39

Farmers' Development Agency (SFDA) and to landless and near landless

farmers through the Marginal Farmer and Agricultural Laborer Development

Agency (MFALDA). The Programs subsidized banks for credit services to

qualifying farmers, and provided inputs and information to expand irri-

gation, multiple cropping and animal husbandry.

 Extensive problems were encountered.1 Subsidies to banks to

encourage them to loan to small farmers were notreally able to change

the modus operandi of the banks. Farmers sometimes did not believe that

the recommended buffalo, cattle, pineapples, etc., were suitable varieties;

animal and plant diseases took their tolls. Pettycorruption and bureaucratic

rigidities continued; bribes and gifts were needed to get eligibility

certified, to obtain application forms, to have them processed, to get

landlords to take some responsibility for their laborers, to get

veterinarians to certify the health of animals, etc. By the time these

direct expenses were added to indirect expenses of travel, an overnight stay

near a government office, and income foregone during the time spent on

such processes, the potential profit for the poor farmer from new economic

activities was seriously undermined. Administrators and local elites
 2
managed to get a large share of the benefits. Finally, despite the

intentions of the program, it was not really able to concentrate on the

desired target group. Many large farmers were able to participate in

the program by dividing their land among children and thus claiming to

be small farmers.


 See Biplab Dasgupta, Agrarian Change and the New Technology in
India (Geneva: U.N. Research Institute for Social Development, 1977),
p. 227-239.

 Author's field observations, Andhra Pradesh, January 1976.