1. INTRODUCTION:

Agriculture contributesto remain the predominant sector of Indian economy in terms of employment and livelihood (Atibudhi, 2015). More than sixty per cent of rural male and fifty per cent of rural female in West Bengal are directly engaged in agriculture, even though its share in Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) has declined to 16.61 per cent (Kundu, 2018). During the last one and half decade, agriculture has been facing severe problem, the most serious being the rapid fall in the growth rate from 3.3 per cent during the period between 1980-81 and 1994-95 to around 02 per cent between 1995-96 and 2008-09 (Atibudhi, 2015). This has a serious implication on growth augmentation, farm income stabilization, and employment generation, conservation of natural resources, poverty alleviation and export promotion.

Due to this, wide spread of rural distress, leading to large number of suicides by the farmers in many parts of country (Maji et al., 2015). To overcome this stagnation, crop diversification has been one of the best option Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) policy supports crop diversification with the understanding that it may be an effective strategy for dealing with issues as varied as food and nutrition security, employment generation, sustainable agricultural development, environmental and ecological management, and poverty alleviation (FAO, 2012). Similarly, recent publications of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) have argued that growth in agricultural income will require diversification by farming households (Taffesse et al., 2011).

The term “diversification” has been derived from word “diverge” means to move or extend in the direction which is different from a common point (Jha et al., 2009). Agricultural Diversification can be described in terms of shift from regional dominance of one crop towards the production of large number of crops to meet the increasing demand of those crops (Atibudhi, 2015). Diversification can be horizontal or vertical. Horizontal diversification, in its simplest sense, implies the addition of new agricultural activities to an existing farming enterprise. While, Vertical diversification occurs when farming entities add value to existing produce through processing or packaging activities, merchandising, or regional branding efforts (Singh et al. 2014; Banerjee and Banerjee 2015; Hitayezu et al. 2016).

Assessing the trends and pattern of crop diversification is not straight forward. Agriculture has been gradually diversifying its crops in favour of high value commodities (HVCs) i.e., fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, and fish products during the last two decades.

Since 94 per cent of total landholdings are operated by marginal (80%) and small farmers (14%) and their income from crop cultivation as well as non-farm income is not enough to meet their subsistence level (Kundu, 2018; Atibudhi, 2015), the motive behind this study has been to explore empirically if poor farmers have been turning to crop diversification, that is shifting from low value agricultural output production to high-value agricultural output production as suggested in the literature (De and Chattopadhyay 2010; Dutta 2012).

In recent years however, the state economy showing the sign of higher growth and considerable reduction in poverty and different policy initiatives taken by the state government to increase the cultivation of high-value crops (HVCs), still diversification of agriculture is underway (Panda, 2015).

In view of above discussion, it’s very obvious that the crop diversification is necessary. The specific objective of the present study are i) to analyze the inter-temporal variation in cropping pattern of Murshidabad District in order to find out the extent of crop diversification in the district.

2. STUDY AREA:

Murshidabad District, an isosceles triangle with its apex pointing to North-west by its shape, is famous for its historical perspective located in the middle of West Bengal with head quarter at Berhampore.The district has total area of 5316.11 along with 254 Gram Panchayats, 26 blocks, 5 Sub-divisions and 7 Municipalities. River Padma flows throughthe eastern boundary of district, separating it from the districts of Malda of the West Bengal and Rajshahi District of Bangladesh. While, River Bhagirathi divides the district in two parts namely ‘Bagri’ on eastern side and ‘Rarh’ on western side. The climate of Murshidabad is characterized by hot summer, high humidity in rainy months and dry condition in winter. Demographically, the districthas a total population of 7, 103, 807 with a sex ratio of 958 and population density of 1334 as well as Literacy Rate is 66.6 per cent. The people of the Murshidabad are mainly engaged in agriculture and allied activities. The fertile alluvial soil yields rice, jute, oil seeds, wheat, barley as well as vegetables etc.

Fig 1. Location of the Study Area

3. ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH RELATED TO THE STUDY:

Lin (2011) pointed out that during the era of climate change, one rational and cost-effective method may be the implementation of increased crop diversification, can improve resilience, and provides economic benefits in a variety of ways: by engendering a greater ability to suppress pest outbreaks and dampen pathogen transmission as well as by buffering crop production from the effects of greater climate variability and extreme events. The study also fingerpointing topush for biotechnology strategies, and the belief that monocultures are more productive than diversified systems had been hindrances in promoting this strategy.

