Article Small Tea Plantation and Its Impact on the Rural Landscape of Contemporary Assam International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) 140–161  2017 Institute of Rural Management SAGE Publications sagepub.in/home.nav DOI: 10.1177/0973005217725454 http://irm.sagepub.com Chandan Kumar Sharma1 Prarthana Barua2 Abstract The tea plantations in the Northeast Indian state of Assam, launched by the British colonial regime in the mid-nineteenth century, had considerably transformed the socio-economic profile of the state. Its impact on the state’s peasant economy, however, was enervating. Controlled by the British companies, the plantation sector saw few local planters, although a section of the Assamese peasants traditionally engaged in tea cultivation in their homestead on a small scale. After India’s independence, many Indian entrepreneurs entered the plantation sector largely because of the departure of the British planters. The Assamese entrepreneurs found it difficult to emulate this due to lack of capital. Since the 1970s, however, a significant section of the local small and middle peasants, as a part of a conscious drive, took to small tea plantation (STP). The last two decades have witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of such small planters, which has brought about a major change in the rural social landscape of Assam. Keywords BLF, government, STP, peasant, small growers Introduction Plantation economy which dominates the economies of many developing countries, mostly erstwhile colonies, historically has been recognized as a product of colonialism or an outgrowth of political colonization of the tropical areas by metropolitan 1 2 Professor, Department of Sociology, Tezpur University, Napaam, Assam, India. Guest Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Cotton University, Assam, India. Corresponding author: Chandan Kumar Sharma, Professor, Department of Sociology, Tezpur University, Assam 784028, India. E-mail: kumarsharma.chandan@gmail.com Sharma and Barua 141 countries of Europe (Beckford 1972). Despite the criticism for its historical role in perpetuating asymmetrical structures between the developed and the developing countries (Gunder Frank 1966; Prebisch 1972; Wallerstein 1974), plantation economy refuses to go away. In fact, in recent times in the developing societies like India, one witnesses the emergence of new forms of plantations of various cash crops at the expense of traditional crops. Historically, plantations always result in mono-cropping of cash crops for export which creates increased external dependency as well as food insecurity. Myrdal cites the work of Daniel and Alice Thorner on India who argue that in India food crops declined between 1893–94 and 1954–56, while commercial crop production increased and that the resulting increase in total crop production was barely sufficient to keep pace with population growth (Myrdal 1968, 448). Citing the historical examples of Malwar and Nilgiri region of South India, economist Raman (2010, 29) also contends that the bias towards cash crops results in decrease in the proportion of area under food crops and increase in external dependence. Areas under food crops in Nilgiri and Malwar declined from 39 and 75 per cent in the early 1890s to 21 and 60 per cent respectively in the late 1930s. The ultimate result was a shortage of food grains and dependence on external sources. Virginius Xaxa shows how the penetration of plantation agriculture turns out to be a bane rather than a boon for the people of North Bengal. He highlights the process of local people’s loss of access to land and forest products because of expansion of plantations. He argues that rather than the natural factors, the structural changes brought by the penetration of the capitalistic plantation agriculture are responsible for the state of underdevelopment in North Bengal (1985). Despite such experiences, one witnesses a new surge in the plantation agriculture in recent times where a mass of small (and middle) peasantry has taken up plantations as an economic venture almost throughout the developing world. Why plantation economy persists despite the pitfalls associated with it? What factor(s) propel the new individual planters, especially peasants, to take up plantations? What is the specific nature of the emerging STPs in terms of ownership, recruitment of labour and market dynamics and how they vary from the big estate plantations/gardens? What are the social consequences of the new plantations? and so on are questions that bear enquiry. The present study historicizes the growth of the newly emerging STPs in the Northeast Indian state of Assam, which has a history of tea plantations of nearly two centuries, and examines the impact of this fast-expanding sector on the social, economic and ecological landscapes of the contemporary rural Assam from a sociological perspective. Methods of Data Collection This article is based on an empirically grounded study conducted in the Biswanath district of Assam, which has high concentrations of STPs. Biswanath was a subdivision of the Sonitpur district until it was formally bifurcated in August 2016. Biswanath district today comprises of the erstwhile Biswanath and Gohpur 142 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) subdivisions of Sonitpur district. However, for many purposes, which include availing various data on the district, one invariably has to refer to it as a part of the Sonitpur district. The methodological orientation of the study is qualitative and it is based on both primary and secondary data. Primary data has been collected through fieldwork mainly at Behali but also at Biswanath Chariali. The fieldwork has been conducted in several phases during 2010–14 with a view to getting insights into the various aspects of the STPs at different stages of its cultivation. While personal observation has been the most important method of gathering primary data, the study also uses interview schedule and focus group discussion for collection of primary data from various strata of small tea growers and labourers. The samples have been chosen using purposive stratified random sampling technique. Interview schedule was also used for obtaining data from bought leaf factory (BLF) owners and Tea Board of India1 (TBI) officials. The respondents have been selected with the help of the data provided by the Sonitpur District Small Tea Growers’ Association. As the landholdings of the growers vary from less than one acre to more than 25 acres, we have divided the growers into five categories based on the size of their holdings. Data have been collected from a total of 150 growers with 30 growers from each category. It is to be noted that it is difficult to obtain the exact picture of distribution of the growers across all the five categories because every grower is not yet registered with the TBI. The present study also uses the data provided by the Behali Anchalik Small Tea Growers’ Association. We have adopted a bigger area for this study rather than concentrating on a single village. The reason for this was that no single village in the area represents various characteristics of STPs. No village, for example, has all the categories of growers mentioned earlier. Focusing on a single village would have anyway required looking beyond the village all the time for necessary data. For the collection of secondary data, the study uses books, journals, newspaper reports and official records of the Assam government, TBI and the Small Tea Growers’ Association of Assam. Tea Plantations in Assam Assam came under the British colonial rule in 1826. Prior to that, Assam was a semi-feudal society characterized by the pre-dominant presence of a barter economy with limited circulation of money (Guha 1991, 142). In 1823, indigenous tea plant was discovered in Assam and the British planters found in tea a new avenue of investment of capital and exploitation of resources. The establishment of the Assam Tea Company in 1839 and the rapid expansion of the acreage under tea brought about significant changes to the socio-economic life of the people, especially those of Upper Assam.2 It is to be noted that within a couple of decades of the beginning of plantation economy in Assam, a few Assamese entrepreneurs with roots in the traditional