An Analysis of Structure & Economic Level of Agriculture Labour in Tribal Regions: A Primary Study with Reference to Sabarkantha District
*Dr. Tusharkumar Shah
Research Scientist, Data Analyst & Development Anthropologist,
GBRF.
Abstract:
The question of devoid has starting from level of resources what they are holding and its capabilities would decides to generate of living level with accumulation of daily earning. It has sophisticated question arises when increasing 32 percent in agriculture labour as unorganized sector on aggregate level in 2011 from 2001 in Sabarkantha district where 31.11 percent increase under tribes during period. The different analytical research study has providing strong evidence on level of living of tribes is not well or not on minimum standards so it can be affected in all level like education, health, nutrition, survivals etc.. and that can be direct reasons to increase or producing poverty among tribes. The main reasons would be standing on the level of daily wages and what number of days will be getting works against their harder physical works without limits with their loving family so that wide gaps between rendering and economic reward causes to giving involutes miserable life apart from growth of gross domestic product of nation.
Key Words: Economic Level, Agriculture Labour, Tribes, Living Level, Wellness, Wage & Income, Capacities, Poverty, Tribal Region
Introduction:
The agriculture labour has important role under development of agriculture sector where it affected directly on production, productivity, quality as well as on food security. The traditional agriculture has most depends on availability of agriculture labour but its demand has not rendering of substance wage level in tribal areas and that’s would be generating question of livelihood where shelter, food, education, health, living level, nutrition as giant challenging for survival of agriculture labour in tribal areas. The demand of agriculture labour in agriculture sector is not consistence in whole year so except monsoon session; the sack period would create most difficulties for most tribal families to running their economic life which are most significant reasons of migration among tribal agriculture labour in most tribal areas.
The tribal areas has most geographical constraints under agriculture development under soil, land fertility, hilly areas, irrigation as well as technology, awareness and educational are vacuous on ground level and that’s has lack of capabilities to affords wage level under whole year in this areas.
The behavioral studies like situation of agriculture labour in Sabarkantha & Banaskantha 1(Behavioral Science Centre: 2009) is sufficient evidence to level of wage and employment generation are not consistence under specially Khedbhrahma & Meghraj region of Sabarkantha and Danta Region of Banaskantha district as tribal areas during period. This qualitative study has finds most miserable condition of agriculture labour where increases in temporary or seasonable worker and they are migrants under Masons Labour in Rajasthan on daily wages of 80 to 160 Rs for time period of 11 hours work load. Whereas another lots of 36.6 percent migrants are agriculture labour transfer under causal labour under field labour (on daily wage earning between 50 to 120 Rs) from total tribal migrants.
Objective of Study:
- To study structure of agriculture labour in tribal region
- To analyze agricultural wage level of tribes & tribal regions
- To analyze household income of agriculture labour
Data, Sample & Methodology:
The present research study has giving priority to primary data of households under tribal region with specifically focus on tribal agriculture labour which pertaining in different mode and structure. This is efforts of individual and households level for presents wage level and ultimately economic position of aggregate households during period. The minimum levels of wages and livelihood approach are most considering under examine condition of agriculture labour. The Sabarkantha district has four regions as Khedbhrahma, Vijaynagar, Bhiloda & Meghraj as tribal region among aggregate of 13 regions. Here, study has considered four tribal regions as scope as geographical areas with 200 numbers of households samples drawn of agriculture labour. There would be also individual consider of agriculture labour with also equal size in different social groups with specially tribes.
The present research study has equal size of schedule tribe households sample as 100 against other different social groups with 100 samples on random equal probabilities basis. The object of different social groups under tribal regions are identifying the any gaps among their wage or income level or otherwise its most equal affected in certain geographical areas. The secondary data is utilization for understanding effects under quantity level in workers with specially agriculture labour in particular geographical areas during two different point of time.
