Artha Vijnana

DOWNLOAD

Introduction

Research on co-operatives, their success or failures is not frequenting the mainstream research agenda of social scientists in the recent past. The sheen seems to have been lost. In the wee years after independence research on co-operatives was one among the most favoured areas and good amount of work was done in understanding the nuances in this domain. One can identify broadly three traits in the researches on co-operation. The first being the theoretical enquiries into the questions why people co-operate? Not many researchers have gone in-depth of this question except in the writings on Common Pool Resources. Here researchers were also engaged in elaborating the principles of co-operatives and emphasising their unique applicability in many Indian situations to enhance welfare of the rural masses (Vekantappaiah and Rao 1982). The second group of researchers looked into the operations and management of co-operatives in differential contexts empirically and tried to establish the superiority of this approach as against the commercial approach towards a new enterprise. The third group looked into the stories of success and failures to reason out path for future policy. The success stories were the ones that emerged out of their own initiatives or needs and the R.S. Deshpande, Former Director, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore 560072, Karnataka, Email: rs.kalbandi@gmail.com. Vikas Abnave, Researcher, Youth Aid Global Services, Pune 411005, Maharashtra, Email: vksabnave@gmail.com Khalil Shaha, Researcher, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore 560072, Karnataka, Email: shahisec@gmail.com Ashish Andhale, Researcher, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune 411004, Maharashtra, Email: ashishandhale.28@gmail.com Our grateful thanks to Dr Nanaji Shewale Librarian GIPE, for his prompt help his locating the material. failures are the ones which were imposed from above. This is our normal experience that the programmes that are conceived and implemented with an overt assumption that ‘the society shall participate’ usually fail to deliver the expected outcomes. In the most appropriate words of a vivid social thinker, “the model (development model) is based less on coercing individuals and groups into new directions of action than on indulging them towards their own growth, albeit within a framework enacted from above. It is based on transcendence of individual’s self-interest by reference to ‘reason of state’ than on reconciling such self-interest with the common good as interpreted by a legitimized elite in an idiom of persuasion” (Kothari 1970: 9).
Co-operative efforts from below is one of the best alternatives to ensure the success. To the best of my knowledge, in the recent past, there has not been a good work reviewing research on co-operations in the country and provide a path for future directions. Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (GIPE) was undoubtedly a pioneer in the work on co-operation from early forties. A review of the work carried out by the researchers at the Institute will provide a blueprint for researchers in future and relevance of co-operation today. This will not only enhance the literature on co-operation but also those working on the group activities. I do not look at it just as a historical documentation of the work carried out but may provide a few important research leads in this important research domain.
Researchers at Vaikunthabhai Mehta National Institute of Co-operative Management, Pune, Institute for Rural Management, Anand and a few more institutions are still engaged in the research on co-operatives. GIPE, Pune has been almost the founder in the research on co-operation and that pursuit still continues. I may not be wrong, if I say that in Maharashtra the work on co-operation as well as co-operatives were initiated and strongly supported strongly by the work from GIPE. It is well-known that the first Agro processing co-operation in sugar sector at Pravaranagar was initiated at the behest of Dr Gadgil. His writings not only traced the prevailing situations during his times but he also indicated the future problems. The possible politicisation and over dependence on the state were hinted by him long back. He also indicated the primacy of financial discipline and if that collapses the entire spirit of co-operatives will be lost. Today in Maharashtra, the number of co-operatives in red are increasing very fast and so also their dependence on the government. The interdependences between political activities and co-operation in Maharashtra does not need any emphasis. All these phenomena require an in-depth understanding and research. Many of these aspects have been covered by researchers in their work on co-operation at GIPE. Their work has been highly commended and unique in many aspects. We, however, would not like to take a mechanical review of the work carried out on co-operation at GIPE but shall venture into some of the analytical issues that come out of these studies and have not been points of discussion thereafter. Our attempt here is to broadly review the available work on co-operation at the Institute to identify the milestones in the journey and provide some future research leads.

Early Works on Co-operation at GIPE Issues on co-operation were not among the initial research pursuits at the GIPE in the thirties. The first survey conducted by GIPE was that of the Salaries of Public Officials in India conducted and authored by Professor D R Gadgil in 1931, and the survey kind of research continued till 1940, when a survey of Farm Business in Wai Taluka was conducted by Prof Gadgil. Possibly, this study provoked the idea of working on co-operations in GIPE as Dr Gadgil observed the conditions of farmers from a close angle. The work on co-operation at the GIPE can be reviewed in four distinct phases. The first phase of the work on co-operation at GIPE started by the then doyen of co-operation Shri Vaikunthabhai Mehta. He was a committed co-operator and also a Minister of Finance and Cooperation in Government of Maharashtra. The second longer phase was dominated by Dr D R Gadgil and Dr D G Karve, the two world known doyens on co-operation. Both wrote extensively on the subject and had a world recognition in the subject. In the third phase, we cover the studies by Dr Brahme and Dr Deshpande conducted during eighties and early nineties, precisely before the phase of liberalisation. They covered two important aspects namely the farmer co-operatives and state-co-operatives interface. The fourth phase includes the researches that are relatively of recent origin and most of them were conducted painstakingly by Dr Deepak Shah. His work also touches co-operation in the liberalisation context. Coming to the first phase, Vaikunthabhai Mehta delivered the prestigious fourth Rao Bahadur R R Kale memorial lecture in 1942 at Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics and published by the Institute. This was a well-researched and articulated piece among the first on record in GIPE. Mehta was then the Managing Director, Bombay Provincial Co-operative Bank, Bombay, for a long period of 35 years and after that he became the Minister of Finance and Co- operation, Government of Maharashtra. Sir Vaiknthabhai was a true co-operator and he packed his lecture with a lot of thoughts that were later on articulated by many researchers at GIPE. Some of these ideas are fresh even today, in the circumstances, when we have crossed three quarters of the century after he delivered that monumental lecture. The lecture was titled as “A Plea for Planning in Co-operation”. At the end of the lecture he pleaded “I do not claim that the thoughts I have presented in this address are any contribution to the drawing up of a programme of reorganization on co-operative lines; it is merely a plea for the co-operative movement being recognized as an eminently suitable agency for promoting rural development in its diverse forms. My purpose will be served if it stimulates thought among co-operators and economists and evokes some response among administrators and their financial advisers” (Mehta, 1942, P. 26). This was the beginning of the thinking and the source of generation of ideas on co- operation under the portals of GIPE. More recently, the 12th Plan approach paper carried the idea of constituting farmer groups for overcoming the problems of imperfect rural markets (Agarwal 2011). Bina Agarwal (2007, 2008), argued about getting farmers together to overcome the market imperfections. She also reiterated the argument in the report of the ‘Working Group of the 12th Plan on Disadvantaged Farmers Including Women’ (Agarwal 2011) Vaikunthabhai was closely connected with GIPE as also with Co-operation. Prof Gadgil was then the Director of Bombay State Co-operation Bank along with Vaikunthabhai as its Managing Director during 1946-1960. He later on took charge as Chairman of Maharashtra State Co-operation Bank after the State reorganisation, when Vaikunthabhai was the Minister of Finance and Co- operation. Throughout the period hey seem to have gone hand in hand on issues on co-operation. In the fourth R R Kale memorial lecture Vaikunthabhai brought out many facets of Credit Co-operatives in the State. He appreciated the problem of agricultural indebtedness in the State of Bombay and argued that the credit co- operatives need to be invigorated. He writes “It is the stupendous problem of agricultural indebtedness that stared at them in the face all the time. In the absence of a suitable machinery for agricultural credit amenable to social influences that evil of indebtedness was getting aggravated. The disruption of the village community, the centralisation of administrative authority in an agency out of touch with the daily life of the villagers, the introduction of our rigid judicial system — with legal talent aiding the client having the larger purse — the opening up of channels of investment and speculation for moneyed classes, and the gradual removal of restrictions on the impediments to easy borrowing, all these contributed during the last three quarters of a century towards the growth of an evil which was acute enough to engage the close attention of the founder of Indian economic thought, the Centenary of whose birth was celebrated a week ago.” (Mehta 1942, p. 9). Astonishing, it is unbelievable that this paragraph is penned only in the current year and speaks a lot about the collapse of agricultural credit sector in rural India. Mehta was pleading for a co-operative credit system at the time when it was not fully established in the country and there were still many hurdles. Unfortunately, almost after three quarters of the century co-operative credit structure still wriggles under the same problems even though the system has been well structured now and establishments are fully supported by the State.
While speaking on Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operatives, Vaikunthabhai was quite critical of operations in the co-operative sector. He surmises further that “As it is the co-operative movement in India is looked upon as a part of the administrative machinery of government. This impression arises because of the attitude often erupted in official circles in several parts of the country, that is for co-operative department to lay down the law and even manage the affairs of co- operative institutions in certain circumstances. Such an attitude saps the sense of responsibility and kills initiative and enterprise”. (Mehta, 1942, p.15). Again, I reiterate that we have crossed almost three quarters of the century and it seems the time has stopped. The same problem still persists with the equal severity and in fact the depth of the problems have intensified. We are today struggling to get proper role of co-operatives and it has become a den of the politicians Further, Vaikunthabhai was apprehensive of the co-operative credit system prevailing then and wanted to bring in significant changes in the system as the Managing Director of Bombay State Credit Co-operative Bank. Even during those times he pleaded his helplessness in getting the system on proper track. He also wanted to lead towards the overall development of the state economy keeping in view its resources and their use. As regards the natural resources of the state of Bombay, he wrote with agony that “To give an illustration, in spite of recommendations made by the Bombay Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, no investigations have been made hitherto into the natural resources available in various districts for works of minor irrigation and land development, and programmes drawn up for execution within a specified period.” (Mehta, 1942, P19). He advocated that co-operative organisations should utilise the natural resources for the local industries and groups of artisans. Giving an example from the recommendation of Bombay Economic and Industrial Survey Committee, he pleads that artisans should be organised on co-operative basis. The idea of using the local resources to create value addition on the basis of co-operatives was further illustrated in the lecture. It was here that the seed of producers’ co- operation was sown.
It can be noted that Vaikunthabhai attempted to examine the suitability of banking for short-term requirements of agricultural producers, for improvement of land and other cottage industries through co-operatives. He was a strongly committed co-operator and hence recommended co-operative activities in many spheres of life. In order to support the planned policy, he invoked the recommendations of the Conference held at Wembley that stressed the co- operative principles. These were far-reaching recommendations. Throughout his lecture he emphasised cooperation as the tool and end for the purpose of economic development of the economically weak individuals and regions. The role of Vaikunthabhai Mehta in the history of cooperation in Maharashtra and that of GIPE is unique even today. As a Minister for Finance and Cooperation of the then Bombay State, he supported Dr Gadgil in all his endeavours on co-operation. He was quite strongly connected with Gokhale Institute and backed fully the experiment of first sugar co-operative as the Ministry of Finance and Co-operation of the Bombay Government.