landed gentry class, also became successful tea planters. Sharma and Barua 143 Highlighting the contributions of tea in the economy of Assam, a scholar contends that the existence of a stable middle class in Upper Assam and the present-day infrastructure of Assam have been made possible by the tea industry. He contends, ‘tea is the only force of embourgeoisement in the economy of Assam’ (Saikia 2005, 182). Even the scholars critical of tea plantation industry in Assam have appreciated its positive contribution. Historian Amalendu Guha maintains that no other crop could have created an equal demand for development of transport and communication in Assam like tea and all developments in the state during 1840–59 centred round tea. The expenditure incurred by the planters lubricated the mechanism of transition from a predominantly natural economy to a cash economy during the period (Guha 1991, 160). However, as in most part of the world, in Assam too, the introduction of plantations was at the cost of traditional agriculture. The British colonialists launched the tea plantations in the state by reclaiming the existing forest lands which not only caused large-scale deforestation but also seriously affected the access of the villagers to the forest resources (see, e.g., Saikia 2011, 11; Sharma and Sarma 2014, 52). The local peasantry had to face serious socio-economic consequences of the tea plantation industry in terms of loss of agricultural land, common property resources, etc. They also had to bear the brunt of other related colonial measures such as unreasonable enhancement of land revenue, ban on cultivation and sale of opium, loss of the grazing fields and right of the tribal shifting cultivators on land for jhum (slash and burn) cultivation (Guha 1977, 9–17) to help the expansion of tea plantations. Most of the gross earnings of the plantations were incurred in heavy salaries, recruitment and transportation costs incurred outside Assam, and in the purchase of materials in Calcutta (Guha 1991, 161). The labour and supervisory services were almost entirely recruited from other Indian provinces (Guha 1977, 34–37). Although the local people earned income from the tea industries through the wages provided to its clerical and supervisory staff and the expenditure incurred by the non-indigenous staffs on locally produced goods (Guha 1991, 162), such benefits were not significant. Since its beginning, the tea industry remained almost exclusively in the hands of a few big companies, foreign or Indian. The number of Assamese planters has been rather limited due to lack of capital. As the minimum acreage for tea plantations was fixed at 100 acres, an entrepreneur with small capital could not venture into it. The idea of smallholdings on commercial basis was totally absent during that period. However, gradually a section of the Assamese small and middle peasants from the villages adjacent to the tea gardens started tea cultivation on their homestead on a very small scale. They sold the green leaves to the gardens. The Advent of STPs in Assam The concept of STPs globally came into existence in the 1950s when Kenya decided to produce tea for export. Since then, there has been a shift in tea cultivation from big to smallholdings (Hannan 2006). At present, the small growers are contributing significantly to the total tea production in all tea-producing countries of the world such as Sri Lanka, Kenya, China and Vietnam. 144 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) There is a background to the growth of STPs in India (and Assam). During 1985–90, the Indian tea industry was going through a crisis with a significant decline in production. As a result, there was an abnormal price rise and curtailment in the export of tea to prevent further price rise in the domestic market. Although the TBI blamed bad weather condition for this failure, the view is not convincing. For a sustained increase in production, it is of utmost importance to have young tea bushes. But Indian tea industry barely made any noteworthy investment in replenishing the old tea bushes or in replantation as per norms. By the end of the 1987, however, 44 per cent of the total area of tea plantations in India had old tea bushes. The TBI’s continuous effort to mobilize the old plantations for replenishment and expansion of the area under tea failed to yield any fruitful result (Bhowmik 1991). Along with the decline in production, the quality of tea was also degrading due to the existence of old tea bushes and indiscriminate use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. leading to the falling demand of the Indian tea in the international market. In order to negotiate this situation, the TBI launched a campaign promoting STPs with the objective of not only adding to the total quantum of production but also improving the quality of Indian tea. In the Eighth Five Year Plan (1992–97), the TBI emphasized the setting up of the STPs in the periphery of the estate plantations and providing various support to them by the latter, called the nucleus tea estates. These estates were supposed to pay each of its adopted growers a subsistence allowance of `400 per month for 36 months including other prerequisites such as fertilizers, weedicides and vitamins. In addition, there was a provision of 3 per cent subsidy on the interest of bank loan while TBI also provided a subsidy of `15,000. After making an estimate of the land available and suitable for tea plantations, the TBI encouraged the unemployed youths and the landless peasants to initiate tea cultivation in such lands (Bhowmik 1991). The expansion of small tea sector facilitated the tea industry to reap the benefit of supply of fresh tea leaves without making any new investment and passing the risk of crop failure or market downfall on to the small growers. Assam being the oldest and the largest tea producing state in India was hit hard by the crisis of Indian tea industry which happened, as mentioned earlier, mainly because of the lack of investment of capital by the estate plantations in replantation or in replenishing the old tea bushes over a long time. In such a situation, the growth of small tea sector contributed to the production of fresh tea leaves helping the estate plantations face the challenge arising out of the decline in quantity as well as quality of tea production. Over the last four decades, the STPs in Assam have received considerable momentum often referred to as a harbinger of a ‘green revolution’.3 Although Assamese peasants’ engagement with tea cultivation goes back to colonial times, as indicated earlier, its scale and practice was rather limited. However, gradually towards 1960s and 1970s, the estate plantations at local levels started encouraging the Assamese peasants to start STPs. Many of these estate plantations were owned by Indian planters (from outside Assam), who entered the tea sector following the gradual departure of the British planters after Indian Independence in 1947. Apparently, under such prodding, during the latter half of the 1970s, some middle peasants of the Golaghat district of upper Assam started tea plantations in their homesteads. In 1978, Assam’s Minister of Agriculture and Sharma and Barua 145 Cooperatives (who hailed from Golaghat) himself took initiative and encouraged the rural youths of the state to go for STPs (Bora 2008). The effect was positive and many rural youths in the upper and central Assam had taken to the cultivation small tea. This was followed by the big push of the TBI in the 1990s. Since then, the movement has grown considerably and the small tea sector today contributes nearly 29 per cent of the total tea production in the state (Das 2012, 5). Interestingly, discrepancies still exist regarding the very definition of the small tea growers. According to the TBI, a small grower is one whose total land under tea cultivation does not exceed 75 bighas4 (approximately 25 acres). However, the Government of Assam considers only those as small tea growers whose area under cultivation does not exceed 30 bighas (Borgohain 2008, 105). It has been found that there are large numbers of growers with more than the stipulated amount of land who tend to include themselves in the category of small tea growers. This helps them to avail the facilities provided by the TBI