The Foundation for Agrarian Studies (FAS) organised an International Conference on Agrarian Change in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, from November 6 to 9, 2025, in order to take stock of the current thinking and scholarship on agrarian change in India and elsewhere in the world. The discussions at the conference focussed on four major themes: (i) productive forces and agrarian relations, (ii) the role of science and technology in advancing agriculture, (iii) poverty and standards of living in the countryside, and (iv) the impact of climate change on agriculture and rural development.

V. K. Ramachandran chaired the academic committee, T. P. Harshan was the convenor, and the committee comprised Venkatesh Athreya, T. Jayaraman, R. Ramakumar, V. Surjit, and Madhura Swaminathan.

A total of 107 papers were presented at the conference. In response to an international call for papers from young scholars, we received 134 submissions and selected 30 papers.

The four-day conference was attended by over 200 delegates from India and across the world. The participants included social scientists, agricultural and other scientists, policymakers, members of agrarian organisations and unions, activists, and young scholars. There were 57 women delegates and 64 delegates below 40 years of age. Over the course of the conference, participants engaged in discussions across the four thematic areas, examining key issues shaping agrarian change in contemporary contexts. Of the 107 papers presented, 34 were based on primary data and 22 used the village study method as their primary research approach.

November 6

Inaugural Session

In his opening remarks at the conference, the Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, drew attention to the declaration by the Government of Kerala on November 1, 2026, of the successful conclusion of its campaign to end extreme poverty in the State. This historic event, he said, was the culmination of a long journey, one that began with the first land reform legislation introduced by the first Government of Kerala in April 1957, days after the Legislative Assembly was convened.

In his opening comments, the Convenor of the conference and Managing Trustee of the Foundation for Agrarian Studies (FAS), V. K. Ramachandran, highlighted the high level of deprivation persisting in rural India. According to globally recognised food share criteria, families that spend more than 30 per cent of their income on food are considered as poor. According to this criterion, 85 per cent of rural households in India would be classified as poor.

The inaugural session was also addressed by S. Mahendra Dev, Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India; Britta Petersen, Head of the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, South Asia Office; Brinda Karat, Vice-President of Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch; and Luciano Rezende Moreira, Professor, Federal Institute of Rio de Janeiro. Eminent journalist and former Editor of The Hindu, N. Ram, released the conference souvenir, and presented the first copy to S. Ramachandran Pillai, senior leader of the All India Kisan Sabha.

Plenary Session: Some International Perspectives

Chair: Madhura Swaminathan

Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted presented a paper (“The Role of Modern Science and Technology in Advancing Agriculture”)³ which emphasised a people-centred food systems approach that integrates nutrition, sustainability, and equity. She highlighted the importance of dietary diversity, women’s agency, combining indigenous knowledge with modern technologies, and policy accountability. Despite global policy initiatives, malnutrition and obesity continue to rise, which necessitates innovations, South–South collaboration, and targeted support for vulnerable populations.

Cao Đức Phát (“Income from Rice in Asia,” see this issue (Review of Agrarian Studies [RAS] 16,1) highlighted in his presentation the central role rice plays in Asian livelihoods amid uneven production trends and declining farmer incomes. Smallholders face rising costs of cultivation, land pressures, and climate challenges. Despite technological gains, profitability remains low. He called for policy reforms on land, water, carbon emissions, and transparent markets to sustain rice farming’s economic viability and social significance.

Plenary 1: Productive Forces, Class, and Peasant Movements

Chair: V. K. Ramachandran

Luciano Rezende Moreira (“Productive Forces and Agrarian Relations in Brazil: The Struggle for a National-Developmental Project”) traced Brazil’s shift from state-led developmentalism to neoliberal dependency, highlighting declining sovereignty, corporate dominance, and environmental degradation. He explained that industrial growth stagnated after 1980 in the neoliberal era. He advocated reviving a national developmentalist model centred on public institutions, state capacity, and sustainable agrarian transformation to restore economic autonomy and social progress (see Luciano (2026), this issue (RAS 16,1)).

Ashok Dhawale (“The Peasant Movement in India in Neoliberal Times”) outlined the history of India’s peasant movement across colonial, post-Independence, and neoliberal phases, highlighting persistent inequality, agrarian distress, and corporate expansion. He argued that liberalisation intensified dispossession, weakened state support, and deepened class contradictions. Dhawale argued that the basic contradiction in Indian agriculture was one between the rural rich and the rural poor, but argued that post-liberalisation, a new conflict has emerged between the peasantry and small entrepreneurs, against imperial and corporate capital.

Jens Lerche (“Productive Forces and Agrarian Relations in the Countryside, with a Specific Focus on Socio-Economic Classes in the Countryside in India”) analysed India’s rural transformation, highlighting entangled agrarian and non-agrarian livelihoods shaped by class and caste inequalities. Technological gains largely benefited capital-rich farmers, while marginalised groups depended on informal work. He concluded that real rural progress requires expanding non-agricultural employment and securing subsistence land access for labourers.