1Migrant Labours as Masons Of total 62,347 Tribal migrants, 6,564 almost 11%Migrate to other villages and Taluka to Work as masons; majority of them are Adult male on agreements of wage stands from 80 to 160 Rs Per day on work load of 11 Hours from 8.00 am morning to 7.00 pm evening:
Scenario of Agriculture Labour & Structure:
The universal acceptance on agriculture labour has not substance condition of living in especially tribal areas which has most reason for poverty with adverse affects on consumption expenditure, purchasing power as well as mean production of agriculture labour. This condition has most respected to decline in number of land holdings as no other local resources for earning in rural areas other than agriculture labour. This has also strongly supporting by world agriculture census on increasing inequality of land holding in the world by 40 percent population holding 1 to 4 acres land against 3 percent population holding less than 1 acres. There is enough evidence of over dependency on agriculture sectors so incidence of poverty presents where 2Suvendra Jenamani: (2005) considers poverty is because of geographical characteristics as regional rather than socio-economic reasons or problems in communities.
The poverty line showing minimum substance of life and income is necessary for physical efficiency as live between poverty and non-poverty as per Charles Booth (1989) & Seebohm Rowntree (1901) as founder of poverty line. The 3estimate of living level in 1955 on agriculture labour as wide consequence in findings where living level of agriculture households has under 50 Rs has 2 percent households in west state including Bombay state whereas 36 percent households under 51-100 Rs, 36.2 percent under 101-150 Rs, 14.5 percent under 150-200 Rs, 5.6 percent under 201-250 Rs and 4.6 percent under more than 250 Rs on living level against India has 2 percent, 24.4 percent, 36 percent, 19.5 percent, 19.5 percent, 9 percent and 9.1 percent respectively living level.
The annual average earning of agriculture worker has also lower as per research study of 4Anilkumar Thakur & Dilip Kumar (2009) where study has findings to 420 households with average annual earning between 86-87 Rs, 608 households have 94-95 Rs average earning while 1001 households have 200-01 Rs earning annually of agriculture labour. It’s reflecting critical circumstances prevailing in agriculture sector for unorganized agriculture labours. The study has most focus on different indicators like percentage of agriculture labour, level of wage, average percentage of outstanding of agriculture households according to different assets groups, annual average consumption expenditure and level of nutrition value.
The 5National Sample Survey (13th January, 2013) has selected 600 villages as random sample for study of situation of agriculture wage earner from different state in India. The findings are most reflecting gender discriminating under wage distribution even with average earning of 117.22 Rs for female & 135 Rs for male in Gujarat while highest under Tamilnadu with 221.21 Rs for male against 172.84 Rs for female, Rajasthan with 215.45 Rs for male & 161.87 Rs for female, Andhra Pradesh with 205 Rs for male & 163.8 Rs for female, Maharashtra with 175.7 Rs for male & 106.47 Rs for female, Karnataka with 173.60 Rs for male & 117.60 Rs for female, Bihar with 168.89 Rs for male and 147.52 Rs for female, West Bengal with 167.02 Rs for male & 159.55 Rs for female, Uttar Pradesh with 160.77 Rs for male & 125.62 Rs for female. It has lowest wage level under Madhya Pradesh by 123.84 Rs for male & 108.41 Rs for female but Tripura & Himachal Pradesh has unique wage existing for male & female by 140 Rs & 244.29 Rs as highest respectively.
