39

CHAPTER III
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS
AND WORKERS IN SAMPLED VILLAGES IN PUNJAB
Punjab has been the heartland of green revolution in India. Both in terms of
agriculture sector's share in state GDP and in total workforce, it still remains
predominantly a rural and an agrarian economy. However, over the period of time,
Punjab economy has witnessed a structural change in favour of non-agricultural
sectors. The share of agriculture in state's GDP and that of agricultural workforce in
total workforce has gone down substantially during the last three decades. These
structural changes are broadly in tune with long-term dynamics of growth of the
agrarian economies as hypothesized by Kuznets (1965) and Kaldor (1967). However,
income diversification is more pronounced than occupational diversification in the
state. The ever shrinking employment elasticity of agriculture and its decelerating
growth have substantially reduced the labour absorptive capacity of agriculture in the
state. Besides, even the existing workforce in agriculture is not able to find adequate
amount of work in this sector. As such, the rural non-farm sector is trying to absorb
the incremental labour force and surplus workforce in Punjab agriculture.
Rural non-farm sector has grown significantly in Punjab. The NSSO data
show that percentage share of rural male workers engaged in non-farm pursuits
increased from 20.7 per cent in 1972-73 to 36.2 per cent in 1999-2000. It has been
found that on a usual status (ps+ss) basis rural non-farm male workers in the state of
Punjab grew at a rate of 3.47 per cent during 1972-73 to 1977-78, at 2.62 per cent
during 1977-78 to 1983, at 7.58 per cent during 1983 to 1987-88. During the decade
of 1990s, the growth rate of RNF workers decelerated significantly. Specifically, it
grew at a rate of 1.85 per cent per annum during 1987-88 to 1993-94, picking up
slightly to 2.81 per cent during 1993-94 to 1999-2000. The engagement of 36.2 per
cent of rural male workers in various non-farm activities has placed the state of
Punjab in the category of states of India having a relatively high share of rural nonfarm employment. However, share of female rural non-farm workers in total female
rural workers came down from 33.2 per cent in 1972-73 to 7.2 per cent in 1993-94.

40
Even as late as 1999-2000, only 9.4 per cent of rural female workers were in non-farm
employment (Bhaumik, 2002).
Bhalla and Chadha (1983) and Chadha (1986) show how a dynamic
agricultural sector in Punjab is capable of generating a host of non-farm activities in
rural areas and involvement in them tends to improve the distribution of rural
incomes. Simmons and Supri (1995) found that more than 30 per cent of rural
workers were in non-farming activities. A study by Chahal et al. (1995) also found
that 38 per cent of rural workers were engaged in various non-farm activities. Census
2001 data shows the increasing tendency of rural workers in the state to seek
employment outside agriculture. If one takes the livestock and other agricultural
related activities as a component of rural non-farm sector as suggested by Saith
(1992) and Papola and Sharma (2005)), then the dependence of rural main workers on
non-farm endeavours increased from 26 per cent in 1991 to 46 per cent in 2001.
Such a huge increase in a period of 10 years has been a matter of much
discussion and debate. Ghuman et al. (2002) found only 6.7 per cent of rural male
workers in non-farm activities. Not even a single female worker in these activities was
reported by the study. Besides, more than 90 per cent of the self-employed workers in
RNFS were found to be engaged in petty activities with a low level of earnings. Sidhu
and Toor (2002) and Rangi, et al (2002) analyzed various other aspects of rural nonfarm economy in Punjab. Ghuman (2005) found that only around 16 per cent of rural
main workers were engaged in non-farm occupations. The study concluded that the
informal, private activities in RNFS could not generate employment with reasonable
level of earnings so as to equate with incomes earned from cultivation by marginal
and small farmers. Notwithstanding the results of these micro studies, the fact remains
that NSSO (2000) and Census 2001 data point towards increased reliance of rural
workers in Punjab on non-agricultural occupations and by 2004-05, 46 per cent of
usually working rural persons in the state were employed in these occupations
(NSSO, 2006).
3.1 Distribution of sampled households and workers
The census survey of sampled 24 villages found that there were 8118
households. Out of these, 4781 households (58.89 per cent) were such in which at
least one worker was engaged in non-farm activities on, more or less, yearly basis.