GIPE: Getting in to Co-operatives The roots of India’s co-operative movement could be traced back to the report of Sir Fredrick Nicholson. In 1893, the then Government of Madras sent Sir Nicholson to study the system of institutional credit in Europe. He came to the conclusion that ‘Raiffesian type of rural society based on compact units and joint responsibility has most relevance to Indian context’, (ICA, 1971: 65). Simultaneously, on the background of peasant’s upsurge of 1875, against the money lenders, the Deccan Riots Commission recommended provision of credit through Agriculturalists Loan Act 1884 and Land Improvement Loan Act of 1888. Since these proved inadequate, British Government in India recommended establishment of Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society and passed an act to that effect in 1904 and further revised in 1915. The acts thus initiated Government sponsorship and administration of co-operative movement. Nicholson’s report expressed that a direct subvention by the State would not only be a source of immediate strength to the banks but such public sponsorship would also indicate Government’s recognition of the co-operative banks. In those days, State sponsorship was most needed, especially in the sectors like banking, where money lenders were plentiful and ready to fleece the farm sector of the generated surpluses. The steps taken by the then British government did not help farmers build on their own strength but attach them to co-operative institutions (Deshpande, et. al. 1992, p. 12). These operations from above did not sprout from the soil and planted from above. That necessitated need for voluntary co-operative movement in the farm sector. GIPE got into the studies on Co-operatives through the solid work by Professor D R Gadgil. He was connected with national and international bodies on co-operatives and brought in that experience as also modified the ideas to be implemented in India. Initially, it was Dr Gadgil who explained the process of co- operation that begins with bringing together the people and providing base to the group, in order to enable them to undertake economic activities. Thus, in a democratic society the role of the State enters the picture as the provider of basic confidence needed for establishment of a group. State in the Marxian terminology would mean the representative of economically dominant class, thereby holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The definition presumes a large group of those who direct the State policies and at the same time control major share of the means of production. On the background of this, the concept of welfare State is diagonally different. Here the State is treated as a custodian of well-being and provider of welfare services. Under the capitalistic order of society, the State has the responsibilities of providing social security, achieving greater equity and justice. The role envisaged by this conception is wider and does not totally refute the existence of a shade of Marxist State due to the difficulty in perception of a politically neutral entity. Political economists view State as an admixture of these two conceptions. Indian State, no doubt has to balance the interest of the dominant political groups and serve the interest of the class comprising this group. Hence as a ground reality, the Indian State represents the interests of rich farmers, industrialists, capitalists and bureaucrats. Under these conditions, it is not surprising to come across an increased role of State in the co-operative movement. Therefore, Gadgil wrote “By and large, the co-operative movement remained insignificant in all the states in relation to the totality of rural life, and in all the more essential aspects of agricultural credit supply and sale, to co-operative sector took a little effective part, in the absence of the State taking pro-active steps” (Gadgil, 1961: 32)”. Today, the reality is different. The Indian State has become closely identified with the rich farmers, industrialists, capitalists and bureaucrats and therefore the co-operatives of small and weaker may have problem of survival. Deepak Shah (2007) observed the weaning away of the influence of credit co-operatives in rural Maharashtra.

The bypassing of co-operative principles is at the root of many of these problems. A special Committee of International Co-operative Alliance whose report was presented before the Co-operative Congress, 1937, discussed at length the co-operative principles. The recommendations were more on the basis of Rochdale Principles where open membership and democratic management were the premier concerns. Dr Gadgil had the ringside view of all these developments in the co-operative sector in the world as he had attended a few of these meetings and picked up threads in order to intertwine the co-operative sector in Maharashtra. The Paris Congress of 1937, was followed by the Second World War, arresting the progress of co-operative movement in many countries including in India. In 1964, the Central Committees of ICA set up a Commission to ascertain how far the principles of Rochdale as recommended in 1937, were followed in different countries. In the meanwhile, the Rural Credit Survey Committee (1954), of which Dr Gadgil was a member, recommended that only State sponsored co-operative institutions in the country will help to step up welfare. The survey conducted by Dr Gadgil at Wai (1931) to study the farm business clearly brought forth the issue of uneconomic farm sector and he was worried about that. It is noted in the survey “It will be remembered that among other things, the data show the uneconomic character of the very small farm, the unprofitable character of certain crop combinations, the comparatively better terms afforded by cash tenancy and the importance of the income yielded by the livestock business. This study of farm business thus raises in concrete form some problems which demand attention”, (Gadgil and Gadgil, 1940, p. 131). It is in this survey report that Dr Gadgil speaks about the un-economic land holding as also the meagre net farm income. He hints at getting together of the farmers to overcome the income generation bottlenecks. This possibly acted as provocation to Dr Gadgil and his thinking on co-operation. Further, while talking about the origin of co-operation in India, Dr Gadgil wrote that “the real history of modern developments in cooperation in India may be said to date only from 1945. The two committees appointed by the Government of India almost simultaneously in 1945, look into the future and faced a series of questions” (Gadgil, 1961, p. 33). Possibly, Dr Gadgil overlooked the contributions by Vaikunthabhai Mehta’s RR Kale Memorial lecture held in 1942 and works by Dr D G Karve. In the context of Maharashtra’s co-operative movement, we can see two paradigms in the contributions of Gadgil and in that sense of GIPE. First, Gadgil gave a structure and planning process to the development of Maharashtra’s co- operative sector and second, one of his major contributions was that he succeeded in redirecting the attention of co-operative movement towards the producer co- operatives. He also provided the needed intellectual base for the establishment of Pravaranagar co-operative sugar mill and that spurred the Sugar revolution in the State. As one of the important thinker in economic development, he turned towards the co-operative as the best alternative in the given economic structure. This could happen because of the very close relation of Gadgil with the Vaikunthabhai Mehta, Karve, Thakarasi and Devdhar and most of them thinking in similar manner.

Professor Gadgil: The Pioneer in Co-operation at GIPE

The second phase of work on co-operation at GIPE, Pune began under the leadership of Professor Dhananjayrao Gadgil who began his thinking and writing on co-operation while his contemporaries from Cambridge were busy with the esoteric issues in economics. Dr Gadgil’s training in Britain was instrumental in his thinking on co-operatives and he was also impressed by the experience of co- operation in Britain, France and Germany. Additionally, he was also a strong believer of development from below. Therefore, it was not surprising that Dr Gadgil pioneered the work on co-operation at GIPE. Our historical review of research works on co-operation at the Gokhale Institute is substantially aided by the work done by Dr Gadgil himself. Of course, his was reviewed in an excellent paper contributed to Artha Aijnana by Dr Benjamin and Dr Mohanty. This paper by Dr Benjamin and Dr Mohanty includes appraisal of the contributions of Dr Gadgil on co-operation in a very perceptive and historical context. We are attempting here a review of the works on co-operation conducted at GIPE, therefore we include works of Dr Gadgil as a founder Director of Gokhale Institute and the studies that have been carried out by the others on co-operatives.

Professor Gadgil was unequivocally the pioneer among the researchers on co- operation at GIPE, as its founder Director and a committed co-operator. He was the Director of Gokhale Institute when he invited Vaikunthabhai Mehta to deliver the prestigious RR Kale Memorial lecture. This lecture of Vaikunthabhai must have strongly in the minds when he took the earlier works on co-operation. The work done by Dr Gadgil on co-operation is monumental indeed and fortunately all these are made available in an exhaustive book titled “Writings and Speeches of Professor D R Gadgil” published by Gokhale Institute, in 1975. Dr Benjamin and Dr Mohanty covered in their review the work on Co-operative Credit Society, Sugar Co-operatives, Co-operatives and Officialdom, De-politicisation and Co- Operative Farming (incorporated in this book). Besides Dr Gadgil, an authoritative work was done by Dr DG Karve and that was also published by GIPE in 1968.