to the small tea growers and to escape from the provisions of Plantation Labour Act (PLA)5 which apply to the bigger plantations. It is to be noted that since the growers with more than 75 bighas of land do not come under the Assam government’s definition of small tea growers, they do not show their actual amount of land in order to receive the benefits of the government. Besides, the growers who are using the government grazing or forestland also do not receive any support from either the TBI or the government. The growers receive support only for plantations in such land on which the growers have land title records (patta). It is obvious that most of the small growers are green leaf producers who lack the necessary capital for producing processed tea. They have been mainly dependent on the estate plantations for selling their green leaves. The green tea leaves are perishable within a short period, which compels the growers to sell them soon after they are plucked. Therefore, they are never in a position to effectively negotiate the price of green leaves with the dilly-dallying tactics of the estate plantations (Sharma 2007). In such a situation, the idea of setting up of separate processing units to cater to the needs of the small growers gained ground around a decade back. It saw a section of the small plantation owners from the traditional rich landholding class who had accumulated capital through various business interests coming forward to set up tea processing factories, popularly known as BLFs. Subsequently, even a section of the highly successful small growers from the lower strata of the rural society also went on to set up BLFs on partnership basis. Recently, retired government servants, journalists, local businesspersons, etc. have also made investments in the small tea cultivation and BLFs. Over a period of three and half decades since 1978, more than 65,000 STPs have been established in Assam by the end of 2009.6 It is expected that the growth of small tea garden will give a boost to the state’s moribund economy in near future and solve its unemployment problem. Most of the small growers are engaged in plantations with their own capital. Initially, the growers start tea plantations in small areas according to their own capacity and then go for gradual expansion by reinvesting the profit accrued from their farms. The growers who are registered with the TBI also receive financial support. It is, however, found that most of the small growers with larger holdings are local landowners, contractors, politicians, traders, government officials and journalists (see Table 1). 146 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) Table 1. Occupational Background of the Growers 10–25 acres 8 11 1 5–10 acres 6 7 0 1–5 acres 7 8 Less than 1 acre 5 4 37 40 Total Total 3 Marginal Peasants Politicians 10 Mouzadar/Mahajan Government Employees 11 Unemployed Businesspersons 25 acres & above Journalists Categories of landholding Occupational Background of Growers 1 3 2 0 30 0 9 1 0 30 0 15 2 0 30 0 1 14 0 0 30 0 0 10 0 11 30 4 2 51 5 11 150 Source: Compiled by the authors. STPs in Biswanath District Biswanath district is situated in northern Assam between the river Brahmaputra and the Himalayan foothills of the state of Arunachal Pradesh. Its foothills region is considered most suitable for tea cultivation. STPs witnessed its beginning in the district in the mid-1990s with the initiative of some individuals who were influenced by the growers of upper Assam.7 At present, the rural landscape of the district, especially that of the Biswanath sub-division, is characterized by the presence of a large number of STPs (Figure 1). The Gohpur sub-division of the district also has many small tea growers. The erstwhile Sonitpur district has more than 6,500 growers covering an area of 1,297.63 hectares, out of which only 967 growers have registered with the TBI (Government of Assam, 2011). According to the TBI data from 2014, out of the 5,753 small growers in the district, most are located in the Biswanath sub-division.8 This also shows a huge jump in the number of registered growers in three years. While tea plantation occupies a significant amount of cultivable land in Biswanath district, the cultivation of rice still ranks first in terms of occupation of cultivable land. The production of rice, however, differs from place to place depending on the quality of land. Its production is quite higher in the areas under Gohpur sub-division than the areas under Biswanath Chariali and Behali which come under Biswanath sub-division due to the topographical differences between them. Many paddy fields of Biswanath Chariali and Behali are not sufficiently low to retain the rainwater, which is essential for wet rice cultivation. There is no irrigation facility and the farmers are entirely dependent on rainwater. However, due to the uncertainty of rainfall, farmers are always under the risk of crop failure. Sharma and Barua 147 Figure 1. Map of Erstwhile Sonitpur District showing Small Tea Plantation Areas. Source: Prepared by the authors using the software Arc GIS. Besides tea and rice, crops such as mustard, sugarcane, different varieties of vegetables and fruits are also grown in the district. However, the farmers rarely get proper price for their product. It is to be noted that while tea cultivation requires good rainfall, it also needs sloppy land, which does not hold water. The relatively high and sloppy landscape of Biswanath Chariali and Behali, including the rice fields as mentioned earlier, are ideal for tea plantations. Further, tea cultivation in the area is found to be more rewarding than rice cultivation. Small growers of Behali revealed that the average income from paddy cultivation per bigha of land is `2,800 against the average expenditure of `2,300. On the other hand, the average monthly maintenance cost for each bigha of tea plantation is `2,300 against the average income of `4,800. Thus, having witnessed the success of the handful of growers of Behali who started STPs during mid-1990s, many farmers in Behali and Biswanath Chariali started shifting to STP. However, there are also other pressing factors contributing to the growth of STPs in the area. A pioneer small tea planter from Biswanath Chariali recounted that initially he cultivated pineapples on commercial basis, but it became impossible for him to protect them from monkey raids, which was steadily on the rise in the area as in many other parts of Assam. Due to this, the people of his village could not even raise seasonal vegetables. This compelled him to replace pineapple cultivation with tea. After witnessing its benefits several other villagers also shifted to small tea.9 Villagers who turned into small growers often expressed that their familiarity with the technique of tea cultivation owing to the existence of nearby age-old estate plantations was an important factor that pushed them to small tea. 148 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) Similarly, the people of Behali have been under the onslaught of increasing elephant raids since 2003 during the harvest time (December–January), often completely ravaging the crops. Sugarcane cultivation which was once very popular in the area had to be abandoned by people because of regular elephant raids. It is worth noting that monkey and elephant raids are now rampant in many parts of Assam which is attributed to large-scale deforestation. In fact, the clearing up of large patches of existing forests for tea plantations since colonial times coupled with the subsequent rapid expansion of rice cultivation along with human settlement by reclaiming forestland are recognized as major factors contributing to the man–animal conflict in Assam (see Das, Lahkar and Talukdar 2012).10 The rapid expansion of STPs is therefore poised to further exacerbate the existing man–animal conflict. However, according to the growers, the comparative damage that tea plantations suffer due to animal raids is much less than the other crops mentioned earlier. Landholding Pattern and the Categories of Small Growers The agrarian class structure of Behali and Biswanath Chariali can be tentatively represented as follows: (a) non-cultivating landowners (above 25 acres), (b) semimiddle peasants (10–25 acres), (c) middle peasants (5–10 acres), (e) small