Uma et al. (2013) in their paper observedthat most of the marginal farmers were changing their cropping pattern to commercial crops so that they can work both in urban area and in their own land to a limited extent. The study also revealed that all marginal farmers are slowly depending on other sector for higher wages.

Dasgupta and Bhaumik (2014) examined the trends and pattern of diversification of crop sector in West Bengal during 1980-81 to 2009-10 and found that changes in cropping pattern in the state had been an emerging reality reflected through adoption of a diversified crop-mix by the farmers. The study also highlighted that agricultural growth in West Bengal varied positively with the level of crop diversification.

Khatun and Roy (2015) in theirstudy analyzed the nature and extent of crop diversification in West Bengal across livelihood groups in two districts i.e. Burdwan and Purulia. The study revealed that high volatility in prices, absence of market, and lack of access to technical knowledge, lack of irrigation facility, recurring drought, erratic rainfall, poor asset base, and lack of credit facilities are the major barrier of crop diversification.

Bhat et al. (2016) analyzed the extent and pace of diversification in different agro-climatic conditions across the districts of Jammu and Kashmir and found that temperate zonal districts show fairly higher level of diversification and subtropical and sub-temperate zonal district are the least diversified.

Basantaraya and Nancharaiah (2017) observed that average farm incomes from cultivation in highly diversified districts are significantly higher than moderately and least diversified districts of Odisha. They also explained medium and small farmers are those who are strongly engaged in process of diversification of agriculture. The study also found that higher the extent of irrigated land, lower is the extent of crop diversification.

Mohan (2017) explained the changes in cropping pattern in Andhra Pradesh at the state and regional levels for the period of 1969-71 to 2004-05 and found a complete shift towards the cultivation of pulses, fruits, vegetables, spices, drugs and narcotics and sugarcane. Changes had been found due to size of landholdings, mechanization, irrigation facilities, technological change and farmers’ improved access to institutional credit and access to market by road length.

Mithiya et al. (2018) found that crop diversification toward horticulture has positive and significant impact on farmers’ income and employment because horticulture production is more remunerative and labour-intensive, i.e., the gross return is much more in per hectare horticulture cultivation than that in cereals and pulses. Moreover, the horticulture cultivation will be well fitted in small farm production system.

4. DATABASE AND METHODOLOGY:

The study covers a period from 1990-91 to 2014-15 and entirely based on secondary data, collected from various government published sources viz. [1] Statistical Abstract of West Bengal [2] Economic Review [3] Directorate of Horticulture, Govt. of West Bengal [4] District Census Handbook Murshidabad, West Bengal [5] Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics, Govt. of West Bengal. In order to find the trends and pattern of crop diversification in the study area, the following statistical techniques have been used;

a] Karl Pearson Co-efficient of Variation has been used to show the variability in area, production and productivity of major crops of the district.

Co-efficient of Variation (CV) =

There are numerous indicators and indices to measure agricultural diversification and concentration. In this study, Herfindahl Index was used for crop concentration and Simpson Index was for crop diversification. These indices were used because of their computational simplicity, robustness and wider applicability.

b] Herfindahl Index: It is derived by taking the sum of the squares of the acreage proportion of each crop in the total cropped area. Mathematically, the index is given as

HI= Where =

N= Total number of crops

Pi = Area proportion of the ith crop in total cropped area.

This index takes a value one when there is complete concentration and approaches zero when diversification is perfect. Thus the Herfindahl Index is bounded by Zero and one.

c] Simpson Index of Diversification:

SID=1-= [1 – HI] where Pi = Proportionate area of the ith crop in the Gross Cropped Area. The index ranges between 0 and 1. If there is specialization then the index moves towards zero. In other words for = 1 there will be complete specialization.

The table 1 shows the distribution of area in different operational farm. This indicates that the areas under large and marginal farms were increasing while areas under small and medium farms weregradually decreasing during the study period. This is probably due to further fragmentation of small and medium farms resulted in increase in marginal farms and accretion of small and marginal farms by large farms holders.

The diversified nature of the crop mixes probably the consequence of the dominance of the small and marginal farm in the district. It also indicates that district of Murshidabad graduallygoing towards the diversification.