Venkatesh Athreya (“On the Question of Productive Forces in the Capitalist Mode of Production”) argued that capitalist development drives continuous yet contradictory growth of the productive forces, generating crises and inequality. In India, technological advances remain class- and caste-based, with agriculture becoming a secondary livelihood. He also pointed out that current scholarship underestimates the ongoing growth of productive forces in the development of capitalism.

V. K. Ramachandran (“Socio-Economic Classes in the Indian Countryside”) highlighted persistent agrarian inequality, declining family labour, and growing reliance on wage work in the Indian countryside, with class boundaries between peasants and labourers becoming increasingly blurred. He emphasised the need for united movements led by the rural poor to address livelihood, income, and social justice issues and transform agrarian relations.

November 7

Plenary 2: Issues of Income, Poverty, and Social Inclusion

Chair: S. Mahendra Dev

Madhura Swaminathan, Arindam Das, C. A. Sethu, and Daya Susan Thomas (“Poverty and Living Standards in Rural India: An Overview Based on National and Village-Level Data”) highlighted rising global poverty in the aftermath of COVID-19 and challenged existing estimates of poverty in India. Using village-level data from the Project on Agrarian Relations in India (PARI), their key findings pointed to persistent rural deprivation, including stagnating wages, time poverty among women, and declining living standards.

Arindam Das and Yoshifumi Usami (“Trends in Rural Wages and Earnings”) examined wage trends and found contrasting results between the Wage Rates in Rural India (WRRI) and Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data, attributable to definitional differences. They argued that the recent rise in wages indicates structural change in the labour market, which should lead to decline in rural poverty – though this remains to be confirmed through further examination of consumption expenditure data.

Brinda Karat (“Socio-Economic Conditions of Scheduled Tribes in India”) presented the challenges faced by Scheduled Tribes arising out of land dispossession due to capitalist expansion and neoliberal policies. In violation of their constitutional rights, Scheduled Tribes have been labelled as “encroachers” and have suffered displacement. Weak data on displacement and compensation along with eroding gram sabha representation necessitates detailed research on this subject.

Arjun Jayadev, Avinash M. Tripathi, and M. K. Shravan (“Rural Growth and Distribution: Two Narratives from the PLFS 2017–23”) highlighted the divergence between stagnant individual wages and rising household per capita incomes (PLFS, 2017–23). This paper argued that changed household composition and expanded participation contributed to rising household incomes, while individual wage stagnation implies that such improvements are fragile (see Jayadev (2026), in this issue (RAS 16,1)).

Gopal Guru (“Maharashtra’s Changing Agrarian Scenario and Widening Inequality”) argued for a view of inequality based on agency (one must have agency to articulate the claim on poverty), language (to interpret what inequality is), adversary (the entity to express this language to), and compensation (for conditions of distress and disparity, legal and moral).

Session 1 A: Profitability, Land, and Corporate Capital

Chair: R. Ramakumar and T. M. Thomas Issac

Barbara Harriss-White (“Post-Colonial Capital in Indian Agriculture”) critiqued post-colonial frameworks, emphasising the role of class and the state in agrarian analysis. She argued that the Indian path reflects neo-colonial capitalism shaped by global capital, American power, and persistent class and caste hierarchies. She called for a grounded, field-based political economy rather than a separate post-colonial theory of capitalism. She also emphasised the persistence and functional role of petty commodity production and small-scale self-employment in rural India.

Deepak Johnson and V. Surjit (“The Profitability Crisis in Indian Agriculture”) showed declining farm incomes (2000–20) due to rising input costs and stagnant prices. Weak yields and the inability of farmers to receive fair prices for their produce worsen inequality, calling for comprehensive policy support targeted at small farmers.

Surajit Mazumdar (“Corporate Intervention in Indian Agriculture”) looked at corporate expansion in Indian agriculture, noting the limited role of corporates in production and their rising influence in inputs, mechanisation, and processing. He linked the agrarian crisis to the policy-driven “parasitic phase of expansion” of capitalism.

Mihika Chatterjee (“Land in India’s Post-Pandemic Accumulation Regime”) analysed the farm and non-farm crises to explain land dispossession, rising tenancy, and the return of surplus labour to agriculture. Non-farm stagnation in manufacturing, textiles, and construction has driven this reversal. She argued that semi-proletarianisation and partial dispossession are functional to rural social reproduction and capital accumulation under neoliberalism.

Session 1 B: Science and Technology in Agriculture: Climate Change and Food Security

Chair: T. N. Prakash Kammardi

K. K. Narayanan (“Harnessing Technology for Sustainable Agriculture: Kerala’s Path to Food Security and Climate Resilience”) argued that while science is neutral, its benefits must be equitably distributed, noting that despite sufficient global food production, farmers continue to face income disparity and limited access. He emphasised the need for balanced technological innovation – from synthetic fertilisers and gene editing to scale-neutral mechanisation and value addition – alongside strong regulation to ensure sustainability, equity, and climate resilience, particularly in Kerala’s agricultural context.

Niveta Jain (“Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture: A Critical Perspective”) analysed agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas emissions, noting India’s emissions are survival-based. She proposed mitigation through efficient input use, crop practices, and coordinated efforts to ensure sustainability.

