making ability or low access
to resources, it is more likely that women accept lower wages (Doss 2011). However, if
they manage households and also make major decisions within the private sphere, it
reflects greater autonomy and independence in spite of increased workload, eventually
leading to their empowerment (Singh, Singh, and Kumar 2013). Decision-making auth-
ority is used as an indicator of intra-household bargaining power to measure empower-
ment (Anderson, Reynolds, and Gugerty 2017; Doss 2013; Kabeer 2001; Mason 2005). If
women have joint control over income and household decisions, more of the family’s
income is allocated to food, education, and improving health (Hyder et al. 2005;
Meinzen-Dick et al. 2010). Presently, in making important household decisions in rural
India women often play a subordinate role (Damisa and Yohanna 2007; Pal and Haldar
2016), but it is far from being universal, and their decision-making power is linked
closely to their social and economic capital (Anderson, Reynolds, and Gugerty 2017; Bala-
subramanian 2013), that is, their access to property, financial assets, and engagement in
the labour market (Doss et al. 2014; Quisumbing 2003).
10 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

In considering how women in the Indian agricultural sector participate in decision-
making, our survey observes that women in rural India make many small, seemingly
insignificant, decisions about day-to-day work, whereas their husbands or other male rela-
tives make the more important decisions regarding farm management or sales of crops. In
West Bengal, and more in Gujarat, women have little say in major decisions about farm
management and the sale of agricultural products in markets (Figures 3 and 4). Crop-
ping-related decisions are made alone by 8–10% women in West Bengal and 3–5%
women in Gujarat. In West Bengal women’s sole decision on farm-related activities,
such as the type of crop to be grown and the amount of crops to be sold, is higher
among households cultivating vegetables.
Women’s representation in farm-related decision-making, either jointly with male members
or independently, was similar in both surveyed states, but for other activities it was much
higher in West Bengal, such as decisions on the purchase or sale of animals, land, or other valu-
able household assets. If measured solely in terms of decision-making, women’sempower-
ment appears to be better in West Bengal, but this does not necessarily translate into
autonomy in farm-related decision-making. At the sub-regional scale, in Gujarat female partici-
pation in joint decision-making on farm-related issues was found to be better in tribal and less-
developed regions (Panchmahal, with a 30% representation of tribals, and Valsad, with a 50%
representation) than the state’s irrigated cash-crop-growing belt.Similarly,inWestBengal
female participation in decision-making related to crop selection and sale of farm output
and animals was better in the tribal belt and less-developed region of Purulia.
When rural women were asked why they hardly participated in making decisions on
farm management, 48% of women in Gujarat and 39% in West Bengal said their husbands
were better equipped to make such decisions; another 23% in Gujarat and 27% in West
Bengal said it was because they did not own land. Women are often under-represented
Figure 3. Women’s decision-making participation in Gujarat.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 11

in rural organizations and institutions and poorly informed regarding their civic rights. This
prevents them from having an equal say in decision-making processes and thereby
reduces their ability to participate in collective activities. Awareness of government
subsidy schemes for farmers was higher in West Bengal (22%) than in Gujarat (9%).
However, female participation in agricultural extension services such as attending
village- or district-level meetings related to land was low to the point of being insignificant.
Deeply rooted cultural and societal beliefs about idealized relationships between
women and men hold women back from participating in farm-related decision-making.
However, after farm, livestock, household activities, and sometimes taking care of the
shop, women have no time left to travel and attend government rural education pro-
grammes or learn new farming techniques or technology (Box 3). Women are likely to
be the chief decision-maker at home, especially the education and health of family
members; informal discussions suggest that most men, especially in Gujarat, consider
education and health part of the household domain and a woman’s duty to fulfil,
failing which she fears reprimand.
Box 3
Anilaben Patel of Valsad district of Gujarat has a Bachelor’s degree in political science from a state university; her
husband has attended only primary school. They have a mango orchard and some land, less than one hectare, in her
father-in-law’s name. Anilaben is the main worker. She grows paddy, jowar, and other vegetables. Dairy is another
major activity. She earns around Rs 4,000 monthly. Her education and interest in farming gave her recognition at
home and society, and allowed her to get exposure to the world. She heads various women farmers’groups and a
dairy group, and has even travelled to several dairy farms. She says:
I like farming and livestock rearing a lot, that gives me satisfaction, but it involves various kinds of risk, which
makes the return unstable. It does not matter on whose name the plot is registered, but the societal mindset that is of
importance. Landownership is essential, but education is a must. I have attended several meetings where I was the
only woman present and men would underestimate my opinion in such situations. Education is the only option left
for women to be empowered as the size of plot is declining and climate change is affecting farm income. In such a
situation skills-based livestock rearing is the only available and fruitful occupation.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
Figure 4. Women’s decision-making participation in West Bengal.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
12 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

Two major observations emerge from the aforementioned discussion on gendered
norms. First, rural women in West Bengal have greater involvement in solo decision-
making and could be relatively more empowered in this regard. Besides culture, different
social and political processes might have influenced gender roles and relations in both
states. During our survey, it was evident that women in West Bengal were more politically
aware and more vocal about their concerns. Successful implementation of family planning
and organized grassroots mobilization (as noted by Maharatna 2007) might have played an
important role in making women somewhat better involved in the public sphere.
