Articles by P K Mukherjee

HYV Programme: Variables that Matter A Reply P K Mukherjee THIS is in response to a comment, by G Parthasarathy and D Haranatha Babu, which appeared in the June 20, 1970, issue of Economic and Political Weekly. I am glad my paper has evoked at least one critical comment from two of my colleagues. I shall attempt briefly to clear some of the misunderstanding and mis-statement of facts made by Parthasarathy and his colleague, and secondly to place a few more explanatory facts in order to bring home the point which I have made in my paper. In the first place, neither the objective of the evaluation study undertaken by the Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO), nor the purpose that I had in view in writing the paper was to controvert the view that 'the present defective (italics mine) tenurial system blocks the progress of adoption of the new technology'. Instead, what I was attempting was to find out whether the type of tenurial conditions that generally exist in the countryside had any effect on the adoption of the new technology. It will require a well-designed study to firmly establish whether 'insecure tenancy' is Conducive to or hinders the spread of the new technology. Secondly, it is not correct to state that 'if at all, the tenants covered in the PEO study look like owner- tenants'. In fact, the tenants in the PEO study include both 'pure' tenants and 'tenants-cum-owners' Similarly, the owners in the PEO study include both 'pure' owners and Wners-cum- tenants'. I shall presently give the classification that we have followed and the distribution of our sample between these two categories. Finally, Parthasarathy is not correct when he states that 'Mukherjee's inference would be warranted (a) when the tenant is a pure tenant and (italics mine) (b) when the tenant is also an owner, provided analysis is done plot-wise to differentiate between owned and leas- ed-in plots'. In fact, it would be sufficient if it could be shown that the sample of tenants that we have taken consists of proportionately larger numbers of pure tenants than of tenant- cum-owners. Incidentally, over input application, etc, the PEO study does not make any distinction between the loased-in and the owned plots mainly because the coverage of the high-yielding varieties, even of the relevant crop area, Was quite limited except probably in the case of wheat participants. It would be quite unrealistic to attempt to analyse the differential application of inputs by a tenant participant, within his own operational holding, on ieased-in and owned plots when the HYV area itself is a fraction of the relevant crop area.

Methodology and Mechanics P K Mukherjee With hindsight many plausible reasons have been adduced to explain the tardy and indifferent implementation of plan programmes in the last two decades. Analysis of these reasons makes clear that many of the factors impeding effective implementation could have been controlled if close and timely watch had been kept during the implementation of plan schemes. It is in this context that the task of reviewing plan implementation and progress becomes necessary and useful It is not that the executive authorities and policy-makers were unaware of the need to undertake such a task. But until recently the task of reviewing plan implementation or even that of evaluation of plan programmes and projects was deemed to be almost coterminous with that of progress reporting. It is only now that it is being accepted that review of plan implementation and evaluation of plan schemes begin where progress reporting ends.

December 21, 1968 A proper weightage should have been assigned to the units of observation. Secondly, the present numerical scale is time-bound and is, perhaps, applicable to the 1967 elections only. The reason for saying so is that the scale fails to take note of demographic shifts in population between one election and the next. For, such a margin of 25,000 votes in the 1972 elections will mean DIFFERENT views have been expressed on the question whether India is currently experiencing an agricultural breakthrough. At one extreme, it has been stated that the breakthrough is complete and we are almost in the midst of an agricultural revolution. On the other hand, quite a few, specially the academicians, are categorical that the breakthrough has yet to start its course. The truth lies somewhere between these two extreme points of view. The fact that a breakthrough is taking place in a number of regions of the country is perhaps undisputed. The substantial impact that the breakthrough has made in a few agriculturally important regions of the country is also perhaps not debatable. However, both the extreme schools may not be giving sufficient weightage to the fact that, after all, agriculture everywhere