41
The study has defined these households as rural non-farm (RNF) households. Only
41.11 per cent of households were purely dependent on agriculture and allied
activities for livelihood (Table 3.1). However, there is a wide variation in the levels of
engagement of rural households in non-farm occupations across the length and
breadth of the state (Annexure 3.1).
Table 3.1: Zone-wise distribution of farm and non-farm households
Name of zone
Type of households
Non-farm
Farm
Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
Total

2013
(65.61)
1403
(64.42)
1365
(47.53)
4781
(58.89)

1055
(34.39)
775
(35.58)
1507
(52.47)
3337
(41.11)

Total
3068
(100.00)
2178
(100.00)
2872
(100.00)
8118
(100.00)

Note:

Figures in brackets denote percentage; Zone I developed zone, Zone II - moderately

developed, and Zone III least developed.
Source: Field Survey.

Table 3.1 shows that the percentage of households which are dependent purely
on agriculture and/or allied (to agriculture) activities is the least in the villages falling
in the developed zone I. As one moves from the moderately developed to the least
developed villages, this dependency increases significantly. It means that the overall
economic and social development of the villages has a significant role in the
development of RNF activities in the villages. The pattern is also reflected by the
village-wise data (Annexure 3.1). This finding goes contrary to the assertions made by
many studies that it is the operation of push factors which is mainly responsible for
emergence and development of RNF activities (Vaidyanathan, 1986; Simmons and
Supri, 1997; Ghuman et al., 2002; Sidhu et al., 2002).
In all 24 studied villages, there were 14768 main workers. Out of them 7660
(51.87 per cent) were those who were principally employed in non-farm activities.
This indeed is an interesting finding. In rural Punjab of today, agriculture and/or allied
activities are not the principal employers of rural workers rather they have come to
play a second fiddle to non-farm pursuits. The dependence of rural workers on nonfarm activities is not the same every where. It varies from a low of 20.86 per cent in
village Badalgarh of Andana block (the same village in which there were maximum

42
households purely dependent on agriculture) to as high as 91.32 per cent in a hilly and
rain-fed village (Beh Nangal) of Hoshiarpur district of the state (Annexure 3.2).
It is interesting to examine if there is any pattern in the share of non-farm
workers among total workers across the villages with respect to socio-economic
development process. Table 3.2 shows that in Zone I which consists of villages taken
from the comparatively developed blocks of the state, 58.55 per cent of total workers
were engaged in various non-farm pursuits and less than 42 per cent of workers were
in agriculture and /or allied activities. In Zone II, which is moderately developed
region, the share of non-farm workers was 57.87 per cent. But in the Zone III, which
consists of villages falling in the least developed blocks of the state, the share of rural
non-farm workers is only 39.78 per cent. Here, more than 60 per cent of rural main
workers are engaged in farming. Thus, the data establish that development processes
at the village level have very important role to play in the emergence and sustenance
of non-farm activities at the village level.
Table 3.2: Zone-wise distribution of farm and non-farm workers (main workers) in
three zones
Category of workers
Zones
RNF
Pure farm
Total
Zone I
3340
2365
5705
(58.55)
(41.45)
(100.00)
Zone II
2286
1664
3950
(57.87)
(42.13)
(100.00)
Zone III
2034
3079
5113
(39.78)
(60.22)
(100.00)
All Zones
7660
7108
14768
(100.00)
(51.87)
(48.13)
Note: Figures in brackets denote percentage.
Source: Field Survey.

3.2 RNF households and land holdings

Of all the households in sampled villages which participated in RNF activities
almost three-fourth (74.98 per cent) were landless (Table 3.3). Another 10.27 per cent
had land less than 2.5 acres. Another 5.67 per cent more were from small land holding
families. Thus, almost 91 per cent of all the rural households who chose to join RNF
belong to the resource-poor households, i.e., landless, marginal and small land
holders. A little more than 5 per cent of RNF households were having semi-medium

43
holdings. Almost 4 per cent were operating 10 or more acres of land. These large land
holders are expected to join RNF as a strategy of accumulation.
It is also clear from Table 3.3 that as one moves up the land holding ladder,
the proportion of households dependent upon rural non-farm employment declines,
but the percentage of households who depend purely on agriculture increases with the
land holding. Of landless households, more than 70 per cent are in RNF sector (not
shown in this Table). For the marginal and small households, the percentage shares
are 55.42 and 40.57 respectively. Of the medium and large land holding size classes,
only 27.63 per cent and 25.44 per cent participate in non-farm activities.
Table 3.3: Rural non-farm and farm households and land holding in sampled villages
Land
RNF Households
Agricultural households
Total households
holding size
Number
% share*
Number
% share*
Number
% share*
class
Landless
3585
74.98
1491
44.68
5076
62.53
Marginal
491
10.27
395
11.84
886
10.91
Small
271
5.67
397
11.90
668
8.23
Semi245
5.12
550
16.48
795
9.79
Medium
Medium
160
3.35
419
12.56
579
7.13
Large
29
0.61
85
2.55
114
1.40
Total
4781
100.00
3337
100.00
8118
100.00
Note: * denotes percentage of total households in each land holding size class.
Marginal: up to 1 hectare; Small: >1 hectare, but <= 2 hectares; Semi-medium: >2 hectares,
but <= 4 hectares; medium: > 4, but <= 10 hectares; Large: >10 hectares
Source: Field Survey.