Second, women in tribal and economically less developed regions are involved in
decision-making. It is likely that disadvantageous groups have fewer cultural stereotypes
tying them to gender-oppressive traditions. During the survey, women from these groups
generally participated without restrictions, displayed lesser inhibitions, and were less class
consciousness.
4.6. Migration and decision-making
Short-duration migration is a prominent feature in both the surveyed states; in Gujarat 52%
of households and 42% in West Bengal reported this form of migration, and women
reported that male migration increased their workload. However, female respondents in
West Bengal noted that earlier if a woman made a decision and the man disagreed, she
would face his criticism. In the absence of male decision-makers women would either
consult other male relatives or make decisions by themselves. But now the male partner
keeps in regular touch and makes every decision related to the farm over mobile
phones. Thus, we see that while communication technology has improved consultative
nature of decision-making, overall authority and autonomy of women have remained
more-or-less the same irrespective of the physical absence of men due to migration.
4.7. Control over incomes
Effective power over decision-making within a household is typically linked with control over
household income. Especially in rural India, this is distinct from holding the purse strings.
Women complained that despite doing all the major work on the farm, including animal
rearing, the men keep all the income, be it from farming or dairy. Even though their hus-
bands handed them their income for safekeeping, women rarely ever had the power to
spend it themselves. Livestock rearing, in particular looking after dairy cattle, is a job predo-
minantly performed by women, so one may expect them to have more control over the
income from it. A higher share of women in West Bengal than in Gujarat (Table 1)had
control over income from livestock, but its share in the total family income is one of the
Table 1. Control over income from farm and dairy.
Gujarat West Bengal
Agriculture Livestock Agriculture Livestock
Men 82.4 55.0 73.8 58.7
Women 8.5 31.7 22.4 41.0
Both 9.1 13.4 3.7 0.3
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 13

lowest. Dairy is one of the major sources of income in Gujarat, and though women perform
dairy farming almost exclusively and contribute substantially to milk productivity, they have
little control over the income. Milk cooperatives pay on the basis of the fat content in milk
and milk collectors find an opportunity to cheat women; so, most women send their hus-
bands to make the sale, and this is how they end up keeping the money.
4.8. Gendered land relations
There exists a positive relation between landownership and improved economic and
social conditions for women (Agarwal 1997; Rao 2007). Increasing the proportion of farm-
land owned by women is seen not only as a step towards their empowerment, but also
towards improving farm productivity (Rao 2007). In India landholding is considered a
proxy for ownership. As per the 2015–16 agricultural census, women operated only
10.3% of the land in India. The results of our study were broadly in line with this
finding: in Gujarat only 4.23% of the farmland was owned by women (that is, their
names were included in government records), while in West Bengal it was slightly
higher at 11.22%. This statistically insignificant proportion made it difficult for the
present study to address the question of what impact female landownership made on
decision-making in rural households.
5. Women’s preference for work on the farm
Having discussed how women in rural India tend to be left out of decisions related to farm
business, despite shouldering the majority of the work, it is important to ask whether they
enjoy their work. There is limited literature on this topic, especially in the context of devel-
oping countries. While, as pointed out by Agarwal and Agarwal (2017), research has focused
mostly on the transition of people from farm to non-farm jobs, especially given the increas-
ing importance of women in the Indian agricultural sector, the question of whether or not
they like their work, despite now owning land and farm machinery, is indispensable –with
wider implications for any consideration of agriculture in India and its future.
Studies by Birthal et al. (2015) and Agarwal and Agarwal (2017), which have sought to
better understand the attitudes of Indian farmers, concluded that female farmers in India
are less satisfied with their work than their male counterparts. Whether they liked farming
proved to be a difficult question for many of our female respondents, as a simple yes or no
was unable to capture their opinion. For some respondents it was difficult to answer
because they knew nothing but farming; they never had the opportunity to do something
else. Thus, our aim was to gather extended responses –why they like farming, what they
do or not, and why not –to arrive at a conclusion.