The different studies has indicating to agriculture labour has not getting reward as against what they paying so their livelihood going to lower dimension with creates economic, social and physical woo which considering by international labour organization in 1992 with introducing “Minimum Level of Wage” as minimum substance of life or regionable standard of life as this understood in their time and country in 6“International Labour Conference, 79th Session, 1992”. The resolution of 217 A (III), 10th December, 1948 under human rights article 23, Para, 3 has also describing to “everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensures for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity”. While remuneration as provision of rights to minimum standards constructed by General Assembly, 16th December, 1966 which implemented on 3rd, January, 1976 with claiming of “Rights to remuneration which provides all workers as a minimum with, a decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provision of the present covenant. (Article, 7th of international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights)
7The report of high level committee for problems of tribal communities (2014), has identifying different labour categories as full time or permanents worker, causal, temporary or seasonable worker, migrant worker, indigenous rural worker as well as child labour too. Here, agriculture labour has divides under their work by 1st, crop fields as farm worker with farming and cultivation, 2nd harvester, 3rd near farmer with livestock units & poultry, 4th land scope with forestry, gardening, 5th primary processing to food & fiber. The committee has gives factors for affecting wages by agriculture growth, food price & security, labour supply, non-farm employment and minimum wages too.
The tribal committee has major findings are first, seasonable or temporary wages earners are increasing including self employment, second, increasing of casualisation of employment third, increasing of causal worker by self employed farmer in specially sugar farming, fourth, decline in ratio of fulltime agriculture labour, fifth, the average number of working days are decline and minimum wage rate are very variable with geographical areas with specially in tribal.
8World Food Summit Plan of Action (1996) has focus on food security as Food security exists when all people, At all times, have physical and Economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their Dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life which from depends on agriculture worker and required to promoting them for us. It’s also anxious for increase agriculture wage labour share in rural employment with higher share of women against male agriculture labour and that would also reflecting in our case of Sabarkantha (Table:1) where overall tribal agriculture in district has 31 percent increase in duration of 10 years so yearly it increases more than 3 percent under there. Whereas, the tribal regions have most increase under Meghraj region with around 67 percent as highest and lowest increases with 17.60 percent in Khedbhrahma in tribal agriculture labour.
6 “Remuneration will proportion to its skills & capacities with assuring him to standards of living suitable for himself and for his family”.
6 “Minimum wage considering, time or output basis, intended to guarantee of minimum living condition or guaranteed by law”.
| Table:1 | Khedbhrahma | Vijaynagar | Bhiloda | Meghraj | Sabarkantha |
| Total Agriculture Labour Tribes | |||||
| 2001 | 4609 | 1811 | 2556 | 1538 | 14887 |
| 2011 | 26184 | 4367 | 9150 | 2289 | 47847 |
| % Change | 17.60 | 41.47 | 27.93 | 67.19 | 31.11 |
| Total Cultivators Tribes | |||||
| 2001 | 27464 | 10888 | 19581 | 10426 | 70463 |
| 2011 | 39663 | 9912 | 20643 | 13139 | 86245 |
| % Change | 69.24 | -9.85 | 94.86 | 79.35 | 81.70 |
| Total Worker Tribes | |||||
| 2001 | 71460 | 27584 | 46271 | 22437 | 183180 |
| 2011 | 101288 | 34668 | 65524 | 30278 | 251088 |
| % Change | 70.55 | 79.57 | 70.62 | 74.10 | 72.95 |
| Male Agriculture Labour Tribes | |||||
| 2001 | 2983 | 1082 | 1310 | 576 | 8802 |
| 2011 | 11270 | 2590 | 4723 | 952 | 23008 |
| % Change | 26.47 | 41.78 | 27.74 | 60.50 | 38.26 |
| Female Agriculture Labour Tribes | |||||
| 2001 | 1626 | 729 | 1246 | 962 | 6085 |
| 2011 | 14914 | 1777 | 4427 | 1337 | 24839 |
| % Change | 10.90 | 41.02 | 28.15 | 71.95 | 24.50 |
*Source: District Primary Census Abstract, Census of India, Government of India, 2001 & 2011
The Khedbhrahma has particularly highest in last decade with numerically in agriculture labour while other tribal region like has lower under numerically compare to Khedbhrahma on absolute bases but percent increasing of agriculture labour has subject of worry on case of rural employability capacities going on dimension of unorganized sector with higher number of families underlying in vicious poverty.