Dr Karve was one of the leading academics of Maharashtra working with International Co-operative Alliance and highly respected during those days in the academic circles of Maharashtra. One can see a strong influence of Dr Karve’s work in the writings and thinking of Prof Gadgil, but little did they refer to each other’s works. This may be just incidental. In order to understand this, one needs to read the writings of Dr Karve, and his four lectures delivered at different points of time published by Gokhale Institute in the year 1968. A PhD thesis entitled “Political Economy of D R Gadgil” authored by V D Deshpande in 1978, brings out some of these facets besides Dr Gadgil’s development thinking that includes co-operation.
Dr Gadgil held influential positions in the field of co-operation during his career. That helped him both in terms of authority as well as intellectual vantage point for thinking towards strengthening co-operative movement in Maharashtra. As a member of the Bombay State Co-operation Bank during the years 1946-60 and as the Chief Promoter and Chairman of Pravaranagar Co-operative Sugar factory during 1949-60, he not only contributed to the thinking on co-operatives but also brought co-operation in Agro processing industry on ground. His contributions to Agricultural Credit Co-operatives is also unique. Dr Gadgil as a member of the Board of Directors of Bombay State Co-operative Bank (1946- 1960) contributed significantly towards development of co-operative credit. He was instrumental in establishing Pravaranagar Sugar factory along with Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil a strong farmer leader from Rahuri. At that time as the Director of the Bombay State Co-operative Bank Dr Gadgil could easily get done the initial requirements for the Pravaranagar Sugar Factory. It is also well known that the shortfall in the capital requirement was supported by Government of Maharashtra and Vaikunthabhai Mehta as the Minister for Finance and Co-operatives was instrumental in making good the shortfall in capital. Dr Gadgil was the first Chairman of the Pravaranagar Sugar Factory and at the same time also headed the Maharashtra State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories. He was elected president of the National Federation of co-operative Sugar factories. In 1963, Dr Gadgil was instrumental in galvanising National Co-operative Development Corporation and later on became the president of the Federation of all India State Co-operative Banks. All this establishes importance of Dr Gadgil’s position in pioneering the co-operative movement in India. Largely, he was known for his work on co-operative in sugar industry but he also had quite in-depth thinking about co-operation in other fields of the economy. This section is therefore, justifiably occupied by the works of Professor Gadgil. The collection of ‘Writings and Speeches by Dr Gadgil’ begins with his three lectures on ‘Co-operative Commonwealth’ in the Professor Brij Narayan Memorial Lecture series delivered at Punjab University Chandigarh in 1961. By then Dr Gadgil was well known authority in the field of co-operation besides on developmental issues in the Indian economy. He begins his first lecture by explaining the Rochdale Pioneers and the circumstances that this experiment emerged in Toad Lane in 1844. That led to a revolution in British Consumer co- operative movement. The establishment of Co-operative consumer store was the only co-operative experiment during those days. The consumer co-operative movement spread very rapidly in England, Germany and also in France. The whole-sale societies were organised by the members of the retail societies and that had its impact on the business of the retail societies. British whole-sale societies were almost similar to the other trading concerns. He further elaborates on the objectives of Raiffesian society that demands the society to improve aggregate welfare of the members materially and morally. In short the Co-operatives have aimed at the enhancement of the overall welfare of members. Raiffesian models were established in rural Germany. He also dealt here with the issue of state support for the Co-operatives and argued in favour of that. The theoretical model that came to be accepted and advanced by Dr Gadgil as also many others was the Raiffesian model, and that suited to Indian conditions.
While talking about the international experience, Gadgil writes about the co- operatives in Denmark. He observed that agricultural sector is dominantly using co-operatives in Denmark to enter and dominate the domestic market. This was observed in Finland too. He records that industrial sector of the Scandinavian countries had a significant presence of co-operatives. Israeli Kibbutz was taken for illustration of the distance from private property. He observed that Co-operatives have not been so successful in rich countries but definitely had influence in middle and low income countries. He concludes in the words from the World Review of Co-operatives that “In the economically underdeveloped countries the proportions of co-operative membership and trade are much lower, but progress in the last ten years has been rapid, although not wholly spontaneous, owing much, as will be seen, to the needs and the initiative of the State” (Gadgil 1961, p. 22). His focus on the weak must co-operate to overcome the capital constraint becomes clear.
During the second Brij Narayan Memorial Lecture delivered at Punjab University, Gadgil made a point that the theoretical base of co-operatives is one of the complementary ways for the development, which he supported through his analysis. Gadgil had actually adopted middle path which bestrode with socialist principles on one side and western capitalism on the other. Gadgil gave priority to a way that keeps ownership structure safe along with equal distribution of surplus. He suggested China’s agricultural co-operative model to Indian agriculture. But he is quiet on that or does not venture stepping out of the Rochdale principles in this endeavour. Proposing a general co-operative model after taking a note of experiences from China, Yugoslavia and Mexico, etc., he did not prefer to keep the administrative structure of co-operatives and other state agencies independent of each other. He writes “the co-operative administrative structure has taken shape from the general administrative structure which has no much difference (Gadgil 1961: 18). This must be viewed as a critical comment by Dr Gadgil, which inherently accepts that the co-operative administration should be significantly different than the general administration and if the two are mixed or copy each other the success of co-operatives will be in peril. That seems to be our experience during the last seven decades. But the beginning of the State administration entering into the Board room of co-operatives had commenced at the time of framing of the Pravaranagar Co-operative rules. Dr Gadgil further, moves to the Government sponsored co-operatives and discusses their objectives and characteristics. Interestingly, he writes in the context of Government participation that “The first is the idea that Government participation in share capital of a primary is wrong in principle and will lead to government’s domination of the movement; and the second, that the only type of primary society to be established is that which attempts all functions and is confined to a single village” (Gadgil 1961, p. 35). This needs to be looked at, a bit sceptically, as Gadgil accepted the State support to Pravaranagar sugar co-operative in the capacity of its Chairman with an intervention from Vaikunthabhai Mehta. In later years the Government dominated its operations even today (Deshpande, et. al. 1992).

He brings out the experience of provinces and suggests the path of development in co-operative sector in India. It is clear that not one design fits all in all the provinces. He writes “By and large, however, the co-operative movement remained insignificant in all the states in relation to the totality of rural life, and in all the more essential aspects of agriculture, credit, supply and sale, the co- operative movement took little effective part” (Gadgil 1961, p. 32). His idea that the co-operatives should not conduct only a specialised work and continue to focus on that but should endeavour to become a multi-task organisation appropriately designed and carry out different functions at the same time. Gadgil recognised also the vital role of co-operatives in rural credit and its connectivity with other similar institutions, he writes “It is not possible to emphasise sufficiently the vital role co- operative marketing and processing and of its close relation with the operation of the credit system” (Gadgil 1961, p. 41). He was a strong proponent of the emergence of co-operative leadership from the core rural areas and wanted the primary rural strata to take lead here. That was his model of development and he advocates the Co-operative Commonwealth quite systematically as an engine of development. Any unimpressive performance of co-operatives, according to him would be due to non-genuine co-operatives and lack of vigorous official policies as support system. In his third Brij Narain Memorial lecture Dr Gadgil took to elaborate on an important hypothesis connecting co-operation to transformation of the economy. The transformation is expected to take place with the generated surplus being shared by the members of the co-operatives. This hypothesis of Dr Gadgil to a large extent was possible on the ground, but the equality of distribution of surplus and proper use of the surplus was in the hands of the management of co-operatives. That was the crux of the entire experiment and hence we see in some of the co- operatives only a few families becoming super rich, whereas, the members from the beginning staying at the same real economic levels. In co-operatives the membership is voluntary and non-restricted on the basis of Rochdale Pioneers. The principle of open membership became an acceptable practice all over the world and so also in India. The principle of democratic control brought in obviously political processes and the wider Indian process of politicisation influenced the cooperatives. That was not imagined as the forthcoming negative externality. The distribution of dividends was expected to share the gains with the members and that was also expected to bring prosperity to their doorsteps of the weaker members. Having seen this gain from the co-operation many activities came under small co-operatives like forests, quarrying, credit, wholesale, retail. Dr Gadgil believed that this would happen automatically. He was not so much carried by the spread of co-operatives as much he wanted to reign the rural exploitation. He writes “The problem of distribution does not appear important in the era of dispersed small-scale economic entities when co-operators are concerned chiefly with preventing exploitation and are guided by the market prices in relation to all operations” (Gadgil 1961, p. 51). Possibly, he could not imagine that even within co-operatives there could be an emergence of strong exploiters and local rural capitalists. This can be witnessed in the area of first co-operative sugar factory. Therefore, even though he was hinting at preventing exploitation, in coming years that became the hallmark of many co-operatives, model co- operatives still continue to be exceptions (Kisan Veer Sugar Factory). Naturally, being democratic institution, the ownership shall vest with the members of the co- operatives. That was the pre-condition conceived by Dr Gadgil for the ‘Co- operative Commonwealth’. Therefore, he wished that the co-operative organisations should spread widely. He writes “Moreover, in countries engaged in development planning there are two particular reasons why co-operative organisations should be encouraged to spread widely. Planning, in the ultimate analysis, can be effective only through action of each individual unit of activity in the economy; so that unless the planned target and the pattern of behaviour called forth by plan-requirements are communicated effectively to each individual dispersed unit, the success of the plan cannot be guaranteed.” (Gadgil 1961, p. 57). This idea of establishing a Co-operative commonwealth can achieve this goal had his full support. It was stated in the later part of the lecture, that the co- operatives are essentially democratic and with the principle of open membership will help to achieve the goal of welfare to all, even though it may differ from socialism. The Commonwealth will help in spreading the gains in welfare across regions. He possibly could not read or foresee the evils of democracy and process of social caste ridden politicisation that emerged coming years within co- operatives. Co-operative commonwealth will be seen as very close to federalism and during those days Dr Gadgil observed the waning away of the importance of federalism due to leaning towards communism. He strongly believed that “Co- operation by insisting on actual operation as far as possible in the economic sphere with the local primary, small scale scattered units reinforces the federal political ideology in the strongest possible terms. It thus, not only seeks to establish economic democracy but is also an essential in the working of political democracy.” (Gadgil 1961, p. 71).