While it is reasonable to assume that many respondents who indicated that they did
not like farming would choose another occupation if they could, given India’s surplus
of unskilled labour and their lack of mobility, only a few options are available to them.
One potential benefit of this line of research then might be that it will provide data for
designing rural livelihood strategies that fit well with the preferences of the population
these are intended to benefit.
A little less than two-thirds of the respondents replied that they liked their job: 61.5% in
Gujarat and 55.3% in West Bengal (Table 2). These results are in line with those of the
14 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

NSSO report (59th Round), which shows that in Gujarat 67% and in West Bengal 54% of
farmers, both men and women, said that they liked farming as an occupation (NSSO
2005). The present survey suggests that around 21.1% of women in Gujarat and 27.8%
of women in West Bengal disliked it. Of the total sample 17.4% and 16.9% in Gujarat
and West Bengal, respectively, replied that it was difficult to tell whether they liked it
or not, as they had never known anything but farming.
A higher share of women in West Bengal dislike farming possibly because commercia-
lization of agriculture is low in this state and many communities still practice subsistence
farming. This is congruent with the findings of Agarwal and Agarwal (2017) that commer-
cial farmers were more satisfied with their jobs than those practising survival agriculture.
Throughout India, as suggested by Birthal et al. (2015) and Agarwal and Agarwal (2017),
there is a link between owning land and dissatisfaction with farming. However, the land
pattern might vary across regions depending on agro-climatic and hydrogeological
factors. Generally dryland areas have a bigger share of land, but these are less fertile and
mostly rain-fed. Gujarat is mostly arid and semi-arid; a huge region is under dryland.
West Bengal, on the other hand, has a monsoonal, tropical climate with fertile soil. Consid-
ering this difference the present study did not find any major link between landholding size
and satisfaction of female farmers with their occupation (Table 3). In Gujarat, dissatisfaction
among women from large- and medium-landholding groups was higher than small and
marginal landholders. Female sharecroppers –landless households that cultivate by
leasing land –did not like farming because of its uncertain nature and poor returns.
We found that farming is disliked by a higher-than-average proportion of women
among SCs in Gujarat and by more SCs and ST women in West Bengal (Table 4). In
Gujarat, although ST farmers generally have less land than SCs or the general category,
they were not as dissatisfied with farm life. Agarwal and Agarwal (2017) explain this
phenomenon as ‘adapted preference’(Sen 2000), that is, the severely disadvantaged
adapt their expectations and preferences to what is feasible. Unlike existing literature,
which states that upper-caste households possess greater resources and generally like
farming, this study finds that around 36.2% of general caste women in Gujarat dislike
farming. As most of the youth in the dry northern and western parts of Gujarat
migrate, women have to make up for the shortage of labour by working more.
Table 2. Perception of female farmers about farming, region-wise (N = 6,005).
Like Dislike No Definite Answer* Total
Patan 59.3 29.1 11.6 100
Rajkot 63.6 16.8 19.6 100
Valsad 56.8 27.5 15.8 100
Panchmahal 64.6 14.7 20.7 100
Gujarat 61.5 21.1 17.4 100
Midnapore 56.7 25.1 18.2 100
Cooch Behar 53.0 30.2 16.8 100
Purulia 58.6 24.1 17.2 100
Malda 54.0 30.5 15.5 100
West Bengal 55.3 27.8 16.9 100
Total sample in both states 58.6 24.2 17.2 100
Notes: Data from the house listing of all 16 villages.
*‘No Definite Answer’includes: ‘We do not know the difference between like or dislike as nothing works according to our
wish’,‘There is no other option so we are in agriculture’, and ‘We do not know anything apart from agriculture, so
difficult to say whether we like it or not’.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 15

Overall, the study shows that the lack of interest in farming is greater in West Bengal
than in Gujarat, possibly because farming is not profitable in this state and as a result the
aspiration of pursuing non-farm activities is higher. The NSSO (59th Round) state-wise
analysis of farming as an occupation revealed that 26% of all farmers in Gujarat and
36% in West Bengal dislike farming as it is not profitable (NSSO 2005). The analysis of
the NSSO unit-level data on farmer’s income shows that in 2012–13 farm households’
income from cropping averaged at Rs 35,125 in Gujarat and Rs 11,737 in West Bengal.
From 2002–3 to 2013–14 the growth rate (compound annual) of farm income in
Gujarat increased by 1.4% compared to a negative growth of 5% in West Bengal. This
led to a negative growth of 1.2% for total household income in West Bengal against
3.1% in Gujarat (Ranganathan 2014). This macro scenario of West Bengal’s agricultural
sector is reflected in the micro setting of its women’s dislike for farming.