Sreeja Jaiswal (“Critique of Global Mitigation Pathways: Overlooking Food Security Implications”) showed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report’s (IPCC AR6) mitigation models disproportionately burden the Global South, worsening food insecurity through land use shifts. She called for designing justice-oriented, transparent mitigation pathways.

Sandipan Baksi, Dona Safui, and T. P. Harshan (“‘Alternative’ Approaches Towards Sustainable Agriculture: An Epistemological Critique”) critically examined alternative agriculture discourse — organic, regenerative, and agroecological models — arguing that claims about yield, local knowledge, and food distribution require rigorous methodological scrutiny. Reviewing highly cited papers, they found evidence largely drawn from small-scale studies, and cautioned against equating all knowledge systems with modern science.

Session 1C: Agrarian Structure, Living Conditions, and Rural Transformation

Chair: A. V. Jose

A. Vijayaraghavan and Vikram Singh (“Agrarian Crisis and the Changing Nature of Rural Productive Classes in India”) pointed out that many agriculture workers have been forced to shift to manual and casual labour for their survival. The presentation drew attention to the government’s failure in the neoliberal era to provide adequate social security or relief to the working poor.

K. N. Ganesh (“Land Reform and the Socio-Economic Transformation of Kerala”) analysed Kerala’s agrarian history, highlighting caste-linked class formation among the peasantry. He discussed contradictions in the labour market during the neoliberal era and argued for policies in favour of real producing classes.

Balasingham Skanthakumar (“Measuring Rural Poverty in Sri Lanka”) examined recent economic conditions in Sri Lanka highlighting rising poverty, inflation, and currency devaluation. He showed that poverty is concentrated among plantation workers, with persistent de-agriculturalisation, declining wages, and indebtedness.

R. Vijay and Nisha Patel (“Poverty and Living Conditions Among Peasants and Workers”) examined how, post 2000, rising tenancy and the growing combination of agricultural and non-farm wage or self-employment activities by rural households have dampened farm investment. Such diversified households tend to prioritise risk reduction over productivity-enhancing assets, contributing to a decelerating trend in agricultural investment.

Session 2A: The Land Question

Chair: Niladri Sekhar Dhar | Discussant: Mihika Chatterjee

Ameet Kumar (“Problematising Land Reform in Jammu and Kashmir, India”), using Ambedkar’s framework, highlighted Dalit exclusion in Kashmir’s land reforms. Migrant Dalits lack ownership rights and face institutional barriers and dispossession, which underscores the need for secure land rights.

Mrityunjay Pandey, Nisha Patel, and R. Vijay (“Analysis of Changes in Extent and Composition of Land Tenancy in India: An Exploratory Analysis”) linked rising tenancy in India to post-1990s policies, attributing it to agrarian crisis, rising input costs, and inadequate returns to farming.

Gobinda Padhan and Chitrasen Bhue (“Caste Stratification, Land Inequality, and Landlessness in Post-Reform Rural India”) examined patterns of land inequality across castes in rural India, finding that Scheduled Caste households remain significantly under-represented among landowners.

Peddi Dayakar (“Sustaining Soil, Securing Yields: A Longitudinal Study of Land Degradation and Productivity in India”) analysed land degradation in India, examining soil erosion, salinity, and groundwater depletion linked to climate change. As regional disparities persist – with western States being the worst affected – the findings highlight the need for regionally tailored adaptation strategies.

Session 2B: Commercialisation of Farming

Chair: Shinu Varkey | Discussant: V. Surjit

Akshay Subhashrao Deshmukh and Parmod Kumar (“Determinates of Farmers’ Participation in the Grape Value Chain Through Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) in India: A New Institutional Economics Approach”) showed that FPOs in Maharashtra and Karnataka enable grape farmers’ entry into high-value markets by reducing transaction costs and improving access to technology and that medium farmers benefit most from FPOs.

Kunal Munjal (“Political Economy of Sugarcane Commercialisation in Uttar Pradesh (2000–24) Production Boom, Corporatisation of Industry, State Regulation, and Differential Outcomes”) analysed patterns of sugarcane commercialisation in western Uttar Pradesh, showing corporatisation, the dominance of private mills, and industrial consolidation driven by policy and technology.

Rachit Tiwari (“Paradoxical Rendering and the Appropriation of Community – Managed, Zero-Budgeted, and Sustainable Agroecological Transition in Andhra Pradesh”) showed that State-led agroecology initiatives in Andhra Pradesh undermine local autonomy, rely on multi-lateral bank loans, and led to commodification of sustainability.

Sejuti Das Gupta, Ishita Mehrota, Chandrani Dutta, and Aparajay Kumar (“Agrarian Transformation in India: New Realities and Subjectivities in High Value Crops”) investigate agrarian transformations in India’s high-value crop sector through fieldwork across 54 farms in eight States between 2019–24. They examined land relations, labour dynamics, and marketing strategies. Their findings revealed the rise of a distinct class of non-agrarian, technology-intensive capitalist farmers.