Table 2: Gross Cropped Area, Net Cropped Area and Cropping Intensity [1990-91 to 2014-15] (Area in Thousand Hectare)

Year	Gross Cropped Area	Net Cropped Area	Cropping Intensity
1990-91	675.47	365.09	185
2000-01	754.94(+654.94)	393.04	192(+92)
2010-11	866.92(+766.92)	395.96	219(+119)
2014-15	947.25(+847.25)	397.01	239(+139)

Source: 1) Statistical Abstract, WestBengal 2) Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics Office, Kolkata, Govt. of West Bengal

Note: The figure in parenthesis is Growth rate over the previous decade

Table 2 shows that there has been a significant increase in gross cropped area from 675.47 thousand hectare in 1990-91 to 947.25 thousand hectare in 2014-15, an increase of about 300 thousand hectare during the study period. Consequently, the cropping intensity was also augmented. It may be pointedout the fact that the gross cropped area and the cropping intensity increased in every ten years. This wholesome increase may be attributed to enhanced, better and assured irrigation facilities, multiple cropping as well as crop diversification.

Table 3: Variation in Area under different crops in the District of Murshidabad [1990-91to 2014-15]

Co-efficient of Variation of Area [in Per-Cent]
Crops	1990-01	2001-11	2011-15
Rice	31.76	21.44	13.33
Wheat	26.89	23.84	5.97
Other Cereals	55.34	42.43	47.14
Pulses	7.93	11.05	4.06
Oilseed	17.30	28.32	2.22
Jute	20.17	7.91	1.31
Potato	24.19	22.12	2.36
Sugarcane	Nil	11.78	17.32
Vegetables	Nil	26.33	2.16
Fruits	Nil	32.91	3.14

Source: Computed by Researchers using data derived from a) District Statistical Handbook, Murshidabad b) State Statistical Handbook, West Bengal c) Statistical Abstract, West Bengal

The above table shows that the coefficient of variation in area under various crops has declined gradually during the period from 1990-91 to 2014-15, which indicates that the process of cropping pattern changes was slow and halting. Rice and wheat, which accounted for more than 75 per cent of the total cropped area in1990-91, still claimed 75 per cent of area during 2014-15 (State Statistical Handbook, West Bengal). The variability in area under other cereals was quite high i.e.55.34 per cent in 1990-2000 but gradually decreasing into 47.14 per cent in the period of 2011-15. On the other hand, disparity in area of potato drastically decreased from 24.19 per cent in 1990-2000 to 2.36 per cent 2011-15, same happened with Vegetables and Fruits. Variability in area of only sugarcane is increased in 2011-15. The variability in the area of various crops in different decades reveal that an average variability has indeed declined during the period of 2014-15, as compared to the period of 1990-91(Table 3) which shows a trend towards either more spread or more concentration in their cropping patterns.

Table: 4. Variation in Production (Output) of different crops [1990-91 to 2014-15]

*Co-efficient of Variation of Production [In Per-Cent]*
*Crops*	*1990- 01*	*2001 – 11*	*2011 -15*
Rice	25.14	31.44	22.66
Wheat	51.21	18.66	3.40
Other Cereals	68.69	114.90	52.42
Pulses	43.96	14.70	12.80
Oilseed	12.49	30.95	7.27
Jute	22.50	14.72	3.65
Potato	46.70	37.51	4.55
Sugarcane	Nil	3.67	17.13
Vegetables	Nil	25.06	4.72
Fruits	Nil	48.63	4.97

Source: Computed from a) District Statistical Handbook, Murshidabad, b) Statistical Abstract, West Bengal c) State Statistical Handbook.

Table 4, reveals that variability in production of rice slightly decreased from 25.14 per cent in 1990-2000 to 22.66 per cent in 2011-15 as well as variability in the production wheat tremendously decreased from 51.21 per cent in 1990-2000 to 3.40 per cent in 2011-15. But in case of other cereals, disparity in production was quite high i.e. 68.69 per cent in 1990-2000 but drastically decreased into 52.42 per cent in 2011-15. Same deceleration happened with pulse, oilseed, jute, potato, but in the case of sugarcane, disparity increased into 17.13 per cent in 2011-15. In the case of fruits and vegetables disparity also decreased due to more spread or more concentration in their pattern.