West Bengal is one of the leading states to produce vegetables: in 2016 the state alone
contributed 13% of the country’s total value of fruits and vegetables. Women’s involve-
ment in this regard was greater than in any other crop. Most women in this survey
reported that their dislike of farming was primarily due to the post-harvest loss of veg-
etables; the output market is uncertain because cold storages are located far from villages
and transport is expensive.
Table 4. Perception of female farmers about farming, social-category-wise (N = 6,005).
Caste
Gujarat West Bengal
Share of caste
groups surveyed Like Dislike
No definite
answer*
Share of caste
groups surveyed Like Dislike
No definite
answer
General 13.8 53.5 36.2 10.3 22.9 57.4 24.6 18.0
ST 28.6 64.0 14.9 21.1 19.0 56.7 29.2 14.0
SC 5.2 53.0 33.3 13.7 40.5 52.5 29.7 17.8
OBC 52.5 63.1 19.2 17.7 17.5 57.4 26.1 16.5
Total 100.0 61.5 21.1 17.4 100.0 55.3 27.8 16.9
Note: * Same as explained in Table 2.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
Table 3. Perception of female farmers about farming, land-category-wise (N = 6,005).
Land Category
Gujarat West Bengal
Share of
landholding
size
Do you like farming?
Share of
landholding
size
Do you like farming?
Like Dislike
No
definite
answer* Like Dislike
No
definite
answer
Marginal 52.1 64.5 14.6 20.9 72.8 56.7 26.6 16.7
Small 25.5 64.0 22.6 13.5 4.5 49.2 27.4 23.4
Medium 3.9 60.8 25.6 13.6 ––––
Large 1.5 70.2 23.4 6.4 ––––
Landless
(sharecroppers and
cultivating in forest
land)
11.3 38.3 50.5 11.2 22.7 52.1 31.6 16.2
Joint with larger family 5.8 66.8 12.8 20.3 ––––
Total 100 61.5 21.1 17.4 100 55.3 27.8 16.9
Notes: Data from the house listing of all 16 villages.
* Same as explained in Table 2.
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
16 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

When asked whether having land in their own name would change their attitude
towards farming, a clear majority in both states responded positively, but equally wide-
spread was their opinion that most female farmers would find it difficult, if not impossible,
to achieve this: they cannot afford to buy land. And, in matters related to land tenure, cus-
tomary law is more important than codified law: even if they acquired land, they often did
not have a state-recognized title. This makes it much harder for women to be recognized
as farmers by the state or society at large, and it can limit their access to agricultural
service providers or rural institutions such as cooperative societies.
When women were asked whether they wished to continue farming, even among
those who liked farming, 31.1% in Gujarat and 28.5% in West Bengal said given a
chance they would prefer otherwise (Table 5). A greater proportion of women in the
large- and medium-landholding categories than in the small- or marginal-landholding
categories expressed their wish to abandon farming (Table 6). While life is generally
tougher for small-scale farmers in India, their lack of interest in quitting this occupation
can likely be explained by a lack of exposure to other lifestyles, or a pragmatic under-
standing of the difficult life ahead.
6. Implications of the findings
The present study forces us to confront several questions. As women’s labour is getting
increasingly concentrated in agriculture we are once again forced to recognize the ques-
tion of women’s landownership, the recognition of their task burdens, their autonomy
Table 5. Future preference of female farmers.
Gujarat West Bengal
Would you want to continue farming in future?
District Yes No District Yes No
Patan 67.3 32.7 Midnapore 67.1 32.9
Valsad 74.4 25.6 Cooch Behar 72.2 27.8
Rajkot 68.8 31.3 Purulia 71.5 28.1
Panchmahal 75.3 24.7 Malda 70.8 28.9
Total 69.9 31.1 Total 72.4 28.5
Do you want to perform livestock activities in future?
District Yes No District Yes No
Patan 67.7 32.3 Midnapore 82.3 17.7
Valsad 80.1 19.9 Cooch Behar 84.8 15.2
Rajkot 78.4 21.6 Purulia 91.6 8.4
Panchmahal 87.5 12.5 Malda 89.6 10.4
Total 79.6 20.4 Total 86.8 13.2
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
Table 6. Future preference of female farmers by landholding.
Would you want to continue farming in future?
Gujarat West Bengal
Yes No Total Yes No Total
Marginal 76.9 23.1 100 71.8 28.2 100
Small 75.7 24.3 100 75.8 24.2 100
Medium 68.8 31.2 100 –– –
Large 74.5 25.5 100 –– –
Landless (lease-in and forest land) 40.2 59.8 100 64.9 35.1 100
Joint farmer 73.3 26.7 100
Total 69.9 31.1 100 72.4 28.5 100
Source: Field survey, 2015–16.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 17

and authority, and an alternative to farming or better employment. The recognition of
women’s labour contributions in official statistics, data collection processes, as well as cul-
turally within households and across class–caste contexts would be the first essential step
to make the gender agenda more visible.