Ambika Subash (“From Enclosure to Illegality: Biotechnology in India’s Cotton Capitalism”) traced the shift from legal Bt cotton to illegal herbicide-tolerant seeds in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar and Barwani districts, linking adoption to rising labour costs, pest pressures, and regulatory inaction within Indian cotton capitalism. She highlighted the ecological risks of unregulated seed use and called for more public sector research.

Session 2C: Trajectories of Agrarian Change

Chair and Discussant: Jens Lerche

Avinash and Saqib Khan (“Agrarian Change in Tribal States: A Study on Jharkhand and Tripura”) analysed agrarian change in Jharkhand and Tripura, States with significant Scheduled Tribe populations, highlighting internal differentiation, migration, and evolving class relations shaped by history, state policies, and market structure.

Gaurav Bansal (“Studying the Rural Beyond the Village: Political Economy of the Small Towns and Its Implications for Capital Accumulation and Agrarian Distress in Rural Punjab, India”) examined uneven agrarian change across Punjab, contrasting crisis-deepening labour displacement in Malwa with less visible distress in Majha. He linked differentiated distress to uneven capitalist development, patterns of accumulation, and persistent caste–class hierarchies.

Aman Bardia (“Caste, Capital, and Contestation: Uneven Agrarian Development in Gujarat”) argued that Gujarat’s capitalist growth reinforces caste hierarchies, concentrating land and credit among dominant castes. State policies and contract farming deepen exclusion, requiring caste-centred agrarian transformation.

Session 2D: The World of Rural Workers

Chair: V. Sridhar | Discussant: Vinoj Abraham

Priya Kumari (“Credit for Whom? Enhancing Kisan Credit Card’s Lending Limits in India’s Unequal Rural Credit Landscape”) showed that access to kisan credit cards in India is shaped by landholding size and class. Credit tied to collateral excludes smallholders, pushing them to informal lenders and deepening rural inequality.

Prachi Bansal (“Stitching Together the Story: Labour Use in Indian Cotton Farming”) showed the persistence of attached labour in Haryana’s cotton farming despite the diversification of rural employment. She linked this to crop-specific labour demands, local power structures, and the political economy of cotton.

Mrityunjay Rao and Jyoti Yadav (“Labouring Lives in Rural Brick Kilns in India: Caste, Class, and Gender in Perspective”) showed that brick kiln labour hiring in Kushinagar district of Uttar Pradesh is mediated by contractors, creating debt-based bondage. Kinship-based recruitment sustains informality and dependency, disproportionately affecting Dalit and Adivasi workers.

Sreenivasulu Yamanapalli (“Understanding Agrarian Transformation: Longitudinal Evidence from Dalit Landless Agricultural Labourers and Landed Households in a South Indian Village”) presented his longitudinal study of a village in Andhra Pradesh, showing agrarian transformation and migration to nearby town, agriculture mechanisation, and declining farm labour among Dalit households.

Nageshwar Bansode (“Mapping Marginality: Caste and Access to Public Amenities Among Dalits in Maharashtra”) examined Census data from Maharashtra and showed persistent deprivation with respect to access to public amenities among rural Dalit households.

November 8

Plenary 3: Science and Technology in Agriculture: Agricultural Productivity and Climate Challenges

Chair: R. Ramakumar

R. Ramakumar (“The Role of Science and Technology in Agriculture: A Review of the Debates”) examined the philosophy and politics of agricultural science, especially with respect to technological change during the Green Revolution and after, including a discussion on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). He argued that notwithstanding limitations, the Green Revolution significantly raised productivity without expanding cultivated land, contributing to environmental sustainability.

Ademola A. Adenle (“Understanding Africa’s Food System Challenges: Why Innovation Must Take Centre Stage”) highlighted problems faced by the food system in Africa, including low productivity and import dependence, and advocated for innovation-driven solutions. He emphasised adopting digital advisory services, renewable energy, and GMOs, alongside policy coordination and investment in research and infrastructure, to enhance productivity, resilience, and food security.

Kathleen Heffron (“Plant Molecular Farming: A Revolutionary Model for Agriculture”) framed the United States bioeconomy as a strategic priority, highlighting artificial intelligence (AI)-driven biotechnology, cellular agriculture, and molecular farming. She argued that these innovations can create sustainable and resilient food systems while addressing climate, supply chain, and food security challenges.

K. C. Bansal (“Transgenic and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) Technologies in Agriculture”) traced crop improvement from conventional breeding to genetic engineering and genome editing. Highlighting the benefit of Bt cotton, he emphasised CRISPR-based techniques as faster, regulation-friendly, tools for enhancing yield, resilience, and food security.

Stanford Blade (“Transforming Agriculture Through Innovation: Emerging Trends in Crop Science”) highlighted climate and poverty challenges in dryland agriculture, outlining programmes on crop improvement, resilient farming, and agrifood systems being undertaken by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). He placed emphasis on modern crop science innovations, including speed breeding, genomics-assisted breeding, predictive analytics using AI, and gene editing, to enhance productivity, climate resilience, and nutrition.

