This chapter addresses three primary concerns. First, whether political settlement in Gujarat has undergone a change since liberalisation. Second, the impact of ‘class’ interest on state apparatus with respect to agricultural policies and, because of such policies, if the existing proprietary classes have transformed themselves, remained unaffected, or have been replaced by new classes. Third, given that the state has been welcoming market forces, particularly under the Chief Minister Modi, whether the market's free play has curbed the state's role in agriculture. These questions have been addressed by assessing various aspects of Gujarat's agrarian policy after 2000, in addition to land acquisition policies. Simultaneously, an analysis of what these policies entail for different classes of farmers is developed alongside the other two proprietary classes – capitalist and petty bourgeoisie. This analysis is, thus, undertaken from two angles – classes’ influence on the state and the state's role in forming, altering, and consolidating classes. It is based on field research in Gujarat, conducted between October 2011 and January 2012.

The first section of the chapter offers a brief history of the state and outlines the changes in its economy in the past two decades. This is followed by sections presenting the fieldwork findings, in combination with a review of secondary literature. These sections first elaborate the main tenets of agricultural policy and the key factors behind the agricultural success of Gujarat, and then evaluate through a politico-economic lens, differential impact across classes and their fractions that have contributed to the agrarian success in Gujarat, particularly after 2000.

Brief Overview

Geographical divisions

The present state of Gujarat historically constituted of two parts: Saurashtra and mainland Gujarat. During the colonial period, Saurashtra was a feudatory state and constituted of 112 principalities, while the mainland was under the British rule. Baroda was an exception; it was situated in Gujarat but was ruled by an enlightened royalty reputed for its benevolence towards its subjects, contributing to the pursuit of education and arts among its population (Bakhle, 2005). Baroda merged with Gujarat in 1949. In 1960, the regional state of Bombay was divided into two states, Maharashtra and Gujarat. Thus, Gujarat gained independent statehood.

Overview

This chapter addresses three primary concerns. First, what kind of political settlement is operating in the newly formed state of Chhattisgarh. Second, the impact of (class) interest on state apparatus with respect to agricultural policies and, because of such policies, if the existing three proprietary classes have transformed themselves, remained unaffected, or have been replaced by new classes since the formation of the state. Third, in the era of liberalisation, has the market's free play transpired to retreat of the state from the sector of agriculture? Land acquisition policy and the political economy around it have been addressed as well. Simultaneously, implications of these policies on the different fractions of rich farmers and their means of accumulation alongside the other two dominant proprietary classes – industrial capitalist and petty bourgeoisie – have been developed.

Chhattisgarh was created under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. Its creation was more a decision of the national political parties than being driven by the struggle for regional autonomy under the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Berthet and Kumar, 2011; Tillin, 2013). The popular story is that the high proportion of tribal (adivasi) population, who had a claim to a separate state, was the basis for the formation of a separate state. The new state would make things favourable for the tribal population, who will be able to assert themselves more in the new political entity. This would turn development in their favour. However, arguably, this was not the only reason for the new state formation. The concentration of natural resources fostered the need to make the region into a political entity, so as to facilitate smoother economic access to the resources (Berthet and Kumar, 2011). The state has registered high incidence of food insecurity and low human development. What really has happened since to the political economy unfolds in the following sections.

This chapter aims to analyse Karnataka's political economy in the post-liberalisation phase. It explores the changes in the economy, particularly in the agricultural sector, and the way these have affected class formation and consolidation. It will examine the relationship between proprietary classes and the state to understand how the state allocates resources, such as land, water, and credit, and infer how the political settlement operates within the state. These questions have been addressed through a thorough literature review and fieldwork conducted in the state between February and July 2012. Although Karnataka has four agricultural universities that publish vast literature, these were of little pertinence for the study. This was primarily due to the technical nature, micro-view, and quantitative approach of these publications. Nonetheless, the information has been included, whenever appropriate. Karnataka is a diverse state, and patterns vary between the northern and southern districts; therefore, evidence from fieldwork is juxtaposed with existing literature to present a comprehensive and nuanced picture. North is less irrigated, has less capitalist agriculture, and has less commercial crops in comparison to south.

In line with the other field-based chapters, this chapter opens with a brief description of the state, and a discussion on the economy particularly sector growth rates, main sources of investment, and alignment of lobbies. It presents the trajectory of certain agrarian proprietary classes and links it to dominant castes, as the literature is mostly written along the parameter of caste. To make sense of proprietary classes after 1991, the scene prior, the 1970s and 1980s has been briefly discussed. This is followed by a brief discussion on three key features of Karnataka – corruption, farmer suicide, and decentralisation. These are relevant for explaining the field findings. Subsequently, political settlement and agrarian class formation and consolidation are reflected upon. Accumulation through diversification by fractions of rich farmers are highlighted along with that of the political leaders and state officials who have transformed into petty bourgeoisie. Field findings suggested that regional variations within the state are brought out. Comparative assessment of these findings with the other two states is attempted. Finally, the nature of the regional state as clientelist, playing a major role side by side the market, has been argued.