peasants (2–5 acres), (f) marginal peasants (below 2 acres) and (g) landless wage labour. The marginal peasants also often work as wage labour. Except the landless peasants, all other categories of landholders have ventured into small plantations. The landholdings of the small tea growers in Behali and Biswanath Chariali vary from less than 1 acre to more than 25 acres (10.1 hectare) which is the upper limit to define a tea cultivator as a ‘small tea grower’ as per the TBI norms. Thus, according to our estimate, based on their holdings, the growers may be divided into the following categories: (a) growers having more than 25 acres, (b) 10–25 acres, (c) 5–10 acres, (d) 1–5 acres and (e) below 1 acre. In Behali, the distribution of the growers across different categories is as follows: (a) above 25 acres = 8 growers, (b) 10–25 acres = 12 growers, (c) 5–10 acres = 15 growers, (d) 1–5 acres = 171 and (e) below 1 acre = 143. It is evident that the growers having a plantation size of more than 25 acres in the area hail from stronger economic background, which includes not only the traditional big landowners but also doctors, engineers, government servants, journalists, politicians, traders, etc. who have invested in the small tea sector in recent years. While some of the non-cultivating landowners hail from the landowning class of the area, others hail from outside the area. They are often engaged in leasing in or buying land for tea cultivation. In case of the second category too, it is found that either at least one of the family members of the grower has a government job or they belong to the strata of middle peasants. The third category includes different strata of people ranging from government employees to small peasants possessing good amount of homestead land besides agricultural land. Sharma and Barua 149 They are now using the homestead land for tea cultivation. The growers belonging to the fourth and fifth categories are those who do not possess enough land for production of rice to support their families and hence opt for more profitable tea cultivation in the available land. The first three categories of growers, besides cultivating tea in their own land also lease in land. It has been observed that people from both the rich and the economically weaker sections lease out land to the emerging tea growers. Among the richer section who leases out includes those who do not have enough manpower in the family to take care of the initial stage of tea cultivation which demands considerable personal supervision. Another section which leases out includes families from the village which live outside. Sometimes, the aspiring small growers would also mortgage their wet rice land for suitable highland to start tea plantations. On the other hand, the people from the weaker sections lease out land as they lack the capital for tea cultivation.11 Considering the profitability of tea cultivation, they lease out land to the growers and often work as wage labourers in their own land. During the period of lease, they receive `1,500–2,000 per year from the leaseholder. Their objective is to subsequently become small tea growers after the completion of the lease period which generally ranges from 10 to 15 years. This not only spares them of the initial investment in plantations but also gets them a readymade plantation. The land available for tea cultivation in Biswanath district can be divided into three categories: agricultural land (both low and high land), forestland and grazing land. The agricultural land can be further divided into three types from the viewpoint of ownership rights: myadi,12 eksona13 and tauzi.14 Though the growers use the agricultural and homestead land for plantations, which mostly come under myadi land, they are also engaged in the usurpation of forest and grazing land for plantations in some areas with the growing scarcity of agricultural land. While most of the agricultural land is under individual ownership (own or leased in), some agricultural land (tauzi) besides the forest and the grazing lands belongs to the government. Therefore, it is clear that the entire amount of land that each small tea grower uses for plantations does not belong to him. Depending on his capacity to invest more labour and capital, he either leases in land or uses available forest or grazing land for plantations. It has been observed that an overwhelming section of the small tea growers in Behali and Biswanath Chariali belongs to small or marginal peasants whose plantation size is rather small (less than 2 acres). They manage their plantations either by family labour or by a combination of both family labour and hired labour. However, the small growers with bigger acreage of land invariably hail from the affluent section belonging to the area or outside as mentioned earlier. They mainly engage hired labour in their plantations. This category of growers, besides using its own land, also leases in and purchases land from the poor and marginal peasants for plantations. Further, a section of the government officials, politicians and businesspersons hailing from urban areas are also engaged in grabbing government land in the areas adjacent to forestland and inhabited mainly by the ex-tea garden labour and tribal communities. 150 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) Recruitment and Management of Labour There are mainly two types of activities in a tea plantation, namely, the activities related to maintenance and plucking and those related to processing. As small plantations do not have their own processing units, activities in such plantations are confined to plucking, pruning, cutting, spraying of pesticides and weedicides, etc. These activities require a steady supply of labour round the year. Unlike the estate plantations which have a distinctly hierarchical employee structure with different categories of employees (managers, supervisors, clerical staff, labourers, etc.), most of the STPs have only one category of employees, that is, the labourers. The growers themselves perform the task of a manager. However, the STPs exceeding 8 acres, generally engage two categories of employees, namely, one or two supervisors known as mahari and the labour.15 A mahari actually plays the role of a multitasker as a manager, field supervisor, accountant and sometimes even as a driver. Most of the smallholdings below 5 acres are invariably owned and managed by individual families. While the ex-tea garden labour community16 and the temporary additional workers of the adjacent estate plantations (known as faltoo labour) constitute the main labour force of STPs, the poor villagers of other communities are also gradually becoming part of the labour force of these plantations, especially in their subsidiary activities. One also finds the existence of a division of labour based on sex and age in the small plantations. It has been observed that the task such as spraying of medicine, pruning and cutting are usually performed by men while plucking is generally done by women. Women workers also perform activities such as manuring and cleaning of weeds. Again, children dominate much of the nursery-related work of STPs (more on this later). Depending on the availability of labour for STPs, its management varies from place to place. In places which suffer from labour scarcity, small tea growers offer various incentives to their workers during festival times to ascertain their availability. The shortage of labour happens due to the high concentration of growers. The ex-tea garden workers and the daily wage earners from the growers’ villages are barely enough to fulfil the demand of the growers during the peak season.17 Therefore, such growers become very much dependent on the temporary labour of the nearby estate plantations. After the beginning of STPs in Behali and Biswanath Chariali, ex-tea garden workers of the nearby areas thronged these places in search of work. However, with the rapid expansion of the STPs, the demand for labour also increased manifold. The situation has changed so much that the labourers at present hardly approach the growers for work. They rather demand transportation facility to the work sites from their doorsteps which the growers cannot refuse. Thus, the bargaining power of the labour in the small tea sector has definitely