T. Jayaraman, Sandeep Mahato, Charu Chandra Devshali, and Goutham Radhakrishnan (“Climate Change and Agriculture in India: Adaptation Roles, Trade-offs, and Differentiated Vulnerabilities”) discussed the international discourse on climate change showing that it shifted the burden on to the Global South. They highlighted vulnerabilities in Indian agriculture, specifically the limited adaptive capacity of small holders, underlying the need to prioritise equity-focused adaptation strategies.

Session 3A: Inequality, Poverty, and Agrarian Struggles in Tamil Nadu

Chair: C. Rammanohar Reddy

Judith Heyer (“Poverty and Standards of Living Among Dalits in Coimbatore/Tiruppur Villages, 1981–82 to 2024–25”) traced the shift in the nature of poverty among Dalits in Coimbatore/Tiruppur region of Tamil Nadu, from extreme deprivation in the 1980s to improved living standards today. She stated that while food security, education, and wages have improved, poverty persists through rising costs of health, education, and housing; debt; and continued reliance on insecure informal employment despite gains in social mobility.

Parvathi Menon (“Kilvenmani and Thanjavur in the 1960s”) traced the history of the 1968 Kilvenmani massacre as the culmination of prolonged agrarian conflict in Thanjavur, rooted in caste–class oppression. She discussed how organised labour movements demanding wage and dignity faced violent landlord action culminating in the massacre. The failure of judicial responses to this massacre reflect entrenched inequality in rural India.

P. Shanmugham (“The Victorious Struggle of the People of Vachathi”) described the Vachathi atrocity of 1992 which involved large-scale State violence against a Scheduled Tribe village. Despite initial setbacks, sustained mobilisation by mass organisations led to a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry, and eventual conviction of officials. The case highlights prolonged struggles for justice, state accountability, and the role of collective action in addressing the oppression of scheduled tribes.

Session 3B: Institutions and Cooperatives in Agrarian Economies

Chair: C. Veeramani

Sudipta Bhattacharyya (“MSP Failure in an Exclusionary and Differentiated Agrarian Structure – A Tale of Two Villages in West Bengal”) showed minimum support price (MSP) in Raipur and Chandpur villages of Birbhum district, West Bengal, failed to protect small farmers on account of high costs, debt pressure, and presence of market intermediaries.

Vijesh V. Krishna (“Joint Liability Groups: Kudumbashree and Efforts in the Other of India”) examined how women’s self-help collectives like Kudumbashree in Kerala drive agricultural innovation and empowerment, despite women lacking land ownership and decision-making power. The study found that these collectives help women adapt to climate stress, market risks, and institutional fatigue through shared labour and peer learning. However, linking Kerala’s inclusive institutions with stronger market strategies is key to transforming self-help groups (SHGs) from coping mechanisms into engines of agrarian resilience and rural entrepreneurship.

T. K. Kishor Kumar (“The Experience of Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society (ULCCS) Cooperatives in the Non-Agriculture Sector: Lessons for Inclusive Development”) outlined that ULCCS has become a successful labour cooperative model, combining equity, efficiency, and skill development. Its inclusive, worker-owned structure demonstrates sustainable, replicable pathways for rural development.

Simona Caselli and Rita Ghedini (“The Agrifood Sector in Legacoop: Eighty Years of Transformation and Cooperative Resilience in Italy (1945–2025)”) traced the evolution of Italy’s agrifood cooperatives, highlighting resilience, modernisation, and global competitiveness. They demonstrated how Legacoop promotes cooperative models in agriculture that can combine sustainability, innovation, and democratic governance.

Session 3C: Digital Agriculture and Water Resources: Technology, Irrigation, and Agrarian Change

Chair: Jiju P. Alex

Niyati Singaraju (“Digital Transformation in Agrifood Systems: Opportunities and Challenges”) critically examined digital agriculture, highlighting gaps between technological optimism and ground realities. Structural barriers such as digital divide, low literacy, and weak infrastructure limit impact, requiring farmer-centred, ethical approaches.

Sai Chandan Kotu, Nagesh Maurya, Sandipan Baksi, Tapas S. Modak, and Rithika Pulagiri (“Diffusion and Scaling Up of Drones in Agriculture: A Case of Nalgonda District in Telangana”) showed that drone diffusion reflects caste–class power structures, with dominant farmers leading adoption. Though drones reduce labour drudgery, policy must address inequalities shaping technological access.

Gopinath R., Aparajay Kumar, K. Ugalechumi, R. Rengalakshmi, and R. Rajakumar (“Addressing the Water Problem to Increase Paddy Yields in the Cauvery Delta Zone”) analysed water-related issues in the Cauvery Delta region, highlighting uneven access, salinity, waterlogging, and declining groundwater recharge. Power hierarchies shape access, requiring region-specific solutions to improve irrigation infrastructure.

C. A. Sethu and Tapas S. Modak (“The Political Economy of Canal Irrigation: Class, Space, and Water Control in a Delta Village”) showed that canal irrigation in Palakurichi village, Nagapattanam district, Tamil Nadu, is shaped by the caste–class power dynamic, with dominant groups controlling access to water. Market-based land redistribution failed to alter the socio-economic structure of the village in a meaningful manner.