There were two extreme development philosophies which worked as under- currents in our development programmes. On the one hand, we had sprawling private enterprises spreading their business transactions but mostly confining themselves to the urban industrial sector. These groups wielded significant clout in the political decision making process. On the other hand, there was a group with strong commitment to democratic socialism. The political structures representing the weaker sections were comprised of the rural ‘elites’ and urban ‘thinkers’. “The weak elements (smallest peasantry and landless labourers) were also those who cannot exercise any political power and for which none of the usual institutional and organizational devises thrown up by industrial societies could not prove appropriate” (Gadgil 1961: 4). This thinking was at the back of mind of Dr Gadgil when he elaborated on the producers’ co-operatives and wrote extensively on various issues in which co-operation can be the best economic alternative moving towards equality of welfare. Therefore, the natural alternative was to induce the poor to get together and help them draw a blueprint of their own planned development and destiny. Co-operative efforts thus formed the crux of many development activities in the country. People with small means of production got together and pooled their resources in order to venture a task which was otherwise difficult for them. Small scale units together will thus overcome the constraints of scale, capital, incidence of risk, distribution of gains, economic and political concentration (Gadgil 1975, Karve 1968). Thus the process of co-operative efforts is germane to the social- political structure of the country. While concluding Prof Brij Narain Memorial lectures, Prof Gadgil said, “I should reiterate my belief that the Indian situation, political and economic, require today a categorical rejection of competitive philosophy and psychology and the assertion of a belief in co-operation. Such an act of assertion followed by the implementation of a programme of concrete logical action is alone likely to lead us out of our present situation” (Gadgil 1960: 71). This makes us to rethink about the current liberal market centric policies and the sustenance of co-operatives in that. The possible future misreading in this context by Dr Gadgil, is the observation of the political rapids that were visible with their sprouting signals during those years. Political scenario of India was changing very fast and the typology of emerging politics was quite visible on the horizon during sixties, when we had completed two general elections and were getting ready for the third. Social politicisation and caste already started playing a dominant role. The belief that co- operatives as democratic institutions will help to change the fortunes of the poor was rather a huge idealistic expectation on this political scenario. This belief is bellied now, when we analyse the present situation in the co-operative sector. Naturally one question peeps in our mind, did Dr Gadgil misread the future of co- operatives, even after observing the rapids in the political scenario and the emerging political economy in their functioning? Weaker economic elements and among them small and marginal farmers were at the worst end.

Co-operative farming was first touched by Vaikunthabhai in his lecture recognising the problem of small holders and he thought that co-operative farming would be a good alternative. Dr Gadgil also had some guarded faith in co-operative farming experiment in a note included in the volume. Dr Sulabha Brahme after about two decades, visited this issue in her paper published by ISS, The Hague, based on a farmer’s co-operative society (1984). This note by Dr Gadgil on co- operative farming included among his writings is somewhat a cautious note. While he believed that co-operative farming will be quite useful to enhance the bargaining power of the weaker farmers he does not want to rely on replication of the successful experiments available elsewhere. The chase of the mirage called replication of the success stories is quite common in India. In this context Gadgil writes “Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the problem of replication. It has been our experience in India that an initial successful experiment is quickly copied nearby in similar environment. The slowness of our progress is due largely to the fact that we have no plan of deliberate experimentation fully backed by social approval and state assistance and further that we have no means whereby successful experiments are studied and reproduced later larger and larger areas”. (Gadgil 1961, pp. 78-79). Dr Gadgil submitted a note to National Development Council, 1959, on policies for development of co-operation in India. This was in response to the NDCs resolution on co-operation based on the document submitted by the working group constituted for that purpose. His contention was about the lack of research, investigation or any good study on the structure of co-operation as background before the GoI brought a resolution in front of the NDC. Dr Gadgil sites many documents to bring forth emphatically that any policy relating to co- operation must consider future path of development based on past understanding, the enormous variety of conditions, structure of economy and stages of development in the country. He called for a good public debate before presentation of such policy frame but that did not happen. In the volume on Writings and Speeches includes Dr Gadgil’s views on leadership in co-operation. In co-operatives leader is a critical fulcrum who decides the success or failure of the entire experiment. Dr Gadgil elaborated on the requisites of leadership in co-operatives in a seminar on that issue conducted by the International Co-operative Alliance in November 1960. He was quite acquainted with essence of the emergence of rural leadership. Therefore, when he writes “Another aspect of our traditional society is its hierarchical structure. The different close groups, castes and communities, are usually ranked in an order which traditionally indicates socio economic status. In such a society the group’s ranking higher find themselves privileged in relation to those that rank lower and it is expected that those who rank lower will differ in most matters to those who rank high year.” (GIPE, 1975, p. 91). This recognition of the hierarchical caste system got reflected in the co-operatives in the past seven decades and dominated the experiments. Gadgil underscores the requirement of natural leaders, of course knowing fully that the hierarchical society may not allow such natural leader to emerge from bottom up. He believed that this could happen in credit co-operative sector. Further very succinctly, he writes about the development of co-operative movement as also the future of the co-operative credit in India. His beliefs in co- operative credit and its capability to meet the demand in the rural areas is noteworthy. Of course, he mentions a continued State support in the co-operative credit system and in that case runs an inherent risk that the credit structure will be placed at the beck and call of the government. In fact, he writes “Reserve Bank officials must have informal contacts with an intimate knowledge of, those in charge of co-operative organisations and must be able to function in an informal advisory capacity.” (GIPE, 1975, p. 115). It was an indication of the State getting into the arena of co-operative credit, and the question that will it not jeopardise the very purpose of co-operation?, remains unanswered. Dr Gadgil was Chairman of the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank and therefore, his belief in the structure and health of its resources is unquestionable. He foresaw a strong role for co-operatives including “Cooperative Socialist Commonwealth”, in order to bring in a co-operative social order. He was suggesting changes in co-operative organisation and its structure in such a way to make these conducive to the social order. He certainly was not a novice in understanding the social structure prevailing during those days and he also mentions it sporadically. Therefore, this thinking was only a wishful thinking and not necessarily a pragmatic view. Naturally, his idea did not catch roots possibly due to the relative strength of the existing social order as against that of co- operatives. Dr Gadgil in his lifetime touched many other aspects in co-operation and these included: Education, Planned Development, International Co-Operative Alliance, Sugar Co-Operatives and Co-operative Training. The span and depth of Dr Gadgil’s thinking on co-operatives is unimaginable. Through his writings and lectures he brought forth five important aspects in co-operatives. First he focused on co-operative institutions as a liberator of the rural areas (weaker elements) from the clutches of the money lenders. He pleaded for a strong network of credit co- operatives and the supported by the state. Being a co-operative bank and heading the apex body of co-operative credit societies, it was quite expected that his speeches and writings largely focused on co-operative credit. It is however well known that the co-operative credit system in Maharashtra later got into strong political triangulation. Second, he was concerned about the stronger dependence and implementation of co-operative principles. His approach was rather more dogmatic and stuck to the strict principles. This according to him, was a solution for the emancipation of the poor and arresting the usury leading to overall economic development. Third, having seen the world and travelled extensively across the countries in the world, Dr Gadgil had an extensive view of the operations of co-operatives in the world. Sincerely enough, he wanted to get the best out of that implemented in India. His speeches and writings often revolve around organisations in many countries that include developed as well as developing. But at the same time, he demonstrated the understanding of the unique hierarchical Indian social structure, even though he has not said it, he hinted that the structure may cause problems for development of co-operatives. Which indeed is the current experience. Fourth, being a committed planner, Dr Gadgil wanted co-operative planning to be one of India’s important policy frame. This aspect of his thinking did not get sufficient elaboration, possibly because of his untimely demise, except in the Memorandum he submitted to NDC. Last, the status of Dr Gadgil in Maharashtra was quite high and he was considered as the guiding force for development of the State. He lived to that image and tried to provide as much material to the development of the state has also ideas. Many of these came on the ground like Agro processing co-operatives and he personally took interest for leading them to success. The first sugar factory on co-operative basis was started in Maharashtra at the behest of Dr Gadgil as its founding Chairman and that functioned very satisfactorily. Therefore, in co-operation GIPE contributed significantly both in theory, futuristic thinking, ground planning and analytical reasoning with major work coming from Dr Gadgil. He single-handedly dominated this area of research along with his other contributions on planning and economics.