Table 3.4: Rural non-farm households and land holding in three zones
Land holding size
Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
class
1600
1014
971
Landless
(79.48)
(72.27)
(71.14)
132
183
176
Marginal
(6.56)
(13.04)
(12.89)
92
92
87
Small
(4.57)
(6.56)
(6.37)
102
76
67
Semi-Medium
(5.07)
(5.42)
(4.91)
74
31
55
Medium
(3.68)
(2.21)
(4.03)
13
7
9
Large
(0.65)
(0.50)
(0.66)
2013
1403
1365
Total
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note: Figures in bracket indicate percentage share.
Source: Field Survey.

All Zones
3585
(74.98)
491
(10.27)
271
(5.67)
245
(5.12)
160
(3.35)
29
(0.61)
4781
(100.00)

44

The land holding pattern is discernable in all the three zones. This is clear
from Table 3.4. This inverse relationship between land holding size and participation
in RNF activities is said to have significant equity implications (Anderson and
Leiserson, 1980). The inverse relationship of land holding and household participation
in rural non-farm activities is seen in all the three zones.
3.3 RNF workers and their land holdings
Table 3.5 reveals that it is the landless workers which are highly represented in
rural non-farm workers. Of all 7660 RNF workers in the studied villages, nearly 76
per cent are landless workers. Further, only 38.37 per cent of agricultural workers
belong to this class. It can be inferred that due to various reasons, to which the study
will come shortly, more and more of rural workers in the poorest land holding class or
zero land holding class are joining the RNF sector. By including the workers from the
marginal and sub-marginal land holdings, one finds that of all RNF workers in the
study villages, 86.32 per cent belong to the class of landless and marginal land
holders. In the land holding class of small operators, only 5.34 per cent of RNF
workers are there, but this class contributes 13 per cent towards agricultural workers
in the study villages. On the other hand, 49.85 per cent of agricultural workers belong
to the landless and marginal farmers' households. At the higher rung of land holdings,
only 3.74 per cent of RNF workers belong to the land holding class of more than 10
acres, whereas in agricultural employment, this class contributes almost 19 per cent.
Thus, it is the class of landless, marginal and small land holders which contribute
towards the emerging of rural non-farm sectors in the state. The data conclusively
establish the pattern of an inverse relationship between land holding and percentage
share of RNF workers.
The zone-wise distribution of RNF workers into landless and land-owned also
shows that a very high proportion of them belonged to landless households (Table
3.6). The proportion of marginal and small land holding class in RNF workers is
higher in the moderately and least developed zones (zone 2 and 3). In other land
holding classes, there is no significant difference as far as their participation in RNF
employment is concerned.

45
Table 3.5: Land holding, RNF and farm workers in the sampled villages
Land
RNF Workers
Agriculture Workers
Total Workers
holding size
Number % share*
Number
% share* Number % share*
class
Landless
5814
75.90
2727
38.37
8541
57.83
Marginal
798
10.42
816
11.48
1614
10.93
Small
409
5.34
925
13.01
1334
9.03
Semi352
4.60
1291
18.16
1643
11.13
Medium
Medium
243
3.17
1097
15.43
1340
9.07
Large
44
0.57
252
3.55
296
2.00
Total
7660
100.00
7108
100.00
14768
100.00
Note: * denotes percentage of total workers in each land holding size class.
Source: Field Survey

Table 3.6: Zone-wise RNF workers and land holding size in sampled villages
land holding size class
Landless
Marginal
Small
Semi-Medium
Medium
Large
Total

Zone I
2733
(81.83)
200
(5.99)
120
(3.59)
144
(4.31)
121
(3.62)
22
(0.66)
3340
(100.00)

Zone II
1634
(71.48)
325
(14.22)
163
(7.13)
114
(4.99)
41
(1.79)
9
(0.39)
2286
(100.00)

Zone III
1447
(71.14)
273
(13.42)
126
(6.19)
94
(4.62)
81
(3.98)
13
(0.64)
2034
(100.00)

All Zones
5814
(75.90)
798
(10.42)
409
(5.34)
352
(4.60)
243
(3.17)
44
(0.57)
7660
(100.00)

Note: Figures in the brackets indicate percentage share.