Session 4A: Productive Forces, Class, and Peasant Movements

Chair: Balwinder Singh Tiwana

Venkatesh Athreya (“Rural Manual Workers in Tamil Nadu: Results from a Survey”) reported on a survey covering 12 districts of Tamil Nadu, revealing precarious employment, limited workdays, and sharp gender wage gaps among rural labourers. The presentation called for unified labour unions and stronger social security measures for the rural poor.

Arindam Banerjee and Anirban Das Gupta (“Reimagining the Agrarian Question in India: Can Productive Forces Develop Sustainability?”) argued for rethinking agrarian policy and past interventions and recent farm laws, asserting that they have largely failed to prioritise the interests of the majority of stakeholders. They emphasised diversification, sustainable practices, and livelihood support to address ecological and socio-economic challenges.

Satendra Kumar (“Contemporary Farmers’ Movements: Changing Agrarian Relations in Western Uttar Pradesh”) discussed the 2021–22 farmers’ movement, highlighting its role in challenging neoliberal policies and right-wing hegemony, reviving agrarian debates on sustainability, labour reconfiguration, and land distribution, and reaffirming the importance of collective action.

A. R. Prasad Rao (“Untold Aspects of Digital India Land Record Modernisation Programme (DILRMP”) discussed DILRMP and argued that the project risks dispossessing smallholders due to unclear definitions and uneven implementation. He criticised it as an initiative that boosts the growth of corporate land markets while neglecting farmers’ rights and the ground realities.

Session 4B: Poverty, Work, and Well-Being: Strategies and Experiences in Rural Development

Chair: Ritu Dewan

Himanshu (“Work and Well-Being in Rural India: Some Puzzles”) analysed trends in poverty, inequality, and well-being after 2011–12, noting that while official estimates suggest a sharp decline in poverty, alternative assessments indicate only a moderate reduction. Wage stagnation and persistent distress are evident in employment and wage data; data limitations complicate accurate measurement.

Mariam Dhawale (“Microfinance, Women, and Poverty”) presented findings from a survey carried out by the All-India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) and showed that rural women are trapped in high-interest microfinance debt due to limited access to public sector credit. Coercion and multiple loans deepen distress, highlighting the need for regulation, welfare measures, and the promotion of alternative models such as the MALAR Association’s SHG-based lending or Kerala’s Kudumbashree programme.

Ruchira Bhattacharya (“Poverty Alleviation Trajectory of Southeast Asia and Pacific in the Context of Rural Development – A Review”) showed a comparative picture of Southeast Asian experiences in rapid poverty reduction through a combination of targeted and universal social protection, rural development, and asset creation.

Jiju P. Alex (“Strategies of Poverty Reduction in Kerala”) analysed Kerala’s Extreme Poverty Eradication project, highlighting its multidimensional, participatory approach targeting vulnerable groups. Coordinated interdepartmental supervision and locally designed micro-plans ensured the delivery of food, health, and income support. He emphasised the need for sustained monitoring and institutional coordination to prevent relapse into extreme poverty.

Session 4C: Food Security, Living Conditions, and Economic Challenges in India

Chair: Jayan Jose Thomas

Brinda Viswanathan and Surabhi M. (“Nutrition Security in India: Recent Evidence from Household Consumption”) analysed consumption patterns based on National Sample Survey consumption data and deprivation relative to nutritional norms. The study found modest improvements among lower income households, but higher calorie deprivation in urban areas. Persistent inequalities across income groups and between rural and urban areas remain a major challenge for achieving nutrition security in India.

Sudha Narayanan (“Food Subsidy Debates in India: A Review of Evidence”) discussed India’s Public Distribution System (PDS), highlighting its role in linking MSP-based procurement to food distribution under the National Food Security Act. She showed that the system generated net benefits for farmers and consumers relative to cost (see Narayanan (2026), in this issue (RAS, 16, 1)).

Shamsher Singh (“Longitudinal Insights into Housing Conditions and Basic Amenities in Rural Uttar Pradesh”) presented changes in conditions of housing and amenities (2006–23) based on FAS longitudinal village studies in Uttar Pradesh. He showed improvements in infrastructure and services; however, persistent caste-based segregation, unequal housing quality, and infrastructure gaps continue to persist.

R. Nagaraj (“Import Dependence on Agriculture”) argued that rising import dependence in food items such as pulses and edible oils as well as fertilizers reflects structural weaknesses in Indian agriculture. He highlighted policy misalignment between MSP and trade policies, weakening domestic incentives, and called for institutional reforms such as an independent tariff commission and expanding procurement systems beyond rice and wheat.

Session 5A: Agriculture and Gender

Chair: Mini Sukumar | Discussant: Govinda Choudhury

Alankrita Yadav (“Feminisation of Agriculture and Gendered Time Use: Evidence from Eastern Uttar Pradesh”) showed, drawing on a primary time-use survey from Jaunpur and Chandauli districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, that rising female participation in agriculture increases unpaid labour and time poverty without ensuring empowerment. She highlighted “temporal unfreedom” and called for policies that recognise and redistribute women’s labour.