Dr D G Karve on Co-operation

Gokhale Institute in 1968, published another monumental work that included four important lectures delivered by Dr DG Karve. This monograph was titled “Co- operation: Principles and Substance”. The first lecture in this monograph included Dr Karve’s elaboration on Co-Operation in the lecture delivered at Copenhagen, Vienna, and Manilla at different times. These lectures by Dr Karve, very lucidly lead us to the substance of Co-operation, elaborating the quintessence of the process. Initially, he presented his views on the report of the Commission on Co- Operative Principles appointed by the Central Committee on Co-Operatives of ICA in 1964, of which he was a member. Dr Karve was also a very committed co- operator and his belief in co-operation was fundamental. He writes “Co-operation is something more than a way of doing business. It is a way of organising an important part of our life in a manner conducive to the achievement of certain social and moral ideals. These ideals, as enunciated by the Rochadale Pioneers, give moral sanction and material substance to what now come to be described as principles of cooperation.” (Karve 1968, p. 3). Further he elaborates on the principles of co-operation in detail and as a researcher, I must say that these are the principles which one must read before analysing impact of a co-operatives. That discipline is not to be seen among the researchers now. He closes the first lecture at Copenhagen on a very positive note stating “The ideals of democracy, peace and human welfare are so widely accepted, and opportunities of combined co-operative action on the part of the peoples of the world are so large that on the basis of a firm understanding of the objectives and the basic principles of Rochdale Pioneers, it should be possible for co-operators everywhere to go forward to achieve progress over an ever widening field.” (Karve 1968, p. 12). In the second lecture, he continued illustrating the Rochdale tradition and highlighting important aspects of it. This lecture was given at Vienna in 1966. It is interesting that Dr Karve had very open mind about the obligations of these principles in the coming years. He was not in favour of treating them as ritualistic but allowed flexibility according to the situation and time, keeping the spirit undisturbed. He writes in the Vienna lecture “Whether the Rochdale Principles, so defined and stated, meet the needs of co-operative movement, having regard to the present day economic, and political situation, or whether any of the principles should be reformulated in order to achieve better contribution to the fulfilment of the aims and tasks of the co-operative movement in its different branches” (Karve 1968, p. 14). Further he states that “Circumstances in which principles are practised are variable; and this affects the correct formulation of even those principles which are generally accepted as fundamental truths by co-operatives” (Karve 1968, p. 16). It was reflected in the lectures that Dr Karve was a visionary and could foresee the future possible changes in the co-operative principles and necessary to amend the principles in the new conditions. When we look at the needs and structures of co- operatives today, we reaffirm unhesitant faith in what he spoke about the flexibilities. This he took up in his third lecture delivered at the Symposium on Co-operative Principles held at Manila in 1966. Once again he emphasised the Rochdale principles but at the same time he hints only at the core spirit of these principles by saying “The creation of an equalitarian, harmonious and just society was the objective of the Rochdale Pioneers, and it has continued to be the objective ideal of co-operators around the world. Quite obviously, this ideal or ultimate objective, is much more important and exalted than a principle of routine co- operative activity. It rests on the pedestal of its own.” (Karve 1968, p. 23). His non-dogmatic commitment to the co-operative principles and the substance of co- operation is unequivocal and he reiterates that in his lectures. He showed full awareness of the possible changes in future needed according to the circumstances. He was not so much in favour of rigidity and he argues that saying “Self-Help and Co-operation” as the theme of co-operation. This is a theme he carried further when he delivered the fourth lecture in memory of Vaikunthabhai Mehta.

We must note that Dr Karve had come from a very parsimonious background, as he had lost his father in early childhood and completed his education in strenuous conditions and rose to become Chairman of ICA. His understanding of the society was bottom up and that he always cared for the last man in the social rung. He was a flexible and a different breed of academician, who held very important positions in the International co-operative arena. He was one of the highly respected co-operators and even though he did not work on the ground, like Dr Gadgil, his understanding of the ground in co-operation was quite unique. He was Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Director of Bombay State Co- operative Bank and many important economic bodies. One must appreciate his conceptual flexibility and his in-depth commitment to cooperation and understanding of the substance of co-operation. He was a guiding force across the world in the principles of cooperation as the Chairman of the International Commission on the co-operative Principles. In the fourth lecture delivered in the memory of Vaikunthabhai Mehta, he writes heralding Mehta’s policy on co- operatives that “Thus raising co-operation from the level of one of the several alternatives which were open to individual citizen without any indication of the choice of the community as a whole, to that of the highly regarded and integral part of national policy was the principal feature of the new co-operative policy which was enunciated under Vaikunthabhai’s leadership”. (Karve 1968, p. 44). By this he puts co-operation as a strategy on a very high pedestal. Dr Karve’s contribution on minutely clarifying the principles of co-operation, emphasising their flexibility according to the needs of the time and then connecting these to the current issues, is a unique contribution that we should note. Most important is his flexibility as a people friendly social scientist and his principles even though did not essentially spelt out were core socialistic in content. He was a unique visionary with keen observation of the oncoming changes.

Co-operation: The GIPE Experiment on Ground

One of the unforgettable contributions of GIPE in co-operation initiated personally by Dr Gadgil was to bring co-operation on ground and in practice. Those days the concept of research activism was not even known. Dr Gadgil worked very strenuously to establish the first sugar factory in co-operative sector and through that entered agro-processing sector in co-operatives. One can see the thread connecting to his first economic survey of Wai taluka, where he observed that processing can be a joint activity. After independence through the Constitution of India, co-operation was transferred included as a State subject, Bombay state was the first to have its independent law on co-operative societies led by Vaikunthabhai Mehta. Actually, the first sugar factory in Maharashtra was Saswad Mali sugar factory, which started with the initiative of farmers (of Mali (Gardener) Community). It was established as a manufacturing company by a group of active farmers led by Girme, Boravake, Pandhare and others as a company on 17th November 1932 (Kane 1959). Therefore, it cannot be termed as co-operative effort in the sense of the concept that became an acceptable one afterwards. In fact, it was noted that the irrigation water of the Deccan canal system was quite underutilized. The Committee on Water Utilization which examined the question of water utilization in the canal system decided to invite sugar factories in the area. Initial steps towards establishment of sugar factory began in the conference of irrigators in the region which adopted a resolution to that effect ((Attwood 1985)). But before this, the state had the co-operative banking structure operating in the region with Bombay Provincial Co-operative bank as an apex body. The first step towards establishment of co-operative sugar factory began with the initiative of Late Shri Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil of Rahuri. Born in the family of a farmer, he visualized the potential of agro-processing, of coming together and establishing a co-operative effort in sugar production. Thus the experiment was rightly described as ‘Peasant Owned Sugar Factory in Bombay State’ (GIPE, 1975, p. 203). The initial task of starting a producers’ co-operative was described as extremely difficult by the first Managing Director of Pravaranagar. The attitude of the State was more cautious about any outright support. Majority of the members of the factory were small and marginal farmers, with a small proportion holding lands above 20 acres. The average size of holding of farmers was only 1.6 acres. Thus the experiment truly represented an initiative of the peasant community of the region. Actual steps towards establishment of the factory began in 1947 when the scheme was discussed with the Bombay Provincial Co-operative Bank and initial Capital of ₹ 2 lakhs was collected by the end of 1949. The society was registered and the two crucial appointments of Managing Director and Chief Engineer were made (GIPE, 1975, p. 206).
Pravaranagar sugar factory became the first co-operative sugar factory started in Maharashtra and that impelled a revolution in agro-processing co-operatives. The socio-political scenario of the state also underwent many fold changes since then and sugar industry became the principle axis of rural politico-economic structure. The role of GIPE and especially that of Dr Gadgil was unique in the establishment of this co-operative sugar factory that stimulated a revolution in Sugar industry of Maharashtra (Attwood 1977, 1985). It is aptly said by Baviskar (1985) that ‘one cannot understand the politico-economic structure of Maharashtra without considering the role of sugar factories and vice versa’ (Bawiskar 1985). The issue of development of co-operatives in Maharashtra does not remain confined to technical relations alone but penetrates in the structural aspects of the co-operative. Here the number of interests and interests group grow around the basic structure of sugar production.

It is important to look back and pick up a few lessons from the experiment that was carried out during early years of independence in the form of a co- operative sugar factory at Pravaranagar. First, the Agro processing co-operatives began in Maharashtra in the sugar production sector. This experiment became an ideal followed for many sugar factories in the State. Deshpande et al (1992) wrote an interestingly section titled “Pravara to Pushpavaty: A Travelogue of Co- operatives in Maharashtra”, in the names of the two rivers on which the two sugar factories began one at Rahuri and another at Yavatmal. The first one in 1947 at Pravaranagar and the second in the mid-90s at Yavatmal. The first sugar factory was started with an initiative of the farmer and an academician and the Pushpavaty was backed by a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra incidentally flouting many norms and hoodwinking the officialdom (Deshpande, et. al. 1992, pp. 30-38), the journey that navigates the political economy of sugar industries in the state of Maharashtra for a period of five decades. It is no secret that sugar co-operatives played a very important and decisive role in Maharashtra’s politics for long (Chausalkar 1992). This was of course not the intention of Dr Gadgil when he initiated the first sugar factory at Pravaranagar but the impact of co-operative sugar factories infusing the role of caste and class in the State politics remains monumental (Lele 1990). Second, Dr Gadgil’s hypothesis that the sugar factory (agro-processing) in the co-operative sector will bring prosperity to all in the region and help the poor to reach a better lifestyle. To some extent his expectations came true and Pravaranagar became a hub, as an agro processing unit but the spread of educational institutions became more prominent than the sugar co- operative. Certainly, a few families of the region could achieve very high income levels & prosperity based on their participation in the sugar co-operative and more so in the educational institutions that began in the region. The family of the original promoter is quite well known in the region as one of the most affluent families. Third, should we say that the hypothesis, with which Dr Gadgil began, that prosperity will be fairly shared in the region has been betrayed? In one of the recent study of the region, it was noted that this region confronts significant inequality and the prosperity has not reached nook and corners, as was designed and expected. Last, even though Pravaranagar gave lead to many of the sugar factories in the co-operative sector in Maharashtra the role of the state and interference in the co-operative sector increased significantly (Deshpande, et. al. 1992). It was true that Dr Gadgil needed and asked for the State support in order to establish the factory at the beginning but today sugar co-operatives have become significantly dependent on the State and State exchequer. That is irony of the situation.