The rate of cultivators under tribal regions is mostly higher increases except Vijaynagar with negative rate while highest around 94 percent in Bhiloda region and overall district has more than 80 percent increases under tribal cultivators. Here, it most indicating to decline under big holding of land which divides under marginal land and that’s has directly relation to agriculture labour rises in tribal region where marginal land has no effective under productivity, facilities of irrigation as well as cost of production is very higher per unit than big holding lands causing as marginal land holders have not affording modern technology or modernization so most marginal cultivators moves on farming labour in tribal regions.
The different analytical research study has provides strong evidence for gender discrimination under agriculture wage in most of state and that would most critical at time of increasing ratio of female agriculture labour than male in last decade. Here, its also provides strong evidence of most tribal region like, Bhiloda & Meghraj has higher growth of female agriculture worker while individually numeric position would 1.32 times higher of female worker than male worker in agriculture as aggregate in district.
Under the tribal regions, marginal agriculture labour is proportionately higher than main agriculture labour where it’s very higher ratio at 291, 156 & 194 number higher per 100 of main agriculture labour in Vijaynagar, Bhiloda and Meghraj accordingly which shown under Table: 2 clearly. The marginal agriculture labour is also higher than main cultivators in Vijaynagar as tribal region which showing to higher labour force than demands. Under the distribution of total worker, the marginal labour has highest under Vijaynagar as 33.57 percent while Bhiloda has second highest distribution in the tribal region in district.
Table: 2
| Measures of Labour in Tribal Regions (Ratio) | ||||
| Khedbhrahma | Vijaynagar | Bhiloda | Meghraj | |
| Marginal Agriculture Labour to Main Agriculture Labour | 72.22 | 291.16 | 156.78 | 194.28 |
| Marginal Agriculture Labour to Main Cultivators | 48.49 | 124.73 | 87.68 | 30.31 |
| Marginal Agriculture Labour to Total Worker | 17.64 | 33.57 | 25.68 | 13.98 |
| Main Agricultural Labour to Total Worker | 24.42 | 11.53 | 16.38 | 7.19 |
| Main Agricultural Labour to Main Cultivators | 67.14 | 42.84 | 55.93 | 15.60 |
| Main Agriculture Labour to Marginal Agriculture Labour | 138.46 | 34.35 | 63.78 | 51.47 |
| Main Agricultural Labour to Total Population | 11.60 | 4.88 | 7.64 | 3.49 |
| Marginal Agricultural Labour to Total Population | 8.38 | 14.21 | 11.98 | 6.79 |
*Source: District Primary Census Abstract, Census of India, Government of India, 2011
The main agriculture labour is distribution higher under Khedbhrahma region against total worker while lowest under Meghraj which showing to Meghraj has very higher ratio under marginal agriculture labour than main agriculture labour so obviously it has higher risk of lacking employability and migration rate under this type of tribal region. The Khedbhrahma regions have only higher rate of main agriculture labour against marginal labour while rest of all tribal are comparatively higher existence of marginality of labour force in agriculture sector during period.
The Indicators of agriculture labour of tribes under Table: 3 has showing current position of tribes labour in segmentation of aggregate, male and female level where, agriculture tribe female worker against total female tribe worker are higher than male agriculture tribe worker against total male tribe worker in all tribal regions except Vijaynagar region during period. The female agriculture labour to main female worker have also very higher ratio than male agriculture labour to main male agriculture labour in all tribal regions which indicating to strong evidence of female participant under agriculture labour as tribes in tribal region during period. Moreover, female tribes agriculture labour against total cultivators are also very higher rate against male tribe agriculture labour against total cultivators and theses would indicating to the cultivators distribution under female and male has not equally as well as female rate are very higher under agriculture labour than male agriculture labour as tribes in tribal regions.