Soham Bhattacharya and Nency Agarwal (“Exploring Time-Induced Income Poverty Among Women in Indian Agriculture: 2019–24”) argued that rising female participation in agriculture reflects economic distress rather than empowerment. Their paper discussed “time-induced income poverty,” a condition in which long work hours yield inadequate income.

Shakuntala Ghadai (“The Impact of Climate Shock on Household Food Security: Gendered Dimensions of Coping Strategies”) investigated, using village dynamics studies in South Asia (VDSA) data (2010–2014) from 12 semi-arid villages in Bihar, Odisha, and Jharkhand, how climate and weather shocks affect household food security. She argued that while empowerment improves resilience through savings and social networks, it cannot overcome structural vulnerabilities.

Archana Tamang (“Agrarian Relations in Sikkim”) provided a historical perspective on agrarian relations in Sikkim, arguing that absentee landlordism and gender-biased land rights perpetuate social and gender inequalities.

Session 5B: Through the Lens of Political Economy

Chair: John Harriss

Deepa Kurup (“Social Programmes and Class Struggle: A Comparative Political Economy Approach to Studying Transformative Processes in Rural India”) examined the role of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in transforming social relations of production in rural India. Her study in four villages in Karnataka showed that transformation was achievable only in polarised (high landlessness, high inequality) and remote villages where strong labour unions used the programme as leverage for collective bargaining, while in peasant-dominated and integrated villages, elite capture and weakened unions reproduced existing inequalities.

Balwinder Singh Tiwana, Paramjit Singh, and Mukesh Kumar (“Class Dynamics of Accumulation and Livelihood Strategy of Peasantry in Rural India: Empirical Evidence from Haryana”) examined changing land relations in villages in Haryana, showing divergent class trajectories. They found that rich peasants expanded operations through leasing land, diversifying to village- and town-based enterprises. Small peasants on the other hand faced crises resulting in the feminisation of labour, and male migration to urban centres.

Aishwarya Prakash (“The Unequal Promises of Collectivisation: Re-examining Inclusion in Farmer-Producer Companies [FPCs]”) looked at FPCs in eastern Uttar Pradesh, showing how they reproduced caste, class, and gender inequalities despite claims of inclusivity. Larger landowners dominated participation and benefits, while small farmers engaged only marginally, and women’s participation remained largely symbolic.

Anjana Kesav and Sachin Varghese Titty (“Beyond Poverty: Examining the Structural Roots of Agrarian Vulnerability in India”) used data from the Situation Assessment Survey (SAS) to show high levels of debt among agricultural households, reflecting income variability and vulnerability.

Ashwin Subramanian (“Basmati Tales: Contract Farming, Changing Caste-and-Kin Ties and Agrarian Questions of Capital in a Central Indian Hinterland”) examined basmati contract farming in Madhya Pradesh, showing how Gurjar caste networks drove adoption and control through agrochemical intermediaries who supplied inputs, enrolled farmers, and managed payments. While contract farming generated short-term gains, rent-seeking practices and the growing dominance of merchant groups deepened inequality.

Session 5C: Agrarian Identities and Imaginaries

Chair: Gopinath Ravindran | Discussant: Ranjini Basu

Athmanathan Indrajith (“Effects of British Policies on Agriculture: The Case of 19th Century Madras Presidency”) analysed colonial agriculture in the Madras Presidency, showing that British policies prioritised commercial interests over local development. He highlighted the poor quality of data from colonial sources on bonded labour and village economies.

Praveen Verma (“Rethinking Agrarian Identity: Colonial Legacies, Legal Discourses, and the Farmers’ Movement in Post-Colonial India”) traced how the colonial legal framework shaped agrarian identities by linking caste, property, and morality together, a legacy continuing in contemporary farm politics. He argued that agrarian populism in India resisted neoliberal reforms but reproduced caste and gender hierarchies.

Sakshi Gupta (“Shaping Food Futures Through Narratives: The Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Alternative Proteins in Japan”) explored alternative protein narratives in Japan, showing how sociotechnical imaginaries promote technocratic, corporate-led food futures. These imaginaries reproduce a corporate and technocratic food future, where innovation and sustainability discourses mask structural inequalities.

Session 5D: The Reach of Policy

Chair: Pallavi Chavan | Discussant: Kiran Kumar Kakarlapudi

Ashish Chouhan (“Determinants of Adoption of Crop Insurance in the Soybean Producing Regions of Madhya Pradesh: Empirical Insights Using a Double Hurdle Approach”) examined the determinants of adoption of crop insurance in Madhya Pradesh using a double hurdle model. The study found that age, education, and access to credit significantly increased the likelihood of adoption as well as the area insured.

Anjaly Unnikrishnan, Rakesh Gomaji Nannewar, Kruthika S., Charumati Kasiraju, and Tejal Kantikar (“Agrometeorological Advisories and Crop Productivity: Evidence from Chitradurga District, Karnataka”) analysed Agro-Meteorological Advisory Services (AAS) in Karnataka, showing significant yield gains for beneficiaries of AAS.