Post Gadgil Phase of Studies on Co-operation

The third phase of studies on co-operation began long after the departure of Dr Gadgil sometime in early eighties. Initially, there were not many researchers opting to work on co-operation. There were of course a good number of research students in the state of Maharashtra, who worked on co-operative sugar factories and co-operative credit structure for their degrees. Similarly, a large number of researchers outside of Gokhale Institute worked on co-operatives and issues pertaining to co-operatives in various universities. This one can be understood as a positive spill over of the initial work on co-operatives. After the opening of Vaikunth Mehta Institute of Co-Operative Management (VAMNICOM) at Pune, a large amount of work was carried out at that place and as it was an Institute for specialised purpose, most of the work on co-operation was handled by VAMNICOM. However, since these were not carried out at Gokhale Institute we have not included any of them here in this review. Besides, we also did not include some of the minor studies which were not accessible even from the library of the Institute. We begin this section with the study by Dr Sulbha Brahme, who worked on an important issue of producers’ co-operatives. This came out as an occasional paper from the Institute of Social Studies The Hague. Dr Brahme worked on producers’ cooperative experience in Maharashtra but she took an effort in farm co-operatives. She collected data from a village which she named as “Migao’, and the co-operative Society located in the village was also called VFS for the purpose of anonymity. She has also taken an example of a successful fisherman’s co- operative society from Kerala as another case study. Right from the beginning Dr Brahme was not positively placed with the idea of co-operation and she writes “The co-operative idea was originally formulated in Europe during the early stages of capitalism. In the beginning co-operative efforts were directed towards funding model communities that were closed and small and whose structure and operations were guided by the co-operative ‘gospel’.” (Brahme 1984, p. 2). Her sarcasm of using the word ‘gospel’ makes her disposition very clear right from the beginning. Dr Brahme seem to have been looking at the co-operatives from the angle of socialistic principles and therefore, from the beginning she seems to be little sarcastic about the entire experiment due to the end results. This observation of hers is not untrue but leads us to an anti-thesis of Dr Gadgil’s original thesis. She further writes “These efforts to withdraw from contemporary society and establish autonomous ideal communities based on cooperative principles failed for obvious reasons” (Brahme 1984, p. 2). She does not keep any hope of developing a wide spread co-operative structure in the country. By the time she carried out this study, the evils of co-operation had already started emerging out of the black holes. The co-operative barons were dominating the State politics demonstrating filthy wealth and it was only the character of the top person in the co-operative ensured the principles of co-operation in sporadic places (Such as Hutatma Kisan Aheer Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana, Walve, see Deshpande et al 1992). She is quite sceptical about the spread of co-operatives and therefore, she writes a little sharply that “In the poverty-stricken and insecure, underdeveloped economy of India, given the absence of those policy measures which are essential to develop co-operative moments, the co-operative activity that had been initiated on an official basis and continued through the zeal of some registrars of co- operatives and certain philanthropic individuals, could not gain vitality and strength. Consequently, co-operatives could hardly take root in India during the colonial period and the co-operative movement remained insignificant” (Brahme 1984, p. 3). Dr Brahme’s study has a focus on co-operative farming under VFS society at “Migao”. She looked into the development of co-operatives in Maharashtra and with a large statistical data established that Maharashtra has remained on the forefront of spread in co-operative movement. She takes a full review of farmers’ co-operatives in Maharashtra and the systematically traces the emergence of VFS as a co-operative in the selected village with the initiative of Mr V, a person who initiated the co-operative. One of her genuine concern is about the social structure of the village. She observed rightly that any success or failure of co-operative efforts are on the bedrock of caste system and caste relations prevailing in the village. Dr Brahme felt that VFS members were not very enthusiastic to work on the joint farm as the drudgery of the work was little more than what they expected. Due to the lack of adequate work participation the work schedule could not be met with and planting of grapevines could not be adhered to the schedule. Her study could be looked from two perspectives. First, the socio economic survey of a village and the consequent farm economy. Second, the success and failure of the co-operative initiated in the village under the name VFS with a leadership emerging under bottom up approach. Dr Brahme while analysing the factors determining the operations of the VFS writes very poignantly that “There are several other specific factors that have helped the formulation and development of the VFS. The co-operative was founded on the sole initiative of Mr V, who is a prominent landowner in Migao village and enjoys special recognition there. He earned this recognition mainly through the leading and crucial role he played in the village level co-operative lift irrigation scheme” (Brahme 1984, p. 19). Possibly she was hinting at the primacy of leadership in the success of co- operatives and the emergence of the power equations that the leader has with the population, who participate in the co-operative. She found that it is the personality of Mr V, that had changed the situation and there was quite a bit of positive social impact on ironing out the caste differences in the village. This is exactly the situation of Hutatma Kisan Ahir co-pperative society. Nagnath Naikwadi and for Pravaranagar the strength of Vithalrao Vikhe Patil; were the powers behind the establishment. She also got into the role of the weaker sections so also the women in the success of the entire experiment. Her description of the model of Mr V is that of ‘harmony’ and therefore Mr V did not step out of the traditional jacket of a village society. She combines the analysis of the VFS society along with a fishermen co-operative society from Kerala. The fishermen co-operative in the Kerala village also works under the guidance of one individual namely Bishop P. The Trivandrum Social Service Society supported the fishermen co-operative and the link was strong. While concluding Dr Brahme has been critical of the experience on various counts. She writes that “The formula of co-operatives was that the poor would pool their resources and the state would extend some aid, since the resource base of the poor was too meagre to provide even a bare subsistence income. Experiences with co-operatives in India point to the basic untenability of this approach” (Brahme 1984, p. 34). This is an approach diagonally opposite of that of Dr Gadgil’s and Dr Karve’s, who dreamt that co- operatives could be the saviour of the poor. Dr Brahme further states an interesting argument and she writes “Cooperatives can play a dynamic role in India only if the structure of property relations is changed. When the means of production are socialized, the role of cooperative changes from being merely a protective and defensive organisation, because the state takes over responsibility for satisfying the basic needs of the society”. (Brahme 1984, p. 35) This argument is beset with strong inherent confusion. If the means of production are socialized, where is the need to cooperate? But in a nutshell, Dr Brahme sees little scope for co-operatives as saviour of the poor. Around the same time Kamath (1985), published a paper in EPW on ‘Co- operative Movement in Maharashtra, and he shows strong hopes that co-operatives will make a difference in the development of the state. He writes in a most optimistic way that “The co-operative sector in Maharashtra has still the potential and the capacity to provide leadership not only to the weaker sections in this state but also for the co-operative movement and its beneficiaries in the whole country.” (Kamath 1985, p. AS 38). Interestingly we have arguments from Gadgil Karve to Kamath, who demonstrate hopes but Brahme looks at it differently. Possibly the whole scenario got entangled due to the strong control of the State agencies on the co-operative sector.
Followed by this there was a study carried out by Deshpande along with a few of his colleagues on “State Co-operation Interface” in the year 1992. Other few of the studies carried out in the Gokhale Institute on co-operation remained unpublished but have been considered as important contributions in the field. Dr Deepak Shah’s studies on co-operatives have been of recent origin and he has covered quite a few issues. Our review here broadly follow these studies.