Source: Field Survey.

3.4 Gender composition of population

The census survey of all the 24 villages reveals that their total population is
45,092. Out of them, nearly 54 per cent are males and 46 per cent are females, as is
evident from Table 3.7. As per Census 2001, there were 876 females per 1000 males
in Punjab. In this sample survey, there were 867 females per 1000 males. It is
significant to note that the level of development of the zones/villages does not show
any important relationship with the gender of population (Annexure 3.3).
Table 3.7: Zone-wise gender composition of population in sampled villages in Punjab
Zone
Zone-I
Zone-II
Zone-III
Total

Males
9233
6721
8203
24157

Source: Field Survey.

Sex of population
%age share
Females
53.36
8071
53.68
5799
53.73
7065
53.57
20935

Total
%age share
46.64
46.32
46.27
46.43

17304
12520
15268
45092

46
3.5 Gender composition of workers
The zone-wise gender composition of rural workers in the sampled villages is
presented in Table 3.8. Nearly nine-of-ten RNF workers (87.68 per cent) are male,
while females are 12.32 per cent. Compared to it, 93.87 per cent males are in
agriculture, while the female share is 6.13 per cent. Clearly, the RNF and agricultural
space in Punjab is overwhelmingly occupied by male workers. It is noteworthy that as
per Census 2001, the share of female workers in RNF was 16.46 per cent and amongst
all the rural workers the share of female workers was 20.48 per cent. In 1991,
corresponding figures were 3.98 and 3.36 per cent respectively. It seems that change
of definition of women workers in Census 2001 has produced this variation. As per
the NSSO data, in 1972-73, 40.77 per cent of RNF workers were females. But in
1999-2000, their percentage share dwindled to 10.85 per cent (Bhaumik, 2002). Thus,
the findings of this study are closer to NSSO results so far as gender composition of
RNF workers is concerned.
Table 3.8: Zone-wise gender composition of workers in sampled villages in Punjab
Zone

Zone-I
Zone-II
ZoneIII
Total

Male RNF
workers
No.
%
2888
86.47
2069
90.51

Female RNF
workers
No.
%
452
13.53
217
9.49

Male agri.
workers
No.
%
2276
96.24
1548
93.03

Female agri.
workers
No.
%
89
3.76
116
6.97

1759

86.48

275

13.52

2848

92.50

231

7.50

6716

87.68

944

12.32

6672

93.87

436

6.13

Source: Field Survey.

In Zone-I, which consists of comparatively developed villages, 13.53 per cent

workers are females. The representation of women workers is significantly higher in
RNF sector (13.53 per cent) as compared to farm sector (3.76). Of all 541 female
workers in this zone, about 84 per cent are in RNFs. In one village of this zone, i.e.,
Sidhwan Khurd the percentage of female workers in total RNF workers is as high as
21 per cent (Annexure 3.4). This village is about 5 kilometers from Jagraon, a very
important town of Punjab, located on Ludhiana-Ferozepur main highway. It has a
number of educational and health institutes; a number of banking and insurance
companies have offices here and also there are offices of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Revenue Officers, Market Committee, Cooperative Societies, etc. located in this
town. Besides this, the village Sidhwan itself has a degree college for women, one

47
teachers' training college for girls, high and senior secondary schools for girls. These
developmental factors especially the educational institutes for girls can be said to be
the main reason for this relatively high participation of women workers in RNFs. The
impact of education is also clear from the fact that less than one per cent of
agricultural workers in this village are women. On the whole, 14 per cent of all the
workers of the village are women. Similar is the case of village Cheema. As the
village is within 4-5 kilometers of the town (Tarn Taran), easy approach to the source
of RNF activities is also a factor in explaining the relative larger (26.15 per cent)
share of women workers in total RNF workers.
In zone II, women's share in RNF workers is only 9.49 per cent and in
agriculture, it is 6.97 per cent. In this zone also, certain patterns are discernible. For
example, in village Badal and village Dhupsari, the percentage share of women RNF
workers is 13 per cent which is higher than the average for the zone. Village Dhupsari
is very close to a big industrial township of Punjab, namely Batala. It is less than one
kilometer from the outer limits of the town. Many activities in the services, trade and
commerce, manufacturing, etc. become easily accessible to the women workers here.
In village Badal, there are a number of educational institutes for women. It has a
school, a degree college and a nursing school for training of the potential women
workers. Though it is not close to any urban town/Mandi town, but the educational
attainment by women made possible by the existence of these educational institutes at
their door steps enable them to participate in rural non-farm activities in relatively
better way.
In zone III, it is clear from the Table 3.8, the participation of women in RNFs
is 13.52 per cent which is just equal to that available in zone I and higher than zone II.
In the two villages of block Guruharsahai, district Ferozepur, it was found that many
women were working under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA). Poohli and Kalyan Malika, two other villages in this
zone, too, had a substantial number of women who had worked under this
programme.
3.6 Social characteristics of households and workers
It is significant to note that Punjab has the maximum proportion of scheduled
castes (SC) among all the states in India. The overall proportion of SC population in