increased. The labour of the STPs can be divided into two categories: (a) permanent (who works throughout the year) and (b) temporary (who works during the plucking season). Each STP on average needs three temporary labours per acre. If the size of the plantation is more than 2.5 acres, along with a proportionate Sharma and Barua 151 increase in the number of temporary labour, such plantations also need two to three permanent labours. The category of permanent labourers can further be sub-divided into (a) resident and (b) non-resident labourers. The resident labourers are either from relatively distant estate plantations or villages of the ex-tea garden workers who demand accommodation from the growers. Most of the growers provide the resident labourers with housing (kucha house made of thatch and bamboo) and drinking water facilities but few are provided with toilet facilities. The growers are unwilling to spend more on the accommodation of the labourers because of their unstable nature. These labourers generally move out after every two to three years. It has been observed that a significant number of the temporary labour of the nearby estate plantations have become non-residential permanent workers in the STPs. Despite an increase in their income in the STPs, no significant changes have taken place in their socioeconomic conditions due to their wasteful expenditure on alcohol and gambling. In so far, as the wage and other facilities for the workers are concerned, the permanent workers and their family members of the estate plantations are entitled to medical facilities, free primary education, housing, rations at a subsidized rate, etc. apart from their wage and bonus during festival time. Many of these facilities are enshrined in the PLA, although most estate plantations fall far short of implementing these provisions. The aforementioned facilities are totally absent in the STPs as they do not come under PLA. Though there is a provision of bonus, it comes in both monetary and non-monetary forms and is paid from the amount already deducted from the wage of the labourers. The amount of bonus varies from `200–500 based on seniority and ‘sincerity’ of the labourers.18 Again, the daily wage rate of the labourers in estate plantations is legally uniform throughout Assam irrespective of gender. In 2016, the wage in the estate plantations was `126 which is much lower than the present minimum daily wage of `300 in Assam. However, the latter hovered around `180 in the rural areas. In case of the STPs, wages vary from place to place. Within Biswanath, this wage was `100–120 depending on the nature of work. The female labourers were also paid `10–20 less than their male counterparts. It may be noted that the daily wage of the agricultural labour was `150. Interestingly, despite the wage difference between the small and big plantations, the labourers from distant places come to work in the STPs. The women workers maintain that they prefer to work in the STPs because they find the behaviour of the small tea growers much better than the supervisors of the estate plantations. Unlike the latter, they can carry their children to STPs if necessary. The small growers never refuse to provide them lunch in case they come to work without it. Most of the growers also provide tea.19 A large number of children (below 14 years of age) also work in the STPs. Their work is mainly limited to the nursery, which generally takes place twice a year (October–November and March–April). For the production of saplings, it is necessary to fill small plastic bags with soil. They carry out this task and earn `100 per thousand bags. It may be mentioned that their wage is also increasing with the wage of other labourers. 152 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) It is striking that the permanent labourers of the estate plantations sometimes deregister their names from the labour roll during personal financial exigencies. They deregister from the garden to collect the money from the gratuity and provident fund for negotiating an immediate crisis. The deregistered labourers also lose the other facilities offered by the garden authorities. They then join STPs where there is no shortage of work due to the sector’s rapid growth. As small tea sector is an informal one, the labourers are free to join and leave work at their will. Besides, the labourers, especially the temporary labourers of the estate plantations who work in the STPs, maintain that it is better to work there because the owner is approachable for any kind of help. They appreciate the usual informal interaction that the small tea growers maintain with the labourers.20 However, it seems that the choice of the workers of the estate plantations to join STPs is more a testimony of their miserable living conditions in most of the estate plantations than any progressive working condition in the STPs. While it is true that the small growers are more approachable, this mainly has to do with the size of the STPs which facilitates direct interaction between the growers and the labourers. Besides, the growers’ high dependence on the labourers is also responsible for such ‘amicable’ relationship between them. Changing Rural Landscape The STPs have brought about significant changes, social and physical, to the Assamese rural landscape. The emerging land ownership pattern and recruitment of labour triggered by them have made considerable inroads into the existing agrarian social relations. It is clear that neither the small tea growers constitute a homogenous category nor all of them are peasants. The growers possessing a considerable amount of land are either white-collar professionals or they hail from the rural propertied class such as mouzadars21 and mahajans (moneylenders). A section of them has also invested in the BLFs on partnership basis who at present (2017) own all the existing nine and two under-construction BLFs under Biswanath district. The low price of green leaves is therefore not an issue with this section of the small growers (as the processing of the green leaves produced in their STPs takes place in the BLFs owned by them), which has been a serious problem for most of the small growers. It is to be noted that the STPs have created considerable self-employment opportunities in the area. Today, besides growing tea, a significant number of unemployed rural youths of the area are engaged in allied economic activities such as supply of fertilizers, transportation of tea leaves to the factories, production of saplings and so on. The STPs absorb the local daily wage earners and relatively bigger small growers also employ undergraduate youths as maharis. The income of the existing daily wage earners is also rising22 due to the new opportunities of work in the STPs. Besides working in the plantations during the daytime, some of them also earn extra by engaging in the transportation of the green leaves to factories after their daily routine work. Sharma and Barua 153 It bears mention that prior to the advent of the STPs in such a big scale, many women of the economically weaker families worked as daily wage earners during paddy transplantation and under various MGNREGA23 schemes. However, as these activities were seasonal in nature, they never had access to a continuous source of income throughout the year except as domestic helps. Many of these women have now become permanent labourers in the STPs and are earning more than before. A noteworthy section of the small tea growers in the areas under study with comparatively large acreage of land is leasing out their paddy fields to people, including landless wage earners, on share cropping (adhi) basis.24 This has happened because of the fact that as these growers begin plantations in the highlands—homestead as well as the landholdings away from their residence—they find it difficult to manage rice cultivation simultaneously. Interestingly, they maintain that it becomes increasingly difficult now to find even the landless people as sharecroppers as these people are finding relatively more remunerative and less strenuous alternative employment opportunities in the small tea sector. Although an agricultural daily wage labourer earns `150 against `120 earned by a labourer in the STPs, the choice is still for the latter. This is also because of the fact that