A lot needs to change with regard to how women’s work is counted and measured, and
the first step could be defining the ‘activity codes’. Feminist scholars have repeatedly
emphasized the need to recognize women’s unpaid labour to include home-based
workers (Hirway 2012; Siddiqui et al. 2017). This study presents the urgent need to recog-
nize women’s work in pre-production stages and as ‘helpers’or assistants subsidizing
family labour into farming. In reporting sex-differentiated activities on the farm, we
strongly recommend that sex-differentiated layers of all farm activities be recognized
to clarify the extent of women’s contribution. Once such dis-aggregated data are col-
lected and collated, they will reveal the true extent of the feminization of agricultural
labour rather than what macro-level data show. While aggregated data show women
have withdrawn from the workforce, our primary surveys and field experience reveal
that women participate in all kinds of farm activities, directly or as a helper. It is only
through recognition of women’s multitude of roles that official data will be able to
acknowledge the true extent of their contributions to agriculture.
Official statistics-gathering exercises note women’s farm and non-farm tasks, but over-
look their supplementary labours because they cannot be fitted into specific categories.
These tasks are small and varied in nature, and consequently do not represent the true
extent of women’s labour in the field. When a particular task is presented, interpreted,
or understood by official statistics as an ‘activity status’, the coding needs to be broken
down to reflect how a particular farm- or non-farm activity is performed in a gendered
manner. Such gender-disaggregated data will be beneficial not only for researchers,
but also for policymakers by providing the basis to design better rural livelihood strat-
egies that fit well with the preferences of those these are intended to benefit. Recognition
of women’s activities (and sub-activities) might help in gender-friendly mechanization
which instead of displacing women (as reported by Siddiqui et al. 2017) would help in
reducing their work burden. Women are rarely considered as primary agents for technol-
ogy development and mechanization, despite spending longer hours performing heavy,
manual work.
Around one-third of the interviewed women strongly noted their unwillingness to be
associated with farming labour; they need to contribute even though they ‘dislike’
farming. Some spoke of their interests and capabilities in starting small businesses, and
in preparing and selling home-based packaged food or other products. Besides training
and capacity-building, policymakers should facilitate the creation of sustainable
income-earning opportunities such as the promotion of agro-processing units located
within the rural areas, which women can access despite their poor mobility. With chan-
ging times, rural women’s aspirations are changing, and thus they should have access
to explore different kinds of work where they may find satisfaction.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Australian Research Council (DP 140101682) and the Indian Council of Social
Science Research for funding the research project titled ‘Farmers of the Future: Challenges of a
18 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

Feminized Agriculture in India’. The authors express their gratitude to Professor Amita Shah for her
constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Australian Research Council [grant number DP 140101682]; Indian
Council of Social Science Research.
ORCID
Itishree Pattnaik http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9653-9531
Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-1422
References
Abraham, V. 2013.“Missing Labour or Consistent De-Feminisation?”Economic and Political Weekly
48 (31): 99–108.
Agarwal, B. 1981.“Agricultural Mechanization and Labour Use: A Disaggregated Approach.”
International Labour Review 12 (1): 115–127.
Agarwal, B. 1985.“Work Participation of Rural Women in the Third World: Some Data and
Conceptual Biases.”Economic and Political Weekly 20 (51 & 52): 21–28.
Agarwal, B. 1997.“Bargaining and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household.”Feminist
Economics 3 (1): 1–51.
Agarwal, B. 2011.“Food Crises and Gender Inequality.”DESA Working Paper No. 107, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York.
Agarwal, B. 2012.“Food Security, Productivity, and Gender Inequality.”Working Paper No. 320,
Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi.
Agarwal, T. 2014.“Gender and Caste-Based Wage Discrimination in India: Some Recent Evidence.”
Journal for Labour Market Research 47 (1): 329–340.
Agarwal, B., and A. Agarwal. 2017.“Do Farmers Really Like Farming? Indian Farmers in Transition.”
Oxford Development Studies 45 (4): 460–478.
Agrawal, T., and S. Chandrasekhar. 2015.“Short-Term Migrants in India: Characteristics, Wages and
Work Transition.”Working Paper No. 07, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research,
Mumbai.
Akter, S., P. Rutsaert, J. Luis, N. Me-Htwe, S. S. San, B. Raharjo, and A. Pustika. 2017.“Women’s
Empowerment and Gender Equity in Agriculture: A Different Perspective from Southeast Asia.”