Interrelation between Government and Co-operatives

The issue of the increasing control of the State on the co-operatives came for discussion at many forums in early nineties. It was noted that the co-operatives are increasingly drawing financial support from the Government treasury and the dependence has been increasing. On one hand, the dependence of co-operatives on the state increased significantly, whereas, on the other the control of the State machinery on the functioning of co-operatives increased sharply. This issue of the State taking control was envisaged in the earlier writings of Dr Gadgil and Dr Karve, but did not receive prominence as during those days the sector was just growing and the State support was most needed. In the Committee set up by International Co-operative Alliance under the Chairmanship of Prof D. G. Karve, the principles of co-operative were discussed elaborately and the issue of State support did feature. The tone and tenor of the argument was that the co-operatives should be independent entities and the dependence on State must be minimum (Karve 1968). It is interesting to quote Dr Karve here “There is, however, a feeling that we are not doing enough. Especially in the matter of dropping the crutches of Government assistance and securing support from all our country men on the basis of convincing performance, co-operative as a class do not seem to be doing enough” (Karve 1968: 32). One must appreciate the visionary statement of Dr Karve pertaining to the role of State in Co-operatives. We recognize that the views regarding State co-operative interaction changed over time even in the academic circle. Initially, the role perceived for the State was that of initiator and provider of only needed support. Prof Gadgil visualized this role of the State and to that extent of assigning a responsibility to the State of impregnating co-operative values in the spheres of economy (Gadgil 1960: 62). He also noted, elsewhere that the Government participation by way of subscribing to the share capital should not be confused as domination, but added that “Currently the greatest obstacle in the way of progress of co-operatives in India is the situation in relation to direction of co-operative policy at the centre. This is high handed and perverse and is at the same time weak and vacillating. The most important feature of the situation is that co-operative policy is no longer made in the co-operative way” (Gadgil 1960: 43). These early views express a caution about the role of the State but at the same time it is not expected to be nil. Actually, any discussion about the role of State in co- operative sector would be a function of structural parameters of the co-operative vis a vis State. The basic actor here would mainly be the strength of co-operative spirit, the internal cohesive nature of the society in question and the perception of the concept of State.
Therefore, the conventional understanding of State either as welfare State or State in Marxist paradigms does not fit clearly in the framework of the discussion here. Deshpande, et. al. (1992), attempted to trace the State co-operative inter relationship as it started from the first sugar factory established at Pravaranagar to Pushpavaty sugar factory, which was under construction in Yeotmal district in 1991-1992. (Deshpande, et. al. 1992, p. 29). Here it must be understood that the very nature of co-operative structure is built on the principle of self-help. Nicholson’s recommendation of Raiffesian type of rural society based on compact units and joint responsibilities, was recommended keeping in view the structure of co-operative credit society. In the most cautious words it was recorded by ICA that “It may be advisable, possibly necessary, for the Government at first to assist the nascent banks either by subvention or by guarantee” (ICA, 1971: 65). It was further added that in the conditions prevailing in India, a direct subsidy by the State would mark Government’s recognition of the co-operative’s operations but it was not imagined that such initial help will become detrimental to the growth.
Deshpande, et. al. (19920 also brought forth the role of Government as summarized in the resolution passed at the FAO technical meeting on co- operatives in Asia and the Far Eastern Countries way back in 1949. The resolution stated “The role of Government in relation to co-operative societies should be one of the active usefulness intended to stimulate co-operative enterprise, to guide it and to keep it on sound lines without either attempting to compel or to replace local initiative and self-help” (Quoted in ICA, 1971, p. 73). The role of the State began with the establishment of the first Co-operative with Dr Gadgil as its Chairman at Pravaranagar. Initially, the designed scheme of Pravaranagar Co- operative was based on the initial capital of ₹25 lakhs but the devaluation and cost of machinery caused an increase in the initially estimated capital outlay by 50 percent. The contribution from the members in the form of share capital could reach only ₹5 lakhs out of ₹6 lakhs. At this juncture, it may be stated that there was a stipulated upper limit on holding of shares which was fixed by the State Government at ₹10,000. With persuasion it was raised to ₹15,000 but hardly a few members could afford that. This financial bottleneck brought in the role of the Government to subscribe to the share capital. Prof Gadgil recorded this as “A representation was made to the Government of Bombay, dwelling on the unique character of the experiment, its vast size in relation to the resources of the cultivators and the great potential benefits of its successful operation to the co- operative movement in all directions of farming. It was a lucky circumstance for the society that the Finance Minister, who also held the portfolio of co-operation, was the leading and veteran co-operator Shri V. L. Mehta” (Gadgil 1952: 206). The Government agreed within a few months heralding the first step in the long march of the role of the State co-operative sugar factories. The structure of co-operative mainly formed on the principles of self-reliance and democratic regulation and control. The role of the State started increasing slowly and steadily through the legislative controls. Deshpande eta al (1992) presented a comparison of the laws governing co-operatives and changes therein between 1960 and 1991 and demonstrated the increasing legal control of the State on co-operatives (Deshpande, et. al. 1992, pp. 52-59).
Gadgil while defending the support from the State says “Government participation is here required for widening initially the owned resources base and to start developments. Whether this will lead to official domination or not depends on the tradition and temper of local officialdom and the strength and quality of non-official workers” (Gadgil 1961: 36). His wishful thinking that the temper of local officialdom and the non-official workers will keep the control, did not come true. Due to the weakness of Government’s participation in co-operative societies, the government kept a hold on co-operatives through their legal hand. Gadgil’s view regarding the government intervention in co-operative society was quite different from Karve’s view that the co-operative society should remain an independent factor, people participation should be base and their dependency on government should be less (Karve 1968). Gadgil was expecting the optimistic and positive role of the State. He felt that the government should take initiative or responsibility to begin co-operatives in such areas where there will be less chance of establishment of co-operative societies (Gadgil 1960: 62). There should be not be a misrepresentation that the government would be superior authority through a system of share capital purchases. The main obstacle to the progress of co-operative societies in India is the direction of the co-operative related decision of the Central Government (Deshpande, et. al, 1992). The irony is that the policies pertaining to co-operatives are not fixed and change from state to state. Gadgil’s initial opinion was cautious about the role of Government, but possibly became critical in later years. Gadgil in his memorandum to NDC in 1959, pointed out that the co-operative societies could not perform as expected in India because the lack of vibrant government policies’ backing up and decentralised local leadership. There is no doubt, we had well-structured co-operative policies but due to the Indian social structure, the true decentralisation could not come about.

Co-operations in the Liberalisation Context

Research on co-operatives remained out of fashion for quite some time after the departure of Dr Gadgil from the scene. Not for any other reason, but due to the emerging contemporary issues like poverty, input-output analysis, regional disparities and such important areas occupied the centre stage. Besides, Vakuntha Mehta National Institute of Co-operative Management (VAMNICOM), was established at Pune and their focus was entirely on research on co-operation. The studies and training at VAMNICON also indirectly reduced the interest in the area of research. Some of the excellent faculty members from GIPE also joined VAMNICON. But still some researchers continued their pursuit of studies on co- operation at GIPE. We have noted the studies conducted by Dr Sulbha Brahme (1984) and Dr R S Deshpande (1992) in the earlier phase and that is prior to 1999. These two studies were conducted in the environment prior to liberalisation. It is quite known that liberalisation process has impacted the co-operative sector significantly because of differential market orientation (Dubhashi 1992). Liberalisation has strengthened the market centralism and the co-operatives now have to compete with a few corporate giants. During this phase, Dr Deepak Shah conducted quite a few studies on co-operation. He touched many aspects that included credit, Infrastructure bottlenecks, milk co-operatives, marketing co- operatives and in the liberalisation process. Co-operative credit has been one of the major area in which Dr Deepak Shah worked intensively. His work largely covers the period from late eighties onwards covering the initial years of liberalisation and when the process was in full operation. He found that the co-operative credit sector in Maharashtra is weakening and it is confronting larger NPA issues in the recent past. His paper published in Agricultural Economics Research Review in 2007, clearly brought out the weakening of the sector. It was observed that credit flow out of credit co- operatives has slowed down and there is decline in the amount as also number of borrowers. While testing the determinants of loan borrowed through econometric analysis he noted that membership of the society had a negative influence on the loan borrowed. Which in itself is a surprising result but tells a bit about the impact of the process of liberalisation. He concludes “The findings of this investigation have clearly shown lackadaisical approach of PACS towards SC/ST members, particularly in terms of their coverage, pattern of loan advances to them and recovery pattern” (Shah 2007, p. 29). In another study on co-operative credit sector in Maharashtra, Dr Shah compared one developed and another under- developed district from Maharashtra in their performance in co-operative credit. He chose Sangli District Credit Co-operative Bank (SDCCB) and Buldana District Credit Co-operative Bank (BDCCB) for this purpose. He noted that both SDCCB and BDCCB showed a decline in their financial health and economic viability during late nineties as against in early nineties. Nonetheless, this deterioration in financial health witnessed particularly during the second half (between TE 1992- 1993 and TE 1998-1999) of the overall period (TE 1986-1987 and TE 1998-1999) was found to be more pronounced in the case of BDCCB as not only various financial ratios estimated for this bank had declined during this period. It was observed that majority of them were seen to be beset with negative values, especially during late nineties. It was quite clear that the liberalisation impacted credit co-operatives in both developed and developing regions but the impact is sharp in the developing regions in discouraging the co-operative structure.
In another study on milk co-operatives Dr Shah used primary data from Jalgaon and Kolhapur districts of Maharashtra to understand the impact of the co- operatives on the household economy of the members of the co-operatives. In the producers’ co-operatives, it was noted that income has a strong seasonality but effectively helps the family in enhancing their lifestyle. The authors noted the dynamic role of milk cooperatives as well as their multiplier effect in the economy. Even though milk cooperatives in Maharashtra do not compare any way with Amul, it is important that the milk co-operatives have recorded success in these two districts. Their success in the process continued even after the liberalisation of the market, even though a good number of private players compete with the co- operatives. Dr Shah also studied elaborately the co-operative marketing societies in Maharashtra to investigate into the reasons of their success and failure. He notes that the success of the marketing co-operatives in Maharashtra depends on the capital intensity as well as spread of membership. He is also very specific about the market participation of these co-operative societies and the process of politicisation. Even though the study was carried out in 2004, a,b, he could not specifically focus on the impact of the liberalisation. There is a unique difference between the work of Dr Shah and earlier works on co-operation at the Gokhale Institute. Dr Shah relied more on the empirical data collected from the field, somewhat like Dr Brahme, and he utilised econometric techniques for the purpose of getting at his hypothesis.

Liberalisation has posed quite a few challenges in front of the co-operative structure in Maharashtra. The studies by Dr Deepak Shaha indicate impact on the credit co-operatives but at the same time he underscores the success of producer co-operatives even in the presence of liberalised forces. In the recent past, the researchers at the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics have not touched the aspect of co-operatives and politicisation, the changing role of state in the context of liberalisation supporting cooperatives, the state policies dealing with cooperatives and the role of NPAs significantly bringing down the viability of the co-operative credit structure. These are some of the areas which would need attention in the coming years.