48
the state was 28.9 per cent, whereas in the rural area it was 33 per cent, as per Census
2001. Table 3.9 highlights that among the total rural households, nearly 37.82 per cent
are SCs and 20.19 per cent are backward castes (BCs). Approximately, 36.02 per cent
households are Jat-Sikhs. The proportion of Muslims households was less than 1 per
cent.
Out of the total households, 41.11 per cent are engaged in agriculture sector.
The remaining 58.89 per cent households have at least 1 person in non-agriculture
sector. Within SC households, 34.69 per cent are in agriculture and 65.31 per cent are
in non-agriculture sector. Similarly, the majority of BC households (72.29 per cent)
are in non-agriculture sector only. As compared to it, nearly three-fifth (59.75 per
cent) are Jat-Sikh households are engaged in agriculture. In the case of agricultural
households, 31.91 per cent are the SCs, 52.35 per cent are Jat-Sikhs and 13.55 per
cent are the BCs. As compared to it, 41.94 per cent termed as SCs and 24.66 per cent
Jat-Sikhs and 24.62 per cent BCs are in non-agricultural sectors (Table 3.9).
It is also evident from Table 3.9 that 51.87 per cent workers are engaged in
agricultural sector, whereas 48.13 per cent are in non-agricultural sector. Within the
SCs, 59.42 per cent of the workers are in non-agricultural sectors. The sizeable
majority of BC and Muslim workers are also in non- agricultural sector. Compared to
it, only 31.86 per cent Jat-Sikh workers are in non-agricultural sector, while 68.14 per
cent are engaged in agricultural sector.
As far as the composition of agricultural workers is concerned, the proportion
of SCs and Jat-Sikhs is 31.25 per cent and 51.55 per cent, respectively. The
proportion of BC workers in agriculture is only 14.88 per cent. Among the workers in
non-agriculture sector, the proportion of SCs and BCs is 42.45 per cent and 25.76 per
cent, respectively. The Jat-Sikh workers account for only 22.36 per cent of the total
workers in non-agricultural sectors.
It is, thus, evident from Table 3.9 that majority of the SCs, BCs, Muslims and
general category (other than Jat-Sikhs) households are those who have, at least, one
member in non-agricultural activities. However, Jat-Sikh households have a much a
less proportion of such households. Out of the total rural households, the majority are
in non-agricultural activities. Almost similar is the case of workers. A sizeable
majority of Jat-Sikh workers are still engaged in agricultural sector. Clearly, rural

49
economy of Punjab is undergoing a transition from agricultural to non-agricultural
sectors. In other words, in terms of occupational composition of rural households and
workers, the Punjabs rural economy is no more a predominantly agrarian economy.
Similar pattern has been observed in the case with the sectoral composition of states
GDP.
Table 3.9: Caste-wise composition of rural households and workers in sampled villages
in Punjab
No. of households
No. of workers
Social Groups
Agri.
Non-agri.
Total
Agri.
Non-agri.
Total
Scheduled Castes

1065
(31.91)
[34.69]

2005
(41.94)
[65.31]

3070
(37.82)
[100]

2221
(31.25)
[40.58]

3252
(42.45)
[59.42]

5473
(37.06)
[100]

Backward Castes

452
(13.55)
[27.71]

1179
(24.66)
[72.29]

1631
(20.09)
[100]

1058
(14.88)
[34.91]

1973
(25.76)
[65.09]

3031
(20.52)
[100]

Jat-Sikhs

1747
(52.35)
[59.75]

1177
(24.62)
[40.25]

2924
(36.02)
[100]

3664
(51.55)
[68.14]

1713
(22.36)
[31.86]

5377
(36.41)
[100]

General (other than

Jat-Sikhs)

62
(1.86)
[14.09]

378
(7.91)
[85.91]

440
(5.42)
[100]

143
(2.01)
[18.03]

650
(8.55)
[81.97]

793
(5.37)
[100]

Muslims

11
(0.33)
[20.75}

42
(0.88)
[79.25]

53
(0.65)
[100]

22
(0.31)
[23.40]

72
(0.94)
[76.60]

94
(0.64)
[100]

Total

3337
(100)
[41.11]

4781
(100)
[58.89]

8118
(100)
[100]

7108
(100)
[48.13]

7660
(100)
[51.87]

14768
(100)
[100]

Note:

The figures in small and capital brackets indicate column-wise and row-wise percentage
shares, respectively.
Source: Computed from Field Survey.