Food Policy 69 (C): 270–279.
Alkire, S., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, G. Seymour, and A. Vaz. 2013.“The Women’s
Empowerment in Agriculture Index.”World Development 52 (C): 71–91.
Anderson, C. L., T. W. Reynolds, and M. K. Gugerty. 2017.“Husband and Wife Perspectives on Farm
Household Decision-Making Authority and Evidence on Intra-Household Accord in Rural
Tanzania.”World Development 90 (2): 169–183.
Azad, M. P., M. Prasad, N. Yadav, and S. S. Bhartiya. 1985.“Extent of Participation of Women in
Agriculture and Allied Enterprises.”Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40 (3): 275–276.
Balasubramanian, S. 2013.“Why Micro-Credit May Leave Women Worse Off: Non-Co-Operative
Bargaining and the Marriage Game in South Asia.”Journal of Development Studies 49 (5): 609–623.
Baliyan, K. 2016.Women Participation in Agriculture. New Delhi: Mittal Publication.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 19

Banerjee, N. 1999.“How Real is the Bogey of Feminization?”In Gender and Employment in India,
edited by T. S. Papola, and A. N. Sharma, 299–317. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Bennet, L. 1992.“Women, Poverty and Productivity in India.”Seminar Paper No. 43, Economic
Development Institute, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Bhattacharyya, D. 2016.Government as Practice: Democratic Left in a Transforming India. New Delhi:
Sage.
Binswanger-Mkhize, H. P. 2013.“The Stunted Structural Transformation of the Indian Economy
Agriculture, Manufacturing and the Rural Non-Farm Sector.”Economic and Political Weekly 48
(26 & 27): 5–13.
Birthal, P. S., D. Roy, M. T. Khan, and D. S. Negi. 2015.“Farmers’Preference for Farming: Evidence from a
Nationally Representative Farm Survey in India.”The Developing Economies 53 (2): 122–134.
Byres, T. J. 1981.“The New Technology, Class Formation and Class Action in the Indian Countryside.”
The Journal of Peasant Studies 8 (4): 405–454.
Chakravarty, D. 2020.“Hidden from the Data: Landholding Patterns and Women’s Low Work
Participation Rates in West Bengal, India.”WIDER Working Paper No. 34, UNU-WIDER, Finland.
Chand, R. 2017.“Doubling Farmers’Income: Rationale, Strategy, Prospects and Action Plan.”Policy
Paper No. 1, National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), GOI, New Delhi.
Chand, R. D., S. Sindhu, and J. L. Kaul. 1985.“Impact of Agricultural Modernization on Labour Use
Pattern in Punjab with Special Reference to Women Labour.”Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 40 (3): 252–259.
Chand, R., S. K. Srivastava, and J. Singh. 2017a.“Changing Structure of Rural Economy of India:
Implications for Employment and Growth.”Discussion Paper No. 1. NITI Aayog, GOI, New Delhi.
Chand, R., S. K. Srivastava, and J. Singh. 2017b.“Changes in Rural Economy of India, 1971 to 2012:
Lessons for Job-Led Growth.”Economic and Political Weekly 51 (52): 64–71.
Chandrasekhar, C. P., and J. Ghosh. 1999.Indian Economic Reform Process and the Implications of
Southeast Asian Crisis. Geneva: Mimeograph, Employment and Training Department,
International Labour Office.
Damisa, M. A., and M. Yohanna. 2007.“Role of Rural Women in Farm Management Decision-Making
Process: Ordered Probit Analysis.”Trends in Applied Sciences Research 2 (3): 241–245.
Das, S., S. Jain-Chandra, K. Kochhar, and N. Kumar. 2015.“Women Workers in India: Why So Few
Among So Many?”Working Paper No. 55, International Monetary Fund, Asia and Pacific
Department. Accessed April 13, 2018. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1555.
pdf.
De Schutter, O. 2013.“The Agrarian Transition and the ‘Feminization’of Agriculture.”Paper pre-
sented at the “Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue International Conference,”Yale University,
September 14–15. Accessed April 13, 2018. https://www.tni.org/files/download/37_deschutter_
2013.pdf.
Deere, C. D. 2005.“The Feminization of Agriculture? Economic Restructuring in Rural Latin America.”
Occasional Paper No. 1, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.
Doss, C. 2013.“Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries.”Policy
Research Working Paper No. 6337, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Doss, C., S. M. Kim, J. Njuki, E. Hillenbrand, and M. Miruka. 2014.“Women’s Individual and Joint
Property Ownership: Effects on Household Decision-Making.”Discussion Paper No. 1347, IFPRI,
Washington, D.C.