Table 5: Variation in the Yield of Different Crops [2000-01to 2014-15]

*Crops*	*Yield (Kg/Hec)*			*Co-efficient of variation of yield [in per cent]*
*Crops*	*2000-01*	*2010-11*	*2014-15*	*2001-10*	*2011-15*
Rice	2446	2833	3240	10.37	9.48
Wheat	2756	2971	2864	5.31	2.59
Other Cereals	2892	6070	6445	50.15	4.24
Pulses	951	900	1021	3.90	8.91
Oilseed	1014	1055	1132	2.80	4.98
Jute	13.49	14.86	14.38	6.83	2.32
Potato	24094	30040	33349	15.53	7.38
Sugarcane	65200	72023	73155	7.03	1.10

Source: Computed by researchers by using the data obtained from a) Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal b) Statistical Abstract of West Bengal

Inter temporal variation in yield of different crops has been measured in terms of the co-efficient of variation. It is observed from (Table 5) that in case of Rice, disparity decreased from 10.37 per cent in 2001-2010 to 9.48 per cent in 2011-2015. Wheat also decreased from 5.31 per cent in 2001-2010 to 2.59 per cent in 2011-2015. But in case of other cereals, disparity decreased in a drastic rate from 50.15 per cent in 2001-2010 to 4.24 per cent in 2011-2015. Variation in yield of pulses increased from 3.90 per cent 2001-2010 to 8.91 per cent in 2011-2015. In the case of oilseed, acceleration in yield was noticed from 2.80 per cent in 2001-2010 to 4.98 per cent in 2011-2015. In the case of jute, potatoand sugarcane significant decrease in yield disparity was noticed from 2001-2010 to 2011-2015.It might be possible that inter-temporal variation in the yield level of the principal crops cause variation in the extent of diversification of Murshidabad District.

Table 6: Extent of Diversification [1990-91 to 2014-15]

Index of Diversification	1990-91	2000-01	2010-11	2014-15
Herfindahl Index [HI]	0.334	0.192	0.205	0.223
Simpson Index [SID]	0.665	0.807	0.794	0.776

Source: Computed from data obtained from a) District Census Handbook, Murshidabad b) Statistical Abstract, West Bengal c) State Statistical Abstract, West Bengal d) Directorate of Horticulture, and Govt. of West Bengal.

It clearly emerged from the above tablethat the extent of diversification in Murshidabad District has uneven trends, it’s not constantly increasing. Higher the value of HI, higher will be specialization and lower value of HI will signify diversification. In the above table, value of Herfindahl index decreased from 0.334 in 1990-91 to 0.192 in 2000-01. Again it increased from 0.205 in 2010-11 to 0.223 in 2014-15.

Value of SID increased from 0.665 in 1990-91to 0.807 in 2000-01 then pace got slackened after 2000-01. In 2010-11 and 2014-15 the limit of SID was 0.794 and 0.776 respectively. Thereby a higher value of Simpson indices implies more diversification and low value implies lesser diversification. The analysis suggests that the district is going towards the diversification.

6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION:

From the above analysis, it is clear that the district of Murshidabad overall shows a high level of diversification as measured by these indices but the process as analyzed on time series basis is somewhat stagnant. The pace of diversification has almost come to halt during (2000-01 – 2010-11). Moreover, the degree of diversification is not evenly distributed over the district.

This might be because of the fact that even though the district has achieved its self-sufficiency in staple food and the emphasis is still focused towards increasing production of rice and wheat only. Lack of technological know-how, inadequate knowledge about the use of modern machineries, chemical inputs and how to get a remunerative price are obvious constrain for farmers as far as change in cropping pattern is concerned. It is therefore necessary to provide proper financial assistance, MGNREGA cardand training on the part of the government to spread knowledge of land management and farm practices. This will not only help the farmers to earn higher income, it will also open up opportunities of marketability and widened the export market resulting thereby creating more income and creating employment.

7. REFERENCES:

1. Chand, R. (1996), “Diversification Through High Value Crops in Western Himalayan Region: Evidence from Himachal Pradesh,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 41, No 4, pp 52–63

2. Ryan, J. G. and Spencer, D.C. (2001), “Future Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural R & D in the Semi-arid Tropics”, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics

3. Joshi, P. K, Birthal, P.S. and Minot, N. (2006), “Sources of Agricultural Growth in India: Role of Diversification Towards High Value Crops,” Discussion Paper No 98, Markets Trade and Institutions Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

4. Bhattacharyya, R. (2008), “Crop Diversification: A Search for an Alternative Income of the Farmers in the State of West Bengal in India”. International Conference on Applied Economics, pp. 83-94

5. Jha, B.N. Kumar, Mohanty, B (2009), “Pattern of Agricultural Diversification in India”, Institute of Economic Growth, Working Paper No. E/302/2009

6. De, U K and M. Chattopadhyay (2010), “Crop Diversification by Poor Peasants and Role of Infrastructure: Evidence from West Bengal,” Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 2, No 10, pp. 340–50

7. Brenda B. Lin (2011), “Resilience in Agriculture Through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change” Bioscience, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp.: 183-193