Table: 3
|
Measure of Tribes Labours (Ratio) |
||||
| Khedbhrahma | Vijaynagar | Bhiloda | Meghraj | |
| (F)Agriculture Labour to Total Female Worker (%) | 31.35 | 11.61 | 14.97 | 9.15 |
| (F)Agriculture Labour to Main Female Worker (%) | 63.74 | 51.54 | 52.68 | 23.13 |
| (F) Agriculture Labour to Total Cultivators (%) | 37.60 | 17.93 | 21.45 | 10.18 |
| (M) Agriculture Labour to Total Male Worker (%) | 20.98 | 13.38 | 13.14 | 6.07 |
| (M) Agriculture Labour to Main Male Worker (%) | 24.82 | 18.47 | 16.98 | 7.68 |
| (M) Agriculture Labour to Total Cultivators (%) | 28.41 | 26.13 | 22.88 | 7.25 |
| Agriculture Labour to Total Worker (%) | 25.85 | 12.60 | 13.96 | 7.56 |
| Agriculture Labour to Main Worker (%) | 38.06 | 25.00 | 25.26 | 12.59 |
| Agriculture Labour to Total Cultivators (%) | 66.01 | 44.06 | 44.32 | 17.42 |
| Agriculture tribes Labour to tribes population | 12.07 | 5.36 | 6.64 | 3.70 |
*Source: District Primary Census Abstract, Census of India, Government of India, 2011
The aggregate under tribes agriculture labour, its ratio against total worker is highest under Khedbhrahma region while lowest under Meghraj region while agriculture labour rate against main worker is very higher in Khedbhrahma region and lowest repeatedly under Meghraj region during period. It would also same dimension under agriculture labour ratio against total cultivators as well as also same under against cultivators on regionally.
*There would dramatically higher share of women in agriculture labour against per 100 male as higher than male agriculture labor in tribal region which showing in Figure: 1 & 2:
Primary Level Output:
The secondary data analysis would be evidence on gives dimension over whole phenomenon under agriculture labour as tribe as well as aggregate under tribal regions too. Here, primary level dimensions under income pattern of tribes agriculture households (Table: 4) are indicating to higher distribution of their income from wage earning as higher distribution percentage of around 76 percent while lowest share under livestock or husbandries section. The level of self employment is very negligible which indicating to resources for income generation of tribes are very none while rate under services or job level are also under lying than population ratio of tribes even if they protected by law under schedule tribes. Moreover, tribes have very lower scope in agriculture level which indicating by their participant even if its concerning with rural & hilly tribal areas where there are no any alternative of non-agriculture employment.
| Table: 4 Income /Occupation Patterns of Tribes (%) | |
| Agriculture & Allied Activities | 16.35 |
| Livestock, Poultry, Sericulture, etc | 1.44 |
| Salary Income | 4.33 |
| Self Employment | 1.92 |
| Wage Earned | 75.96 |
| Aggregate | 100 |
The working area of the tribes for agriculture labour under Figure: 3 has focusing to there are only 34 percent working at locally against 58 percent tribe agriculture labour going to outside too for getting works so this is indicating to no sufficient works for rural agriculture tribe at locally. The rate of complete outside agriculture labour is 8 percent as which has not availability of agriculture work at native place so that agriculture condition is not so good in tribal areas which is not generate real employment there.
Figure:3
The regional aggregate dimension of working areas (Table: 5) are indicting 45 percent having getting work at locally which is higher rate than tribes what getting at locally. The level of going to outsider is also loser than tribes’ rate of 8 percent whereas workings under both areas have 10 percent dispersion with tribe which has higher rate than aggregate tribal region during period. But over all condition of both groups are not too much good even if rural most of depends on agriculture sector which not generate proper employability in tribal region.
| Table: 5 YOU WORK AT… (Regional) working area of tribe |
|||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Local Only | 90 | 45 | 45 | 45 |
| Out Side Only | 13 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 51.5 | |
| Both | 97 | 48.5 | 48.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 200 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
There is negative relation between family size and working of agriculture labour where higher size of family members has lowest distribution under agriculture labour which one reflecting under only three households have highest four members working as agriculture labour which showing under Table: 6. This phenomenon happens under daily wage earner or temporary agriculture labour but in the case of permanents or part time agriculture worker has most family including children also working in that criteria against sack of their education. Moreover, the tribal region has highest households of only one member working as agriculture labour as around 72 percent and then after two members with 23 percent during period.