Duflo, E. 2005.“Gender Equality in Development.”BREAD Policy Paper No. 011, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Accessed January 4, 2019. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d0d6/
e82259b976572002eee6351bae39d91eab0d.pdf.
Duvvury, N. 1989.“Women in Agriculture: A Review of the Indian Literature.”Economic and Political
Weekly 24 (43): 96–112.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2003.“Asia’s Women in Agriculture, Environment and
Rural Production.”Country papers on Sustainable Development Dimensions, FAO, Bangkok.
Garikipati, S. 2006.“Feminization of Agricultural Labour and Women’s Domestic Status: Evidence
from Labour Households in India.”Research Papers No. 30, University of Liverpool
Management School, UK.
20 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

Garikipati, S., and S. Pfaffenzeller. 2012.“The Gendered Burden of Liberalization: The Impact of
India’s Economic Reforms on its Female Agricultural Labour.”Journal of International
Development 24 (7): 841–864.
Gartaula, H., A. Niehof, and L. Visser. 2012.“Shifting Perceptions of Food Security and Land in the
Context of Labour Out-Migration in Rural Nepal.”Food Security 4 (2): 181–194.
GOG (Government of Gujarat). 2019.Statistical Abstract of Gujarat State 2019. Gandhinagar, Gujarat:
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, GOG.
GOI. 2018.Economic Survey. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance, GOI.
GOI. 2019.Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2018. New Delhi:: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare Department of Agriculture, GOI.
Government of India (NSSO). 2014.Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2011–12.
Report No. 554. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, GOI.
GOWB (Government of West Bengal). 2018.Economic Review 2017–18. Kolkata, West Bengal: Ministry
of Statistics and Programme Monitoring, GOWB.
Himanshu, and S. Kundu. 2016.“Rural Wages in India: Recent Trends and Determinants.”The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics 59 (2): 217–244.
Hirway, I. 2012.“Missing Labour Force: An Explanation.”Economic and Political Weekly 57 (37): 67–72.
Hirway, I., and S. Jose. 2011.“Understanding Women’s Work Using Time-Use Statistics: The Case of
India.”Feminist Economics 17 (4): 67–92.
Horton, S. 1996.Women and Industrialization in Asia. London: Routledge.
Hyder, A. A., S. Maman, J. E. Nyoni, S. A. Khasiani, N. Teoh, Z. Premji, and S. Sohani. 2005.“The
Pervasive Triad of Food Security, Gender Inequity and Women’s Health: Exploratory Research
from Sub-Saharan Africa.”African Health Sciences 5 (4): 328–334.
Ibrahim, S., and S. Alkire. 2007.“Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for Internationally
Comparable Indicators.”Oxford Development Studies 35 (4): 379–403.
Jain, D. 1996.“Valuing Work: Time as a Measure.”Economic and Political Weekly 31 (43): 48–49.
Kabeer, N. 2001.“Conflicts Over Credit: Re-Evaluating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to
Women in Rural Bangladesh.”World Development 29 (1): 63–84.
Kabeer, N. 2016.“Economic Pathways to Empowerment and Active Citizenship: What Does the Data
from Bangladesh Tell Us?”The Journal of Development Studies 53 (5): 649–663.
Kelkar, G., and Y. Wang. 2007.“The Gender Questions and Decent Work: An Analysis of Apparel
Industry Worker in China and India.”The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 50 (3): 66–89.
Lahiri-Dutt, K. 2014.Experiencing, Coping with Change: Women-Headed Farming Households in the
Eastern Gangetic Plains. Canberra: Australian Council for International Agricultural Research.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 2006.“Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces.”Background
Paper for the World Development Report 2008, Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural
Development, Santiago, Chile.
Maharatna, A. 2007.“Population, Economy and Society in West Bengal Since the 1970s.”The Journal
of Development Studies 43 (8): 1381–1422.
Mason, O. K. 2005.“Measuring Women’s Empowerment: Learning from Cross-Cultural Research.”In
Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, edited by D. Narayan, 89–102.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Mehrotra, S., and S. Sinha. 2017.“Explaining Falling Female Employment During a High Growth
Period.”Economic and Political Weekly 52 (39): 54–62.
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Berhman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, and C.
Ragasa. 2010.“Engendering Agricultural Research.”IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00973, IFPRI,
Washington, D.C.
NSSO (National Sample Survey Organization). 2005.Some Aspects of Farming: Situation Assessment
Survey of Farmers. Report No. 496. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, GOI.