while employment as agricultural labour is seasonal, the employment in the plantation sector is available round the year (even if the total absorption of labour may vary significantly at different times of the year). Thus, often the landowners are compelled to settle at amounts which are much less than the conventional 50 per cent of the crop which the sharecroppers pay to the former. In fact, the sharecroppers have now begun to pay only one-third of the product to the landowners. As an erstwhile daily wage earner who has now taken to sharecropping says, ‘if we take more land for sharecropping, we will be in deep trouble during the time of transplantation due to the scarcity of labour. Now people are willing more to work in STPs rather than rice cultivation.’25 It shows that even the sharecroppers who do not have enough family labour find it extremely hard to engage in rice cultivation. All these show, as mentioned earlier, that the bargaining power for the daily wage labourers has considerably increased with the coming of the STPs. However, along with the latter, the various propoor government schemes such as MGNREGA, mid-day meal at schools, and subsidized rice and housing to the poor families also have added to the bargaining strength of the poor landless people. One significant finding of the study is that the large-scale outmigration of the poor rural youths from Assam26 in recent times to various cities of India in search of livelihood has declined in the area with the inception of the STPs. In some cases, the families of the migrants invest the remittances from the latter to start plantations on their small family plots. When plantations attain maturity, the migrants return to their villages. It is to be noted that four persons from Behali and three from Biswanath Chariali who once migrated out to take up government jobs have returned to the area after retirement and have started tea plantations. One of them has started even a small tea-processing unit locally known as ‘micro-mini factory’ in Bihmari village in Behali. 154 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) Nevertheless, a section of the villagers also points out to the adverse consequences of the uninhibited growth of the STPs. Several farmers from the traditional cattle rearing Nepali community of Behali lamented that their livelihood is now facing threat due to the shrinkage in the available grazing land which has been indiscriminately encroached upon for tea plantations.27 Another erstwhile practice was to throw open agricultural land temporarily as common grazing land after harvest. As growers are converting the paddy fields to tea plantations, people today cannot use paddy fields during winter as grazing ground for their livestock leading to a decline in its number, which means decline in milk production. This has hit the Nepali community of the area hard for whom milk trade has been a major traditional source of livelihood. Table 2 shows that land under permanent pasture and other grazing land in the erstwhile Sonitpur district are steadily diminishing over the years. STPs have also led to considerable deforestation. Today, in the areas under Biswanath sub-division, as in other parts of Assam, the small growers, besides usurping forest and grazing land, are also uprooting the trees and the bamboo grooves of their homestead for tea cultivation. As a result, besides other implications, the price of bamboo is fast shooting up creating acute problem for the common villagers who use bamboo extensively for building their houses, making furniture and handicrafts, and in numerous other daily works. It is found that besides converting their paddy fields into tea plantations, a large section of the farmers has also abandoned the cultivation of different kinds of food crops such as wheat, sugarcane, mustard and varieties of vegetables. There is also a substantial decline in vegetable production in the area. For example, previously Batiamari under Behali made the bulk of the vegetable supply to the neighbouring Arunachal Pradesh. Now, the erstwhile vegetable supply has Table 2. Land under Permanent Pasture and Other Grazing Land (2000–11) Sl. No. Year 1 2000–01 11,902 2 2001–02 11,068 3 2002–03 10,736 4 2003–04 9,985 5 2004–05 7,289 6 2005–06 5,321 7 2006–07 5,054 8 2007–08 4,801 9 2008–09 4,561 10 2009–10 4,030 11 2010–11 3,500 Source: Agriculture Office, Sonitpur District. Land under permanent pastures and other grazing land (in hectares) Sharma and Barua 155 stopped and Batiamari has become the main supplier of tea saplings for the newly emerging tea plantations in Arunachal. Further, the STPs have also resulted in monoculture with adverse effects on the biodiversity. The overemphasis on the production of tea and the extensive use of fertilizer and pesticides in tea plantations have also pushed a large number of indigenous herbs including those with medicinal properties to the verge of extinction. Many villagers also lament that their paddy fields were once good breeding ground for fish. However, with the increasing takeover of nearby land for tea plantations and frequent use of pesticides and medicines therein, the rainwater contaminated with pesticides flowing from the plantations to the paddy fields has left the latter unsuitable for breeding of fish.28 While the advent of the STPs has raised the income and living standards of the people, it has brought about a series of damaging changes to the rural social milieu. Earlier the exchange of family labour during agriculture and various other activities was common among villagers. Now it is observed that during the peak season the relatively bigger growers of the village are not supportive of the very small growers when the latter face problem in selling their green leaves. Rather the former try to earn more profit by buying green leaves at lower price. A disquieting outcome of the expansion of STPs in the area, as mentioned earlier, is that they employ many children starting from eight years of age in various works. A retired primary school teacher and now a small tea grower himself from Behali rues about the declining interest of the children from the poor families in education because of this.29 These children though hail mostly from the ex-tea labour community, they also come from poor families of the Assamese, Bengali Muslim and Nepali communities. Their parents also encourage them to earn some extra money for the family. After contributing a portion of their income to the family, these children spend the rest of their income in buying clothes, toys, mobile phones, etc. They also indulge in tobacco products. The lure of extra money has increased the incidences of school dropouts among them turning them into unskilled wage labourers. Although many of them eventually become unskilled wage labour anyway, the recent high incidences of dropouts have not only cut short their school education thereby stifling all possibilities of a better future, this has also exposed them to adult habits and practices at a tender age. Thus, the monetary gains the STPs have bestowed on the poor have not come without attending pitfalls. Growers’ Problems The marketing of green leaves remains a major problem for the growers. Without their own processing units, the small tea growers are dependent either on the estate plantations or on the BLFs, both of which use various ways to keep the price of the green leaves low. While the cost of production is increasing rapidly, the price of green leaves has not risen proportionately. Table 3 shows the price fluctuation of green tea leaves over the last five years. 156 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) Table 3. Fluctuations of Price of Green Leaves During 2009–13 (in Rupees) Year March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2009 15.85 15.85 15.85 18.30 18.30 18.30 16.31 13.80 13.80 12.80 12.30 13.80 13.55 14.05 14.05 2010 15.80 15.80 15.80 15.80 16.25 16.25 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 2011 18.40 18.75 18.75 18.75 20.25 17.77 16 14.25 12 10.75 10.75 2012 17.75 18.75 19.75 21.75 19.75 19.75 18.75 17.