3.7 RNF households and education level

The studies on rural non-farm employment, almost from every region of
developing world, inform that education has a significant relationship with rural nonfarm employment. Out of the 4781 RNF households in 24 sampled villages, 1943
households (40.64 per cent) were having their heads with no formal education. They
were illiterate. Only 12.82 per cent have studied up to primary. But the share of those
having household heads studied from class 6th and up to matriculation was substantial
at 38.36 per cent. Only 3.30 per cent of RNF households heads were graduates and
above (Table 3.10). This finding is supported by two recent studies (Ghuman et al.,

50
2006 and 2009), which reveal that only up to 4 per cent of the rural students entered
into higher education in the universities and professional institutions. Another study
(Ghuman et al., 2007) has highlighted that 69 per cent of all households and 90 per
cent of the labourer households in rural Punjab do not have even one household
member with 10th class educational qualification. As far as technical education is
concerned, the picture is again dismal. Only one per cent of heads of RNF households
had any formal technical knowledge.
Table 3.10: Educational attainments of household heads and their participation in
farming and non-farming occupations in sampled villages
RNF households
Farming households
Total households
Education Level
No.
%age
No.
%age
No.
%age
share
share
share
Illiterate
1943
40.64
1821
54.57
3764
46.37
Up to primary

613

12.82

371

11.12

984

12.12

Beyond primary but up to

matriculation
Beyond matriculation but up
to senior secondary
Graduates and above

1834

38.36

1010

30.27

2844

35.03

180

3.76

76

2.28

256

3.15

158

3.30

53

1.59

211

2.60

53

1.09

06

0.18

59

0.73

4781

100.00

3337

100.00

8118

100.00

Others*
Total

* It includes technically educated persons like having diplomas and degrees in engineering, nursing,
teaching, computer appliances, and so on.
Source: Field Survey.

It is significant to note that 46.37 per cent of total household heads are
illiterate, another 12.12 per cent have education only up to primary level and about
35.03 per cent are having education between 6th and 10th class (Table 3.10). Thus, the
educational attainment level, so essential for employment in RNFS of the rural people
in Punjab is still very low.
It is also clear that 40.04 per cent of RNF households in developed villages of
Zone-I were having their heads without any formal education. About 48 per cent had
studied beyond class fifth (Table 3.11). In the moderately developed villages of ZoneII, only 32.22 per cent of the RNF households heads were such as having received no
formal education. About 55 per cent had education above primary level. As far as the
technical education is concerned, the story is same here. The comparable figures for

51
developed and least developed regions for household heads having beyond primary
level of education are 48 per cent and 33 per cent, respectively.
Table 3.11: Zone-wise education attainment of household heads and household
participation in rural non-farm employment
Number of RNF households
Educational Category
Illiterate
Up to primary
Beyond primary but up to
matriculation
Beyond matriculation but up
to senior secondary
Graduates and above
Others

Total

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III

(All zones
combined)

806
(40.04)
243
(12.07)
788
(39.15)
91
(04.52)
65
(03.23)
20
(0.99)
2013
(100.00)

452
(32.22)
178
(12.69)
647
(46.11)
48
(3.42)
60
(4.28)
18
(1.28)
1403
(100.00)

685
(50.18)
192
(14.07)
399
(29.23)
41
(03.00)
33
(02.42)
15
(01.10)
1365
(100.00)

1943
(40.64)
613
(12.82)
1834
(38.36)
180
(3.77)
158
(3.30)
53
(01.11)
4781
(100.00)

Notes: Figures in brackets denote percentage share.

Source: Field Survey

In zone III, the percentage of household heads engaged in non-farm

occupations and having no formal education is, as expected, higher than those in Zone
I and II. In this zone, more than one-half of household heads (50.08 per cent) in RNF
were illiterate. It is worthwhile to note that education-wise, moderately developed
region (Zone II) shows higher attainments of education by household heads than the
developed region, i.e., Zone I (Table 3.11).
3.8 RNF workers vs. farm workers: education attainments
It is evident from Table 3.12 that the illiteracy rate is higher among the farm
workers than that among the non-farm workers. However, primary level education
attainment is almost same amongst both types of workers. At the same time, the
proportion of workers, having qualification between 6th and 10th standard, is higher in
RNFS than that in farm sector. The proportion of workers, having education level
beyond 10th standard, is much higher among RNFS workers than that among farm
workers. It is an indicator that there is a strong relationship between level of education
and participation in RNFS. Educated and skilled persons have both the capability and
inclination for joining the RNFS.

