66

for cultivation should be carefully re-examined. It is pointed out in the introductory note to the Agricultural Statistics of India that most of the barren and unculturable lands of British India lie in the hilly tract of Burma and of southern India and in the dry and desert regions of northwestern India and that, of the culturable waste other than fallow, exactly one-half is contributed by the undeveloped provinces of Burma and Assam. None the less, it is difficult to believe that the whole of the vast area now classed as not available for cultivation" amounting, as it does, to 150 million acres or twenty-two-and-a-half per cent of the total area of British India is either not available or not suitable for cultivation. An improvement in the classification under this head would be the division of land "not available for cultivation " into land which is barren and unculturable and land covered by buildings, water and roads, or otherwise appropriated for uses other than agricultural. It is certain that much of the slightly larger area classed as "culturable waste other than fallow", amounting to 152 million acres or nearly twenty-three per cent of the total area of British India, could, in no conceivable circumstances, be brought under tillage. In many parts of India, the pressure of the rural population on the cultivated land is steadily increasing and both Government and the public should be in a position to know, with greater exactitude than they do at present, the area of land in each province which is in reality suitable for new cultivation. Even if regard is had to the explanation in the introductory note to the volume of Agricultural Statistics to which reference has been made above, the statement repeated annually in a volume which issues under the imprimatur of the Government of India that very nearly one-quarter of the total area of British India is culturable but not cultivated is calculated to give rise to misconceptions which it would be well to avoid.

There are absence of a

527. It is generally agreed that the annual figures of areas sown with the various crops are, on the whole, accurate and (ii) STATISTICS OF CROP AREAS. that they compare in this respect very favourably with those published for any other country in the world. difficulties even here, however, mainly arising from the subordinate revenue staff in permanently settled tracts. In Madras, there are village officers in these tracts who act as a reporting agency, but in Bengal and Bihar and Orissa, where no such officers are available, reliance has to be placed mainly on reports from the police. Wherever possible, assistance is obtained from officers of the Revenue Department such as khas mahal tahsildars, and circle officers, and from district agricultural officers and non-official agricultural correspondents. The information thus collected is forwarded through the subdivisional officers to the district officer who has discretion to reject or amend reports in the light of his own knowledge or experience. These reports are admittedly often mere guesses and are, not infrequently, demonstrably absurd guesses. We have considered whether any steps could be taken to obtain more accurate information and to this end we communicated with the governments of Bengal and Bihar and Orissa where the difficulty arises in the most acute form. Whilst admitting the unsatisfactory

character of the information obtained, both governments took the view that no improvement could be effected without incurring expenditure which would not be justified by the results to be obtained. We appreciate the difficulty of effecting improvements and we think that the cost of employing a special statistical agency would probably not be justifiable in the circumstances. But we see no sufficient reason why the methods employed in collecting the statistics of jute production which we explain in paragraph 531 should not be gradually extended to other crops in the permanently settled areas of these provinces and also in those of Assam. The system of report by presidents of panchayats, where these are available, is far preferable to reliance on the police as a primary reporting agency. The evidence we received from the Director of Land Records and Survey in Bihar and Orissa also indicates that closer touch between his department and the Agricultural Department would be productive of good results.

The other great difficulty in arriving at correct crop areas arises from the practice of sowing mixed crops. Food and non-food crops such as wheat and linseed may be sown together or a minor crop such as castor may be interspersed with the main crop. Separation in the returns is effected by the subordinate staff in accordance with formula which are prescribed by the provincial authorities but which differ in different provinces and according to the type of mixture. We were informed that errors arising from this source are not such as to invalidate the statistics of the area of a crop as a whole. We accept this view and the only suggestion we have to make is that, where this is not already done, the correctness of these formulæ should be tested from time to time by actual field trials of the main types of mixtures found in a district. The trials should be conducted by the agency which does the ordinary crop-cutting experiments.

528. The two factors, other than area, necessary for estimating the (iii) THE NORMAL yield of a crop, namely, the standard or normal yield and the estimate of condition, are admittedly suscep

YIELD.

tible of considerable improvement.

The estimate of normal yield is based on crop-cutting experiments made over a number of years compared with such other information as may be available from trade statistics, settlement investigations and the like. Reliance on crop-cutting experiments, the methods adopted in carrying them out, and the agency employed in conducting them have all been the subjects of criticism in the past. It is now, however, generally agreed that no satisfactory alternative basis for calculating the standard yield is available. The Board of Agriculture, after a very thorough examination of the point in 1919 and 1924, expressed the view that "while every effort should be made to take the fullest advantage of trade statistics, it is not possible to obtain from such statistics the figures for the total production from which to calculate the standard outturn per acre and crop-cutting experiments must remain the basis of such standards." The agency which carries out these experiments is still almost entirely

the subordinate revenue staff.

As long ago as 1915, the Government of India expressed the view that they should, as far as possible, be conducted by expert officers of the Agricultural Department. Except in the Punjab and the Central Provinces, however, and there only to a very limited extent, the agricultural departments, owing to paucity of staff, have so far found it impossible to spare men to carry out crop-cutting experiments. The time for making them coincides with the busiest season of the year for the agricultural departments. It may be accepted, therefore, that extra staff and consequently extra expenditure will be required if the agricultural departments are to undertake this work. In these circumstances, it becomes a question of relative urgency between improvement in statistics and other agricultural improvements. We are of opinion that it is desirable to move with caution in this matter. For reasons which we mention in paragraph 538, we consider that the departments of agriculture require strengthening by the appointment of an expert statistical officer at headquarters and we are of opinion that his appointment should in all cases precede any change in the present system. It would be a part of his duty, after examining the statistical position, and estimating the extent to which the standard yields are likely to be erroneous, to advise as to the measures required to render the system effective. It has been suggested that the additional staff required to carry out crop-cutting experiments could be used as demonstrators of agricultural improvements. The suggestion is an ingenious one, but it is our view that the question of employing staff engaged primarily for one set of duties on another set of duties should not be adopted without careful consideration, especially when the secondary function is of such critical importance as is the demonstration of agricultural improvements.

As regards the methods at present in use, criticism has in the main taken two forms. The practice of selecting by the eye 'average' crops for the crop-cutting experiment, is condemned by statisticians. The recasting of the standard yield every five years on miscellaneous data such as are used in the Punjab is also considered to be statistically faulty. To strike a balance between the results of crop-cutting experiments annually made and the yields fixed in previous returns or for the purposes of land revenue assessments, is held to import into the new standard the personal factor which is unavoidable in estimating the annual condition of crops but which it is desirable to eliminate in pure statistics. The Board of Agriculture in 1924 condemned, for similar reasons, any attempt to correct the standard yield from trade statistics. From the point of view of what is immediately practicable, we think that attention should be paid to this last criticism and that no change in the standard yield should be made unless it is based on data supplied by crop-cutting experiments. The selection by the eye of average fields for these experiments is no doubt indefensible in statistical theory but it has to be recollected that the correct method of selecting fields mechanically so as to give a statistically random distribution can only give proper results if a sufficient number of such selections can be made within a definite area. We consider, therefore,