Table: 6 Working Members as Agriculture Labour in Households
| No. Members | Frequency | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
| 1 | 143 | 71.86 | 71.86 |
| 2 | 47 | 23.62 | 95.48 |
| 3 | 7 | 3.52 | 99.00 |
| 4 | 3 | 1.51 | 100.50 |
The level of security for working as agriculture labour in different geographical areas is most important under getting work at locally with regionable rate of wage but tribal region has not any single households with higher level security of working as agriculture labour in respected areas which clearly showing under Table: 7 whereas tribe has also same none of high security level of agriculture work which focusing under Figure: 4. There are highest share of lower security of work in both groups as regionally and tribe based too where tribe working security is very lowest than regional aggregate. The medium level security is higher under regional level than tribes as 33 percent & 23 percent accordingly during period. So this variable of agriculture labour gives dimension of lowest or none of security of agriculture labour work as well as tribes has lowest rate of security than aggregately of regions.
| Table: 7 Level of Security of Work in Tribal Region | |||
| Level | Frequency | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
| High | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Medium | 66 | 33 | 33 |
| Low | 134 | 67 | 100 |
| Total | 200 | 100 | |
Figure:4 Security of Work of Tribe Figure: 6 Wages Level of Houshold under Tribal Regions (All Groups)
The tribal region has limitation expressing under wage level which reflecting under Figure: 5 as around 57.4 percent households having the wage earning between 0-320 Rs as highest distribution earning wage as lowest level in tribal regions. Moreover, earning between 0-200 Rs wage by more than 17 percent which indicating all of 57 percent has not getting over 320 Rs of wage in tribal region. The minimum level is 160 Rs earning monthly while 1500 Rs has maximum for earning of agriculture wage in tribal region. Here second figure of monthly income indicating concentration of wage rate to highest worker with lower than 600 Rs and from 220 Rs as highest concentration criteria. Under the first quintile, it would be distributed with 240 Rs while third quintile going to 640 Rs in tribal regions.
Monthly Income Concentration
The distribution level under normality of wage level test under Figure: 6 have describing to non normal pattern of wage level of households under tribal regions. There are no maintain any linearity under whole phenomenon of wage distribution during period where initially some up warding level which not consistence on same level in all households under agriculture wage earning. The upward level of agriculture wage earning is for limited with limited households while most having below the average.
Figure: 6 Non Normal Pattern of Wage Level of Households in Tribal Region
Here, lack of normality of wage level indicating higher discrimination under agriculture labour within groups of tribes which brake most average level under aggregate groups during period in tribal regions. This phenomenon of dispersion which statistically significant of hypothesis (At level of 95 percent) of non equality of wage level against null hypothesis where dispersion presents as indicating to most dispersed through tribes groups whose have not getting minimum level of wage in tribal regions during period of time.
| Dispersion | ||||||||||
| Variance | 452516.8 | The variance of the population is equal to 95. H1: σ² ≠ 95 The variance of the population is not equal to 95.H0: σ² = 95 |
||||||||
| 95% CI | 348412.4 | to 611670.0 | ||||||||
| X² test | ||||||||||
| 1 Reject the null hypothesis in favors of the alternative hypothesis at the 0.5% significance level. | ||||||||||
| Hypothesized value | 95 | |||||||||
| X² statistic | 466806.85 | |||||||||
| DF |
|
|||||||||
| p-value | <0.0001 | |||||||||
The absolute level of wage of agriculture labour under tribal region has greater quintile variation describing in Table: 8 where resources per quintile is maximum lower distribution except last two quintile with mean value of around 1069 Rs but apart from generalization of average, each quintile getting lower than mean except 9th quintile of households under tribal region. The variation under wage level in tribal regions are focusing through different coefficient like Gini, Plato, Pareto, Theil & Hoover where Pareto describing highest 41.6 percent variation in wage level within tribal region whereas Gini & Plato has second line highest variation for wage during period.