Pal, S., and S. Haldar. 2016.“Participation and Role of Rural Women in Decision-Making Related to
Farm Activities: A Study in Burdwan District of West Bengal.”Economic Affairs 61 (1): 55–63.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 21

Pattnaik, I., K. Lahiri-Dutt, S. Lockie, and B. Prichard. 2018.“The Feminization of Agriculture or the
Feminization of Agrarian Distress? Tracking the Trajectory of Women in Agriculture in India.”
Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 23 (1): 138–155.
PLFS (Periodic Labour Force Survey). 2019.Periodic Labour Force Survey, 2017–18. New Delhi:
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, GOI.
Quisumbing, A. 2003.Household Decisions, Gender, and Development: A Synthesis of Recent Research.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Ranganathan, T. 2014.Farmers’Income in India: Evidence from Secondary Data. New Delhi: Institute
of Economic Growth. Accessed January 20, 2019. http://www.iegindia.org//upload/project_
studies/1545126735.pdf.
Rao, N. 2007.“Custom and the Courts: Ensuring Women’s Rights to Land, Jharkhand, India.”
Development and Change 38 (2): 299–319.
Rao, S. 2011.“Work and Empowerment: Women and Agriculture in South India.”The Journal of
Development Studies 47 (2): 294–315.
Rawal, V., and P. Saha. 2015.“Women’s Employment in India: What Do Recent NSS Surveys of
Employment and Unemployment Show?”Monograph No. 1, Society for Social and Economic
Research, New Delhi.
Satyavathi, T. C., C. H. Bharadwaj, and P. S. Brahmanand. 2010.“Role of Farm Women in Agriculture:
Lessons Learned.”Gender, Technology and Development 14 (3): 441–449.
Sen, A. K. 2000.Development as Freedom. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Shah, A., and B. Harriss-White. 2011.“Resurrecting Scholarship on Agrarian Transformations.”
Economic and Political Weekly 46 (39): 13–18.
Siddiqui, M. Z., K. Lahiri-Dutt, S. Lockie, and B. Pritchard. 2017.“Reconsidering Women’s Work in
Rural India: Analysis of NSSO Data, 2004–05 and 2011–12.”Economic and Political Weekly 3 (1):
45–52.
Singh, K. M., R. K. Singh, and A. Kumar. 2013.“Male Worker Migration and Women Empowerment:
The Case of Bihar, India.”MPRA Paper No. 49385. Accessed December 4, 2016. https://mpra.ub.
uni-muenchen.de/49385.
SOFA Team, and C. Doss. 2011.“The Role of Women in Agriculture.”Working Paper No. 02,
Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation, United
Nations.
Subhanil, C. 2011.“Employment in India: What Does the Latest Data Show?”Economic and Political
Weekly 34 (32): 23–26.
Walker, T., and J. Ryan. 1990.Village and Household Economies in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Other Sources
Business Standard. 2019.“Job Crisis and Note Ban: How Bengal is Losing its Demographic
Opportunity.”April 8.
First Post. 2019.“Jute Industry in West Bengal Faces Crisis: Low Wages, Exploitation Leave Mill
Workers Facing Uncertain Future.”April 29.
Itishree Pattnaik is an Assistant Professor at the Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahme-
dabad, India. Itishree received her PhD from the University of Hyderabad, India on comparative agri-
cultural performance. Her research interests include agriculture, gender and sustainable
development, gender and food security, and the rural non-farm sector. She has published several
journal articles and book chapters on these topics, focussing on women and gender in Indian agri-
culture and food security. Itishree is one of the lead investigators in the project ‘Farmers of Future:
Challenges of Feminised Agriculture in India’, jointly funded by the Australian Research Council and
the Indian Council of Social Science Research, which funded the survey reported in this article.
Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt is a Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the
Pacific, The Australian National University. Kuntala researches the interface of gender, the environ-
ment and natural resource management in India, with focus on the precarious and gendered liveli-
hoods in environmental resource-dependent communities in the transient chars (river islands), in
22 I. PATTNAIK AND K. LAHIRI-DUTT

small-holder agriculture, and in the mineral-rich tracts. Kuntala’s publications include Between the
Plough and the Pick (edited, ANU Press, 2018); The Coal Nation: Histories, Politics and Ecologies of
Coal in India (edited, Ashgate, 2014); Dancing with the River: People and Lives on the Chars in
South Asia (co-authored, Yale University Press, 2013); Gendering the Field: Towards Sustainable Liveli-
hoods for Mining Communities (edited, ANU Press, 2011); Water First: Issues and Challenges for
Nations and Communities in South Asia (co-edited, Sage, 2008); Women Miners in Developing
Countries: Pit Women and Others (co-edited, Ashgate, 2006). More on Kuntala’s work can be
gleaned from her staffpage: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/people/academic/kuntala-lahiri-dutt.
THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES 23