Conclusions

The co-operative structure of Maharashtra covers three major areas namely Sugar co-operatives, Agro processing, Dairy Societies and Co-operative Credit Societies (PACs). Historical development of co-operatives in Maharashtra began with the work of Dr Gadgil and Dr Karve. The R R Kale lecture by Vakunthabhai Mehta has been one of the monumental document on the initial thinking about cooperatives in Gokhale Institute. These historical studies have set up at and opened up many issues to the researchers. Over years Maharashtra has witnessed significant development in cooperatives as well as the issues also multiplied. Large number of research work has been carried out at Gokhale Institute and here in our attempt we covered as much was available to us. If we look at the changing structure of co-operatives in the State through the lens of GIPE studies, four broad changes are visible. First, the increase in the number of co-operative societies and membership is quite substantial and that the member density per societies is steadily increasing. A substantial increase in number of the members per co- operative society was observed during the last decade 1981-91, compared to earlier decades. Second, there has been a substantial increase in capital flows in co-operative sector over the three decades. A substantial increase can be noted in working capital. Besides these trends Deepak Shah (2001, 2002 a, b, 2003, and 2007) observed that the density of capital has increased many fold during these three decades. Among the three major components of the co-operative structure, sugar co-operatives are naturally the single largest contributor to the increase in capital stock. Third important observation is that the increase in the membership and factories is not substantial in this sector as compared to dairy co-operative or credit societies but the capital density is much larger and therefore, higher money power is concentrated in the hands of lesser number of people. Last, the capital flow in sugar co-operatives is about 18 times of an average dairy co-operative or double of the credit co-operatives. Keeping this view, the capital intensive structure of the sugar co-operatives, the density of capital is not surprising but is rather an indicator of the level of transactions and therefore the political prominence of these (Deshpande, et. al. 1992).
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics has been in the field of studies on co-operation since 1940s. The contributions of the Institute have been monumental both in terms of the theoretical paradigms put forth as also some of the interesting empirical studies. Bringing the Rochdale principles in the foreground with deliberate and been pointed discussion was done in the earlier years. Over and again the earlier researchers had insisted co-operation as one of the most important saviour of the weaker sections from rural India. Given the fact that rural India survives on margins especially with the tiny holdings and meagre resources. If these individuals have to enter into the market either as producers or as consumers, they confront hostile market situations. Market is the place where these individuals having small marketable surpluses and imperfect information about the price behaviour is suffered at the hands of market operators. In order to overcome this lacuna, it is felt essential to enhance the bargaining capabilities of these individuals. The solution was institutional and this has been recommended way back in the Britain in the form of Rochdale principles. The experience of cooperatives in India, has not been that encouraging and therefore, studies on co- operatives fell on back foot. Rochdale Pioneers and the principles governing cooperation elsewhere in the world came to the help of Indian rural masses. Vaikunthabhai Mehta, Dr Karve and Dr Gadgil had that important exposure to the international world of co-operation and brought forth significant information to be sown in the land of rural India. Almost at the same time India was reeling through an important crisis of credit market failures and domination of informal credit institutions in the form of money lenders. The fleecing of the farmers by the money lenders certainly became an important centrifugal point of their economic thinking. The initial experience of co-operation was quite successful as well as their principles in co-operation very well accepted by academia as also polity. Strengthened, with this theoretical understanding it was not difficult for them to get into putting certain experience on ground. This began with credit co-operative societies and then spread to Agro processing cooperatives. The first ever experiment of Agro processing cooperatives in sugar at Pravaranagar was successful with a strong intervention from the two giants in the co-operation sector namely Vaikunthabhai and Dr Gadgil. Around that time, Dr Gadgil contributed to many issues confronting co-operative sector and these became starting point for many studies. After the departure of Dr Gadgil, the work on co-operation slowed down at GIPE but different issues were taken by researchers at the Institute. These included the farmers’ cooperative and determinants of its failure or success by Dr Sulbha Brahme, taking a specific case study of a co-operative in Western Maharashtra and fishermen co-operative in Kerala. Dr Brahme however was not impressed by the experiment of the farm cooperatives and actually pick up a few weak spots while discussing the success of these two experiments. Dr Gadgil had made it very clear earlier in his study that the leadership matters a lot in the success of co-operation and Dr Brahme reiterated the findings by Dr Gadgil. During the early years of co-operation and the experience carried out in the State of Maharashtra the government had backed the co-operative strongly. Initially the role of government was only to support but slowly this role increased significantly. In that context the unpublished work by Dr R S Deshpande and others became an important milestone. The State co-operative interface significantly penetrated the co-operative sector and finally made co-operatives strongly dependent on the government or in the clutches of the State. That was not sufficient but slowly the government’s role in the co-operative increased as a dominant administrator. With this ended the third phase of studies on co-operation at the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. The fourth phase began with strong empirical studies by Dr Deepak Shah covering credit co-operatives, banking sector, infrastructure, marketing cooperatives and also milk cooperatives. The empirical work brought forth two important issues namely the credit co-operatives are weakening and so also the marketing infrastructure in the co-operative sector. But at the same time producers’ co-operatives have been keeping abreast despite the process of liberalisation. In the background of liberalisation, Dr Shah noted that co-operative spirit can weaken as the market operations became intensified and more than that the credit discipline had got into peril due to intense you politicisation of the process. In an overall perspective, the studies on co-operation carried out at Gokhale Institute provided a strong platform for the researchers and students of co-operation, it is however essential to continue this spirit in the new context following the study and the working group report by Dr Bina Agarwal, who stated that getting together is an important intervention called for in the rural areas. She writes very poignantly that “A group approach could also enable small and marginal farmers to undertake a lump investment by pooling financial resources. It is not economically viable for small farmers operating one or two hectares, especially if further fragmented, to invest in irrigation or machinery such as tractors or even keep a pair of Bullocks all-round year” (Agarwal 2007, p. 17). She also voiced a strong concern in the Working Group of the 12th plan headed by her reiterating need for getting together by the small and marginal farmers is not on co-operative basis but on the basis of an informal group. In short, co-operation is the only saviour for the small and marginal farmers for credit, Agro processing or many of their needs which require confronting the hostile market and that was very strongly underscored by the studies carried out at Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics.

References

Agarwal, Bina (2007), Rethinking Collectives: Group Farming, Community Forestry and Strategic Alliances, Lecture delivered on the occasion of the award of degree of Doctor Honoris Causa at the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.
———- (2008), Rethinking Collectives: Institutional Innovations in group farming, Community Forestry and Strategic Alliances, Centre for Study of Developing Societies, Occasional Paper, New Delhi.
———- (2011), Working Group on Disadvantaged Farmers including Women, Twelfth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi.
Attwood, D.W. (1977), Raising Cane: The Political Economy of Sugar in Western India, Department of Anthropology, McGill University.
———- (1985), Peasants Versus Capitalists in the Indian Sugar Industry: Impact of the Irrigation Frontier, Journal of Asian Studies, 45: 59-80.
Baviskar, B.S. (1985), Milk and Sugar: A Comparative Analysis of Co-operative Politics, Discussion Paper, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.
Benjamin, N. and B. Mohanthy (2003), Gadgil on Co-operative Movement, Artha Vijana, XLV(1- 2): 114-123.
Chausalkar, A. (1992), Sahakar Ani Maharashtrache Rajkaran, Samaj Prabodhan Patrika, Pune: Samaj Prabodhan Sanstha.
Dubhashi, P.R. (1992), A New Era of Liberalisation for Co-operative Movement, Maharashtra Co- operative Quarterly, April.
Gadgil, D.R. and V.R. Gadgil (1940), A Survey of Farm Business in Wai Taluka, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune.
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (GIPE) (1975), Writings and Speeches of Professor D R Gadgil on co-operation, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics and Orient Longman, Bombay.
International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), (1971), Professor D.G. Karve Commemoration Volume,
Delhi: Regional Office and Education Centre for South-East Asia, ICA.
Kamat, G.S. (1985), Co-operative Movement in Maharashtra, Economic and Political Weekly, August 24th
Kane, Vasant (1959), Saswad Mali Sugar factory Limited. Raupya Mahotsav Parichay Granth, Malinagar.
Karve, D.G. (1968), Co-operation: Principles and Substance, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics and Asia Publishing House, Bombay
Kothari, Rajani (1970), Politics in India, Orient Longman Ltd., New Delhi.
Lele, Jayant (1990), Caste, Class and Dominance: Political Mobilisation in Maharashtra, in rankel and M S A Rao (Eds.), Dominance and Political Power in Modern India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Shah, Deepak (2001), How Far Credit Co-operative are Viable in New Economic Environment: An Evidence from Maharashtra, Prajnan, 30(2): July–Sept.
———- (2002), Infrastructure Development for Agro-Processing Co-operations in Maharashtra: An Ex-Post Evaluation, GIPE, Pune.
———- (2002), Mapping Strategies for Efficient Rural Credit Delivery System through Co- operatives in Maharashtra.
———- (2003), An Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Financial Institutions in Maharashtra,
Arthavijanana, 45(3&4), Sept -Dec.
———- (2004), Co-Operative marketing Societies in Maharashtra: Reasons for Success and Failures, AERC, GIPE, Pune.

Shah, Deepak (2004), Co-operative Marketing Societies in Maharashtra: Reasons for Success and Failures, AERC, GIPE, Pune.
———- (2007), Functional Deficiencies of Agribusiness Co-operations in Maharashtra: Synthesis of an Unsuccessful Case, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol 20.
Venkatappiah B. and V.K.R.V. Rao (1982), Co-operation – Two Perspectives, Studies in Co- operation: 1, Pune: Indian Society for Studies in Co-operation.

Search

Search

Recommended Articles

1. Gendered Patterns of Unpaid Care Work Distribution in India: An Empirical Exploration from First Large Scale Time Use Survey 2019
2. Human Capital, Institutional Quality and Economic Growth – The Mediating Effect of Digital Adoptions, Creative Outputs, and Total Factor Productivity
3. Growth of Non-Banking Financial Sector in India: Trend and Determinants
4. Comparative Analysis of Public Debt Sustainability in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
5. Health Shocks and Vulnerability to Poverty in India
6. Taxonomic Evaluation of Health Infrastructure and COVID-19 Situation in India with Special Reference to Haryana State