52
Table 3.12: Rural workers and their educational attainment: all zones combined.
Education Slab
RNF workers
Farm workers
Total workers
Illiterate

Number
1725

Per cent
22.52

Number
3234

Per cent
45.50

Number
4959

Per cent
33.58

847

11.06

785

11.04

1632

11.05

3554

46.40

2521

35.47

6075

41.14

935

12.21

435

6.12

1370

9.28

488

6.37

122

1.72

610

4.13

111
7660
(51.87)

1.45

11
7108
(48.13)

0.15

122
14768
(100.00)

0.83

Up to primary
Beyond primary but
up to matriculation
Beyond
matriculation but up
to senior secondary
Graduates and above
Others
Total

100.00

100.00

100.00

Notes: 1. Due to rounding up percentage shares may not total to 100

2. Figures in brackets denote the percentage share of the total.
Source: Field Survey

The zone-wise spread of education is given in Table 3.13. The illiteracy rate
is lower in moderately developed zone than that in the developed and the least
developed zones. There is no significant difference across the zones as far as primary
level education is concerned. Incidentally, educational attainment between 6th and 10th
standard is also higher in the moderately developed zone. The proportion of workers
with 12th standard education level is, however, higher in the developed zone. The
education level of workers with graduation and above qualification is again higher in
moderately developed zone. The overall picture across zone-wise educational
attainment, however, does not reflect any significant relationship between level of
development and educational level.
Table 3.13: Rural non-farm workers and their educational attainment in three zones
Educational category

Illiterate
Up to primary
Beyond primary but up to
matriculation
Beyond matriculation but up
to senior secondary
Graduates and above
Others

Zone I

Number of RNF workers

Zone II
Zone III

771
(23.08)
336
(10.06)
1547
(46.32)
435
(13.02)
215
(6.44)
36

419
(18.33)
249
(10.89)
1148
(50.22)
271
(11.85)
167
(7.31)
32

535
(26.30)
262
(12.88)
859
(42.23)
229
(11.26)
106
(5.21)
43

(All zones
combined)
1725
(22.52)
847
(11.06)
3554
(46.40)
935
(12.21)
488
(6.37)
111

53
(1.08)
3340
(100.00)
Note: Figures in brackets denote percentage share.
Source: Field Survey.
Total

(1.40)
2286
(100.00)

(2.11)
2034
(100.00)

(1.45)
7660
(100.00)

Classifying all the RNF workers in terms of educational attainments and land
holding, one can find that amongst the RNF workers, the largest category is of those
workers who are landless but educated between primary and matriculation level. Its
share is 34.09 per cent. The second largest category is of landless, uneducated
workers whose percentage share is 20.59. On the other hand, amongst the agricultural
workers, the largest share is of uneducated illiterate workers. This is clear from the
data given in Tables 3.14 and 3.15.
The further scrutiny of Table 3.14 reveals that out of the total illiterate workers
in the RNFS, the higher share (27.1 per cent) is from the landless households. Out of
the total landless workers in the RNFS, the highest proportion is having education
attainment up to the 10th standard. Among the RNF workers with graduation and
above education, the highest proportion is from large farmers. In fact, land holding
size and higher educational qualifications has showed a correlation. Table 3.15 also
presents the similar relationship between educational attainment and land holding size
among the workers in the agricultural sector. The landless and illiterate workers are
the most vulnerable and disadvantaged group. It is found that more of such workers
are found engaged in agricultural activities than in non-farm pursuits. The data in
Tables 3.14 and 3.15 further highlight that the educational and skill attainments are
prerequisite for entering into non-farm sectors. The resource poor households,
however, have no access to higher level of education and skill.
Table 3.14: Land holding, educational attainment and RNF workers in the sampled
villages: all zones
Type of households by land holding size class
Education Level

Illiterate

Up to primary
Beyond primary
but up to
matriculation

Land
less
1577
(27.1)
[91.5]
743
(12.8)
[87.7]
2611
(44.9)
[73.5]

Marginal

Small

84
(10.5)
[4.9]
66
(8.3)
[7.8]
454
(56.9)
[12.8]