8. FAO (2012), “Crop Diversification for Sustainable Diets and Nutrition: The Role of FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division”, Technical Report. Rome: Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

9. Dutta, S (2012), “A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Crop Diversification in Hooghly District, West Bengal,” Geo-Analyst, Vol. 2, No 1

10. Uma, H. R., Madhu, G. R. and Pushpa N.K., (2013), “Changing Cropping Pattern: A Boon or a Bane to Food Security”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention Vol. 2, Issue 8, pp.07-11

11. Singha, C and Sarkar, D(2014),“Occupational Diversification of Muslim Livelihood: A Case Study in Murshidabad District, West Bengal”, Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(5B):694-700

12. Singh, N.P., Bantilan, C and Byjesh, K. (2014), “Vulnerability and Policy Relevance to Drought in the Semi-Arid Tropics of Asia – A Retrospective Analysis”, Weather and Climate Extremes. 3, 54–61

13. Dasgupta, S and Bhaumik, S.K.(2014),“Crop Diversification and Agricultural Growth in West Bengal”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.69, No.1, pp.107-124

14. Banerjee, G. D., and Banerjee, S. (2015),“Crop Diversification: An Exploratory Analysis” in M. Ghosh, D. Sarkar, and C. Roy (eds.), Diversification of Agriculture in Eastern India, India Studies in Business and Economics,New Delhi: Springer, pp. 37–57

15. Atibudhi, H.N(2015),“Pattern of Agricultural Diversification in Odisha” in M. Ghosh, D. Sarkar and B. C Roy(eds.), Diversification of Agriculture in Eastern India, India Studies in Business and Economics,New Delhi: Springer,pp.69-77

16. State Domestic Product and District Domestic Product West Bengal 2013–14, BAES, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata

17. Agricultural Census Report 2010–11 West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department and Evaluation Wing, Directorate of Agriculture, Kolkata

18. S. Maji et al.(2015) ,“A Study on the Extent of Crop Diversification in West Bengal” in M. Ghosh, D. Sarkar, B. C. Roy(eds.), Diversification of Agriculture in Eastern India, India Studies in Business and Economics, New Delhi: Springer,pp.79-87.

19. Panda, R.K (2015) ,“Trend and Pattern of Crop Diversification in Odisha” in M. Ghosh, D. Sarkar, B. C. Roy (eds.), Diversification of Agriculture in Eastern India, India Studies in Business and Economics,New Delhi: Springer,pp.59-67

20. Khatun, D and Roy, B.C(2015), “Crop Diversification in West Bengal: Nature and Constraints”, in M. Ghosh, D. Sarkar, B. C. Roy(eds.), Diversification of Agriculture in Eastern India, India Studies in Business and Economics, New Delhi: Springer,pp.141-153

21. Bhat, M.H, Salam, M.A. (2016), “An Assessment of Nature and Extent of Crop Diversification across Agro-Climatic Zones of Jammu and Kashmir: Spatial and Temporal Analysis”, IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science Vol.9, Issue 11, Vol.I , pp.33-40

22. Mohan, G(2017), “Determinants of Cropping Pattern Changes in Andhra Pradesh, India”, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology, 20(3):pp. 1-15,

23. Basantaraya, A.K. and G. Nancharaiahb, G., (2017),“Relationship Between Crop Diversification and Farm Income in Odisha - An Empirical Analysis”, Agricultural Economics Research Review,Vol.30, pp 45-58

24. Kundu, R.K.(2018), “Spatio-Temporal Variations of Crop Diversification: A Block Level Study in West Bengal”,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.53, Issue No. 21

25. Mithiya, D. Mandal ,K. and Bandyopadhyay, S(2018), “Diversification Towards Horticulture as a Source of Income and Employment: A Case Study of West Bengal”,International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 10, Issue No.7, pp.71996-72004

Received on 29.02.2020 Modified on 27.03.2020

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(2):133-138.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00022.4

Size classes	1996-97	2000-01	2005-06	2010-11
Marginal (below 1.0)	166.6(50.67)	212.2(57.03)	213.7(57.67)	235.49(60.93)
Small (1.0-1.99)	146.0 (44.41)	144.1(38.73)	146.56(39.55)	146.16(37.82)
Medium (4.0- 9.99)	16.18 (4.92)	15.6(4.19)	10.25(2.77)	4.51(1.17)
Large (10.0 & above)	0 (0.0)	0.15(0.05)	0.05(0.01)	0.34(0.08)
Total	328.78 (100)	372.05(100)	370.56(100)	386.5(100)