Table: 8 Wage Income Level Resources per Quintile of Tribal Region
| Quintile Data: People, Resources |
Resources per Quintile |
# | Resource per quintile element & Inequality |
| 0.100,*320
0.200,*400 0.300,*500 0.400,*600 0.500,*640 0.600,*900 0.700,*960 0.800,*1280 0.900,*1946.7 |
32.0
80.0 150.0 240.0 320.0 540.0 672.0 1024.0 1752.03 |
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
4 quintile elements, 9 quintiles
Mean: 1068.896 Median: 10.2% 960.000 (#7/9) Inequality Welfare 1-e^-Theil T: 10.5% 1194.879 (1/Welfare) 1-e^-Theil L: 11.1% 950.722 1-e^-Theil S: 10.8% 953.455 Gini: 26.3% 787.863 Plato: 23.7% 815.814 Pareto: 618/382 100%-SOEP: 41.6% 623.843 Hoover: 19.9% 855.805
Theil-T Redundancy: 0.111 Theil-L Redundancy: 0.117 Symmetric Redundancy: 0.114 Inequality Issuization: -0.085 |
There are required regionable distributions of wage level at relative basis where around 1194 Rs wage standards for equal or welfare distribution as highest in Theil while Gini has lowest redistribution of 787 Rs before Pareto of 623 Rs but minimum level has required 4200 Rs at absolute level per individual. The picture of wage level of tribes (Table: 9) is comparatively lower than aggregate position of tribal region where it has mean wage value is only 564 Rs which is half or fifty percent of mean wage of tribal region. The abnormality or variations of wage level within tribes are lower than aggregate of tribal region so that welfare distribution rate of equality is lower obviously. There are also quintile differences prevailing between tribes and aggregate tribal region where fifth per quintile is 320 Rs against 150 Rs in tribes which indicating to higher agriculture labour are below level of standards wage in tribe but it has not consideration of tribal region has substance wage level than tribes but both has strong evidence of not enough substance or minimum level of wage level where tribes are most suffering of lacking in employability, poverty, migration, education, income standards, living level etc.
Table: 9 Wage Income Level Resources per Quintile of Tribe in Tribal Region
| Quintile Data: People, Resources |
Resources per Quintile |
# | Resource per quintile element & Inequality |
| 0.100,
*2000.200, *2400.300, *2400.400, *3000.500, *3000.600, *4000.700, *5000.800, *8000.900, *1000 |
20.0
48.0 72.0 120.0 150.0 240.0 350.0 640.0 900.0 |
123456789 | 4 quintile elements, 9 quintiles
Mean: 564.444 Median: 11.4% 500.000 (#7/9) Inequality Welfare 1-e^-Theil T: 11.8% 639.932 (1/Welfare) 1-e^-Theil L: 12.4% 494.211 1-e^-Theil S: 12.1% 496.033 Gini: 27.9% 407.012 Plato: 25.1% 422.529 Pareto: 626/374 100%-SOEP: 43.6% 318.248 Hoover: 22.9% 435.457 Theil-T Redundancy: 0.126 Theil-L Redundancy: 0.133 Symmetric Redundancy: 0.129 Inequality Issuization: -0.099 |
Conclusion:
The individual level of wage of tribes is lower than 100 Rs because of them have not security of work as not getting sufficient monthly work on demand basis where exchange of labour works are most frequents in tribes rather than pay out more. The regular worker in agriculture labour as tribe has mostly not getting locally so they going outside for temporary or for some period and most of going with child too as whole family participants under same wage level against higher rendering of work. The most tribal areas have not sufficient capacities of agriculture showing or farming in all the seasons frequently because it has higher geographical constraints with lowest level of agriculture supporting facilities than non-tribal region.