24
(5.9)
[1.4]
13
(3.2)
[1.5]
212
(51.8)
[6.0]

SemiMedium
22
(6.3)
[1.3]
16
(4.5)
[1.9]
169
(48.0)
[4.8]

Medium

Large

Total

16
(6.6)
[0.9]
8
(3.3)
[0.9]
93
(38.3)
[2.6]

1
(2.3)
[0.1]
1
(2.3)
[0.1]
15
(34.1)
[0.4]

1724
(22.5)
[100.0]
847
(11.1)
[100.0]
3554
(46.4)
[100.0]

54
Beyond
matriculation but
up to senior
secondary

543
(9.3)
[58.0]

128
(16.0)
[13.7]

113
(27.6)
[12.1]

88
(25.0)
[9.4]

55
(22.6)
[5.9]

9
(20.5)
[1.0]

936
(12.2)
[100.0]

284
49
37
45
57
17
489
(4.9)
(6.1)
(9.0)
(12.8)
(23.5)
(38.6)
(6.4)
[58.1]
[10.0]
[7.6]
[9.2]
[11.7]
[3.5]
[100.0]
56
17
10
12
14
1
110
Others
(1.0)
(2.1)
(2.4)
(3.4)
(5.8)
(2.3)
(1.4)
[50.9]
[15.5]
[9.1]
[10.9]
[12.7]
[0.9]
[100.0]
5814
798
409
352
243
44
7660
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
Total
[75.9]
[10.4]
[5.3]
[4.6]
[3.2]
[0.6]
[100.0]
Notes: 1. Figures in small and capital brackets indicate column-wise and row-wise percentage shares respectively.
2. Due to rounding off, the percentage total may not add up to 100
Graduate &
above

Source: Field Survey

Table 3.15: Land holding, educational attainment and agricultural workers in sampled
villages: all zones
Education
level

Type of households by land holding size class

Land less

Marginal

Small

SemiMedium

Medium

Large

Total

Illiterate

1749
(64.1)
[54.1]

356
(43.6)
[11.0]

309
(33.4)
[9.6]

425
(32.9)
[13.1]

336
(30.6)
[10.4]

58
(23.0)
[1.8]

3233
(45.5)
[100.0]

Up to primary

307
(11.3)
[39.1]

98
(12.0)
[12.5]

108
(11.7)
[13.7]

152
(11.8)
[19.3]

97
(8.8)
[12.3]

24
(9.5)
[3.1]

786
(11.1)
[100.0]

Beyond primary
but up to
matriculation

581
(21.3)
[23.0]

322
(39.5)
[12.8]

421
(45.5)
[16.7]

582
(45.1)
[23.1]

499
(45.5)
[19.8]

117
(46.4)
[4.6]

2522
(35.5)
[100.0]

Beyond
matriculation but
up to senior
secondary

75
(2.8)
[17.3]

33
(4.0)
[7.6]

70
(7.6)
[16.1]

109
(8.4)
[25.1]

123
(11.2)
[28.3]

24
(9.5)
[5.5]

434
(6.1)
[100.0]

Graduate &
above

15
(0.6)
[12.3]

7
(0.9)
[5.7]

14
(1.5)
[11.5]

18
(1.4)
[14.8]

39
(3.6)
[32.0]

29
(11.5)
[23.8]

122
(1.7)
[100.0]

Others

0
(0.0)
[0.0]

0
(0.0)
[0.0]

3
(0.3)
[33.3]

5
(0.4)
[55.6]

3
(0.3)
[33.3]

0
(0.0)
[0.0]

9
(0.1)
[100.0]

Total

2727
(100.0)
[38.4]

816
(100.0)
[11.5]

925
(100.0)
[13.0]

1291
(100.0)
[18.2]

1097
(100.0)
[15.4]

252
(100.0)
[3.5]

7108
(100.0)
[100.0]

Note: 1. Figures in small and capital brackets indicate column-wise and row-wise percentage shares,
respectively.
2. Due to rounding off, the percentage total may not add up to 100
Source: Field Survey.

55
These results seem to be on expected lines as an earlier study by Ghuman et al.
(2007) highlighted that across 90 per cent of the landless rural households (mainly
labour households), there was not a single member having matriculation level of
education. As regards the share of SC and BC/OBC students from the rural areas in
the universities and higher professional education sector of Punjab, it was 24.47 per
cent and 19.38 per cent, respectively (Ghuman et al., 2006 and 2009). At the all India
level, nearly 88 per cent illiterates belonged to the poor and vulnerable strata of
population in 1993-94 and 86 per cent in 2004-05 (Sengupta et al., 2008).