Rakesh Gomaji Nannewar, Anjaly Unnikrishnan, Kruthika S., Charumati Kasiraju, and Tejal Kanitkar (“Agrometeorological Advisories and Crop Productivity: Differentiated Impact of Carbon Pricing on Indian Agriculture: An Ex-Ante Study”) assessed access and utilisation of AAS, showing structural inequalities and barriers such as language gaps. They emphasised AAS as a critical public good and foundational rural infrastructure to ensure equitable access and effective integration into farmers’ decision-making.

Peeyush Priya, Aparajay Kumar Singh, and T. Jayaraman (“Differentiated Impact of Carbon Pricing on Indian Agriculture: An Ex-Ante Study”) analysed the impact of a carbon tax on different groups of farmers, showing that even a 5 or 10 per cent carbon tax on inputs such as fertilizer and fuel raise cultivation costs and disproportionately burden marginal farmers.

Ishawar Choudhry (“Climate Change Adaptation in Indian Agriculture: A Household-Level Analysis of Adaptive Capacity”) assessed adaptive capacity in dryland regions of India. He found that access to insurance, credit, wages, and information drives adaptation, with human capital strengthening outcomes.

November 9

Session 6A: Agrarian Change and Development: Inequality, Data Systems, and Fiscal Policy

Chair: Sudha Narayanan

Michael Roberts (“Agrarian Change: The Lessons of India and China”) compared agrarian change in India and China, attributing China’s success to land reforms, rapid industrialisation, and strong state planning. China achieved higher productivity, urbanisation, and rising rural wages, while India’s persistent land inequality, low public investment, and slower structural transformation have led to stagnant productivity and a widening social divide.

Jayan Jose Thomas (“Aspirations and Realities in Rural India: Jobs, Incomes, and Inequalities, 1983–2023”) showed that rising education among rural youth has not translated into better employment, with many in informal work and women in unpaid roles. He highlighted that large numbers of rural and migrant workers remain trapped in low-paid, insecure jobs. He argued that India’s weak public investment has constrained job creation, and future growth must depend on domestic demand, higher real wages, and greater social sector spending.

P. C. Mohanan (“Data Systems for Measuring Rural and Agrarian Changes in India”) highlighted challenges in collecting reliable agricultural data, emphasising inconsistent definitions and methodological differences across surveys. He showed trends of declining farm size, stable inequality, and rising non-farm income, and urged researchers to critically assess data sources, understand collection methods, and apply clear definitions to analyse agrarian change.

Surajit Das (“Direction of Fiscal Policy for Human Development”) analysed the role of fiscal policy in human development, arguing that higher social spending, progressive taxation, and active state intervention improve equity and outcomes, while austerity undermines growth and gender equality.

Session 6B: Work, Welfare, and Economic Insecurity: Gender and Ageing in India

Chair: R. Nagaraj

Bheemeshwar Reddy (“Work, Welfare, and Insecurity: Ageing and Economic Survival in India”) argued that India is ageing before becoming rich, with most of the elderly population engaged in arduous, low-paid work out of necessity. He also highlighted gender disparities, poor health conditions, and minimal pension coverage for this population. He criticised the concept of “productive ageing” from the perspective of those engaged in manual labour and advocated universal, non-contributory social security to ensure dignity, financial autonomy, and options to retire.

Madhura Swaminathan and Arindam Das (“Women’s Contribution to Agriculture”) showed that official labour statistics undercount women’s rural work as such work is seasonal and often unpaid. Data from FAS surveys in villages of Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh reveal that women account for at least one third of the labour used in crop production, and should claim a proportional share of agricultural income.

Session 6C: Climate Change and Agrarian Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Policy Challenges

Chair: R. Ramakumar

Marcus Taylor (“Playing with Time: The Temporalities of Agrarian Change Under Climatic Instability”) analysed how the intensification of agricultural cultivation and climate change has reshaped smallholder farming in Maharashtra, accelerating production cycles and disrupting seasonality. He showed that timing is critical, as farmers must synchronise production, labour, market, and credit cycles under increasing climatic uncertainty to sustain incomes. Climate-smart initiatives can deepen class inequalities and create new temporal inequalities in agrarian life.

Rita Ghedini (“The Challenge of Adaptation”) highlighted Italy’s cooperative movement as a model of inclusive, sustainable development, with strong economic contribution and high female participation. She emphasised innovation through collaboration, social welfare benefits, and alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), showing how cooperatives can promote equity, sustainability, and community-driven growth.

Pratap Singh Birthal (“Climate Change and Agriculture in India: Impacts and Projections”) highlighted climate change risks for Indian agriculture, stating that small farmers and low-income States are the most vulnerable. He emphasised that farmers face multiple simultaneous risks, such as droughts, heatwaves, and erratic rainfall, and manage these through strategies such as irrigation, diversification, and insurance. He concluded that no single, uniform solution exists, advocating context-specific, bundled approaches supported by policy and investment.

K. S. Kavi Kumar and Anubhab Pattanayak (“Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: Indian Agriculture”) highlighted gaps in climate data and the impact of climate change on agriculture, livestock, and labour. They noted that current adaptation strategies are mostly incremental and weakly linked to actual climate risks.

The conference concluded with a session opening the floor for all participants, to facilitate a critical reappraisal of the event and its outcomes.