The structure of agriculture workers are mostly in five division as first under regular work, second as day on demand, third, work on part, fourth, on Rent or on Lease and firth on lump-sum work in tribal areas. The security of works are higher under regular work which is employ for more than one years but it has not getting sufficient reward against their capacities by tribe even if they work participant with their children and women too whose has not entitles of separate wage earning from land holders. The day on demand has no any security of getting daily work but it depends on demand level which affected by land types, soil health, fertility, size of land, monsoon, supporting facilities, irrigation, level of water underground etc. Thus this types of work has very variation of employment as well as variation under existing wage level even if not far distance of two geographical areas. The security level of on part is seasonable or for yearly but it’s depend on production of agriculture with reward of commodities or agriculture production mostly rather than money transaction. The advantage to labours on part is dependable on level & frequency of production during period otherwise doesn’t get from it so this both methods are much oppressed for tribes. The mode of rent or lease are some benefited because it is related to self-employment but it’s depend on availability of sufficient supporting in agriculture as well as requirement of economic strength for managed it. The rent or lease period are limited and requiring getting advantage in same time otherwise not getting compassion against what they paid for rent or lease and also invest under agriculture too. So in this categories, tribes have increase most responsibility from both side.
The last category is used by cultivators for limited or for certain level of agriculture work by appointing agriculture labour for very short period with deciding fix level of remuneration. In this method, there are not consider individual number as employ under certain work but its object to complete work in certain pre-decide condition. This type of agriculture works have mostly working with whole family or friends or relative in tribes. These methods mostly utilized in cereal cutting or yielding times and most exchange of labour against some pre-decide cereal in kilograms. It has most advantage of running day to day living smoothly with appropriation of certain level of cereal for year.
The official poverty line is not standardized with inflationary & minimum level consideration because there is increases minimum level of living and standards are frequently change and this all are depends on pricing factors of essential commodities and earning level. The earning level has lowest in agriculture labour with especially for tribes even if they rendering higher their capacities. The agriculture unemployment ratio is very higher in tribal regions where day of demand labour has getting 11 to 13 days of work on average in monthly so they gets only 43 Rs per day remuneration in contest of monthly. The tribe households have only getting 564 Rs on average which is not minimum level of wage as substance for life. The tribes has most adoption of exchange within communities so they helps each other without paying more so life has going even if critical level of earning level. Here, there are requiring developing local agriculture in tribal areas first and then after requiring to secondary steps of other sector developing because agriculture are most source of tribal region for specially of tribe and that’s are minimum or primary needs of tribe family for survival on this planet.
References:
1Analytical Reports “Situation of Tribal Migrant Laborers of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha Districts of North Gujarat” Behavioral Science Center, Ahmadabad, 2009.
2Suvendra Jenamani, “Poverty & Under-Development in Tribal Areas: A Geographical Analysis”, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2005.
3“Agriculture Labour: Cost & Level of Living”, The Economic Weekly, III, Vol-7, No-40, 1178-1180, 1st October, 1955.
4Anil Kumar Thakur & Dilip Kumar, “Regional Development and Level of Living in India” Forward by Dr.Satish C.Jha, Deep & Deep Publication Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2009.
5“Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, January – December 2013”, National Sample Survey Organization – Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Government of India.
6International Labour Conference, 79th Session, 1992, “Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions and Recommendation” International Labour Organization, International Labour Office, Geneva.
7Tribal Committee Reports, “Report of the High Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health & Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India”, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, New-Delhi, May, 2014.
8World Food Summit Plan of Action, Food & Agriculture Organization, Rome, 13-17November 1996.