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 2013 18.75 18.75 21.75 19.75 22.75 19.75 17.75 15.25 15.25 15.25 14.50 14 14 11 3 Source: Growers’ Diary (Behali Block). The declining price of green leaves has generated a lot of protest among the small growers of Assam. In October 2011, when all the estate plantations and BLFs brought down the price of green leaves to `3 per kg, as a mark of protest, the small growers in various parts of Assam had thrown away the green leaves on the roadsides along the national highways. Though the opening up of BLFs was thought to be the only solution for the successful marketing of tea leaves produced by the growers, it did not happen. That such a situation might emerge subsequently was already indicated by some commentators (Sharma 2007). The TBI rules30 fixed the price share ratio between the growers and the manufacturers at 65:35. Yet the BLFs have violated these rules ever since they were passed in 2003.31 In such a backdrop, some propose the idea of co-operative tea factory to give some relief to the problems of the growers. Bhowmik (1997) highlights the successful running of the co-operative factories of STPs in the Nilgiri region of South India preventing the emergence of any intermediary. However, in case of Assam, the growers of the relatively larger holdings are not only interested in co-operatives, they evidently put obstacles in such efforts. As they possess sufficient resources, their interest lies in opening up their own processing units on partnership basis. It is already mentioned that all the existing and the underconstruction BLFs in Biswanath district are under the joint ownership of relatively bigger growers and other wealthy people. These factories have not solved the problem of price fluctuation of green leaves. In fact, growers allege that some BLFs are in nexus with the neighbouring estate plantations to keep the price of green leaves down. However, the owners of BLFs maintain that the growers fail to maintain the quality of green leaves due to lack of technical know-how, which is why the processed tea the BLFs produce do not get good price in the auction market compelling them to keep the price of green leaves low.32 Sharma and Barua 157 Interestingly, a section of the bigger growers (with plantation size of 20 acres or more) never demands for an increase in the price of green leaves. Their silence stems from the fact that unlike the smaller growers they have their own vehicles to transport the green leaves to the BLFs for which they also receive attractive transportation charge from the factories. Besides their own, they also carry the leaves of other smaller growers, which significantly add to their income. The small tea growers are also plagued by labour shortage including absenteeism. It becomes acute generally in the post-festival days. To top it all, the small tea growers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the climate fluctuations in recent times. They are overwhelmingly dependent on the pre-monsoon rain after pruning of tea bushes in the month of December. While the bigger growers often arrange their private irrigation facility, few small growers can afford this resulting in poor yield. This is testified by the fact that the total absence of rainfall during the first three months of 2014 caused a significant fall in the quantum of tea leave production during that period in comparison to the same period in 2013. It is clear that while small tea growers as a whole face some generic problems, the small growers (with landholding below 5 acres) coming from small peasantry background without additional capital to invest in BLFs or without their own transport are most vulnerable to the fluctuations of the market price for green leaves. As already mentioned, this group constitutes the overwhelming majority of the small growers. Conclusion The present condition of the small tea growers clearly shows that they are under layers of dependency and they appear to have emerged merely as a class of dependent sub-contractors. They are dependent on a favourable climate for a proper yield and on the BLFs and the estate plantations for processing the green leaves. Further, all the growers and the owners of the BLFs are under the shadow of the multinational tea companies which control the tea market. The production of tea depends not only on demand for domestic consumption, its growth also depends on the export market. In order to retain the export demand for tea, it is critical to maintain its quality. Moreover, due to the rising health consciousness, especially among the upper-end consumers, there is an increasing demand for organic tea. However, the capital and the training required for meeting this demand is beyond the means of most of the small growers. It is true that the STPs have created new economic avenues and brought about significant changes to the rural landscape of Assam. A new affluent class has emerged and the income of various strata of the rural society is increasing. Although many marginal peasants are leasing out their land to the relatively bigger small planters and becoming wage labour in these plantations, their income has increased. This has prompted many growers to cultivate tea abandoning the cultivation of rice and other crops such as mustard, potato, sugarcane and green vegetables. The small tea sector is, however, facing a host of problems, the price fluctuation being the primary one, which has raised questions regarding its sustainability. 158 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) The Assam government and the TBI, despite occasional declarations, are playing a rather indifferent role in protecting the growers from the ongoing problems. They can take lessons from Sri Lanka in this regard. The Sri Lankan government formed Tea Small Holding Development Authority (TSHDA) in 1975 with the key objectives of supporting the STPs. Its support included protection of the smallholders in getting proper price for green leaves, provision of subsidized schemes for replanting, adoption of modern cultivation and harvesting technique, construction of leaf sheds, transportation of green leaves to the factory in good condition, and so on (Das 2012, 17; Hannan 2006). The STPs of Assam do not enjoy such support. In 2013, the Union Ministry of Commerce set up a directorate exclusively to look after the welfare of small tea growers which was to work under the aegis of the TBI. A batch of 39 technical officers joined the directorate.33 However, the growers are of the opinion that the directorate is not yet quite active. Question then arises as to why more and more small peasants, despite facing so many uncertainties, are joining the small tea sector. Indeed, it is natural for them to aspire for upward mobility and they feel that traditional agriculture cannot facilitate that. In the absence of any other viable alternative economic avenue in the area (this is true for many areas of Assam, which is testified by the outmigration of thousands of poor rural youths from the state), peasants are joining small tea sector, a sector which they are already familiar with. The examples of those small growers who have already done well have evidently encouraged them in this. Even if there is risk, the speculation of making profit combined with the relentless propaganda by the estate plantations, BLFs, TBI and media about the profit-making potential of the STPs, push the small peasants towards this sector. Further, those who have already invested in this sector are not in a position to withdraw from it as plantation is a long-term investment. Fortunately, until now one does not witness any serious case of indebtedness among the small growers. One factor, which has helped the small tea growers in Assam until now is the easy availability of land, namely, eksona and tauzi land (which are government land), beyond their own. The study finds that more than one-third of the small growers use forest and grazing land. However, occupation of such land is not without anxiety and despite the growers’ demand to the government to lease out such land to them, as is the practice with estate plantations, government has not acceded to this until now. It is evident from the study that unbridled growth of the STPs may spell serious damage to the rural social landscape of Assam. However, having witnessed its contributions to uplift the rural economy the need is to address the problems arising from it by formulating effective policies and setting up a regulatory authority. This also includes measures on innovation and research to ensure the viability and competitiveness of the small tea sector. Government can help the small growers to create BLFs on co-operative basis. Urgent intervention is necessary to address the negative implications of the STPs such as monoculture, land grabbing, deforestation and effects on children. Besides, as most of the growers replace rice and other food products with tea cultivation, it poses to create conditions of food insecurity in near future in Assam Sharma and Barua 159 given its tenuous transport connectivity with the rest of India on which it already depends for most of its food requirement. The expansion of STPs at the expense of food production is in all likelihood to perpetuate and exacerbate the existing conditions of the state’s dependency. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her comments. They also thank Professor Virginius Xaxa for his observations on an earlier draft of the article. Notes 1. TBI is a corporate body under the Government of India established under the Tea Act, 1953 to promote developments of tea industry. 2. The eastern parts of Assam. 3. Retrieved 5 January 2015 from http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp? id=sep0410/at032 4. Bigha is a traditional unit of land measurement used in Assam and other parts of India (1 bigha = 1/3.3 acre = 1/8 hectare (approximately). 5. In 1951, the Indian Parliament passed the Plantations Labour Act which sought to provide for the welfare of labour and to regulate the conditions of workers in plantations. 6. Retrieved 5 January 2015 from http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp? id=sep0410/at032 7. Dwijen Saikia of Biswanath Chariali, the President of Sonitpur District Small Tea Growers’ Association, was the first to step into this venture in the area. 8. Retrieved 14 December 2015 from http://www.teaboard.gov.in/pdf/Grower-DetailsReport-SONITPUR.pdf 9. Discussion with Dwijen Saikia and some others from Gorehagi village on 22 April 2013. 10. Retrieved 7 December 2016 from http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew. asp?id=nov2116/at053; Retrieved 19th August, 2015 from, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/a-mammoth-disaster-the-task-of-managing-wild-and-domestic-elephants/story-eWB851kNjk8FWX87pUHAUL.html 11. Although the capital required to start a STP depends on the quality of land, the average capital required for 1 bigha of plantation is `5,000 (approximately). 12. Permanently settled. 13. Yearly settled. 14. Government land under individual occupation in lieu of nominal rent to government. 15. Discussion with Kapil Homogain, a teacher, who possessed more than 35 acres of tea plantations on 22 October 2011. 16. The ex-tea garden labourers include the former labourers of tea gardens and their descendants. They are the descendants of the tribal communities such as Santhals, Orangs and Mundas who were brought to Assam from the Chota Nagpur region and other areas by the British since the latter half of the nineteenth century to work as labourers in the tea plantations of the state. These people later became permanent residents of Assam and came to be referred to as Tea Tribes. 17. The period between July and October when the tea bushes yield the maximum. 160 International Journal of Rural Management 13(2) 18. Discussion with L. Bharali on 10 March 2012. 19. Discussion with temporary female labourers of Ketla Tea Estate who also works in a STP of Batiamari village of Behali area, on 15 July 2013. 20. Discussion with the temporary labourers of Behali Tea Estate who also works in STP of Talengonia village of Behali Area on 15 July 2013. 21. A post of revenue official in charge of a revenue unit called mauza constituted of several revenue villages. 22. During 2010–11, this wage was in the range of `70–80 which has now, in 2016, increased to `100–120. 23. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 of the Government of India. 24. In Assam, the sharecroppers pay half of the raised crop to the landlord. 25. Discussion with Mona Bhuyan, a daily wage earner, from Niz-Behali on 22 December 2013. 26. Since the middle of the last decade, a large number of poor youths from rural Assam have migrated to other metropolitan centres of India in search of livelihood. They mostly find employment in the informal sector as security guards, restaurant workers, construction workers and factory workers. This outmigration is triggered by a number of factors such as flood, erosion, lack of irrigation and minimum support price for the produce which have adversely affected Assam’s agrarian economy. 27. Discussion with Dilip Chetry from village Sadhubasti on 18 December 2012. 28. Discussion with Santiram Homogain, Mohan Bhuyan, etc. from Rangsali Doloni on 11 June 2012. 29. Discussion with Upen Borah on 20 December 2014. 30. That is, the Tea Marketing Control Order. 31. Retrieved 21 February 2015 from http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp? id=oct2011/at094 32. Discussion with the owner of Biswanath BLF on 14 March 2014. A few other owners/ managers of BLFs also responded similarly. 33. Discussion with R.L. Baishya, a TBI official on 7 August 2014. References Beckford, G.L. 1972. Persistent Poverty and Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World. Barbados Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago: Oxford University Press. Bhowmik, S.K. 1991. ‘Small Growers to Prop Up Large Plantations’. Economic & Political Weekly, 26 (30): 1789–90. ———. 1997. ‘Participation and Control: Study of a Co-operative Tea Factory in the Nilgiris’. Economic & Political Weekly, 32 (39): 106–13. Bora, D. 2008. ‘Asamar Khudra Chah Kheti: Bhumi Aru Rajnoitik Arthanitir Prasanga’ (Small Tea Plantation in Assam: The Issues of Land and Political Economy). In Asamar Khudra Chah Kheti, edited by B. Saikia and P Hazarika, 51–76. North Lakhimpur: Undivided Lakhimpur District Small Tea Growers Association. Borgohain, J. 2008. ‘Khudra Chah Bagichar Itihas, Samasya aru Sambhabana’ (The History, Problems and Prospects of Small Tea Plantation). In Asamar Khudra Chah Kheti, edited by B. Saikia and P. Hazarika, 97–155. North Lakhimpur: Undivided Lakhimpur District Small Tea Growers’ Association. Das, J.P., B.P. Lahkar, and B.K. Talukdar. 2012. ‘Increasing Trend of Human Elephant Conflict in Golaghat District, Assam, India: Issues and Concerns’, Gajah 37: 34–37. Sharma and Barua 161 Das, K. 2012. How High is the Road? Structural Changes, Institutions and Well Being in Tea Plantations of South Asia. Heinrich-Bocking Street: Lambert Academic Publishing. Government of Assam. 2011. Statistical Handbook of Assam. Guwahati: Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Guha, A. 1977. Planter-Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam1826–1947. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House. ———. 1991. Medieval and Early Colonial Assam: Society, Polity, Economy. Calcutta, New Delhi: K.P. Bagchi and Company. Gunder Frank, A.1966. ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review 18 (4): 17–31. Hannan, A. 2006. ‘Employment Condition in the Small Tea Plantations and Their Impact on the Household Economy: A Case Study of Islamapur Sub-division of North-Bengal’. Unpublished PhD thesis. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University. Myrdal, G. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. England: Penguin Books. Prebisch, R. 1972. International Economics and Development. New York, NY: Academic Press. Raman, R. 2010. Global Capital and Peripheral Labour the History of Political Economy of the Plantation Workers in India. London and New York, NY: Routledge. Saikia, A. 2011. Forests and Ecological History of Assam. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Saikia, R. 2005. Social and Economic History of Assam (1853–1921). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors. Sharma, C.K. 2007. ‘The Small Tea Enterprise in Assam’, The Sentinel, 26 August, 1–2. Sharma, C.K., and I. Sarma. 2014. ‘Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam’, International Journal of Rural Management 10 (1): 47–68. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York and London: Academic Press. Xaxa, V. 1985. ‘Colonial Capitalism and Underdevelopment in North Bengal’, Economic & Political Weekly 20 (39): 1659–65.