Socio-economic conditions reflect the quality of life of the society as a whole as well as that of its constituents. The major components of socio-economic life of the people in any society are the level of per capita income, income pattern, consumption and saving pattern, housing conditions, level of literacy, attitude towards marriage, sex ratio and position of women. The main objective of our five years plan is the improvement in the quality of life and removal of disparities. For example in 8th five-year plans, it has been mentioned that the objective of fulfilling the social and human aspiration of the people meeting the essential requirements of living, raising income levels and improving their quality of life are at the center of our development efforts. More are a large number of studies on various aspects reflecting socio-economic conditions of the farmers such as income level, consumption pattern, female's status and education level etc. of different states. In maximum studies, the researchers have found that the economic condition of farmers mainly depends on Agriculture production and other sources of income, related to agriculture sidelines. After the independence of India, many researchers found in survey of social conditions of rural households that maximum farmers of our nation are socially backward. They are not in a position to leave the old social rules to maintain the classical social structure of India.

The present study is an empirical analysis of the socio-economic conditions of the small farmers in rural Haryana. It is an analysis in which an attempt has been made to highlight the levels of living of the small farmers in the rural areas of Haryana. Haryana as a whole is dominated by Small farmers and they are the ones who have brought this food revolution in Haryana. In spite of various limitations, and problems irrigation is the main component for all agricultural operation in India and Haryana is no exception to it.

Taking into consideration the number of variables, the number of households with positive response and the degree of freedom in terms of time and resources we decided to take a sample of 300 S.F. households. In this way and 100,100 and 100 households were selected from districts of Kukshetra, Hissar and Rohtak. In this method, a village is divided into various hamlets. Percentage number from total number of households are selected from each hamlet. This is done to include the households from each and every corner of the village. Systematic random procedure is adopted for the final selection of the households. No. of households, which should be taken for study, is also dependent on the source about the number of Small farmers in that village from Patwari of the village. These households have to be spread over the whole district and villages of Small farmers are representative a lot. Data collection The interview schedule has been used as the main two for data collection. An attempt was made to include, as far as possible, the structural questions so that the respondent could give answer without any difficulty. The schedule was protested before it was actually administered. Besides, personal interview method of observation was also used, both to supplement the information collected through interview and to compensate for the possible inaccuracies in the interview data. The observation technique was very simple. It greatly helped in testing the truthfulness of the respondents statement and to arrive at more convincing results. So there is no chance that the obtained data can differ from the actual information or conditions.

2

Major components of Socio-economic conditions of a household or a set of households are levels of income, pattern of income distribution, pattern of consumption expenditure, nature and pattern of asset distribution housing conditions, level of literacy , sex ratio, political and health care consciousness and positions of women etc. . This part of the study also contains a discussion on the pattern of income generation and income disparities among the sample Small farmers households. In case of our selected villages, the distance of all the village from the town was more than fifteen kilometers. This criterion was followed to differentiate the rural analysis from the urban one. The climate is generally fit for the physical health of the people. It is hot in summer and cold in winter. June is mostly the hottest month. Rainfall comes mostly in July and lasts till September. Winter season starts in November and lasts till mid-march. The main source of irrigation in the village are tubewells and canals. The soil of Kurukshetra is a better and more suitable than that of the Districts Rohtak and Rewari. The main crops of the selected villages are wheat, rice, jawar, bajra, sarso, sugarcane, mustard and gram etc. The villages appear to be divided into caste quarters. But it is difficult to determine the boundaries of these blocks without fully investigating it. Jats, Sikha and BC in district Rohtak and Kurukshetra a and Hisar are the largest group of households are found dispersed throughout the villages, Regarding the arrangements of houses these are built close-up against each other. Most of houses are Pucca and only a few houses are kaccha houses. Most of the houses are built in old and traditional style. Most of the villages are peasants by profession. There are several channels of communication line radio T.V., newspapers through which the villages are connected with the world outside. There are many school (Govt. & private) in the selected villages. In the most of villages girls school are separate from boys school There are one or two temples in every village of lord Shiv and Hanuman All the villages have chopal for marriages and socio political requirements. In all the villages of district Rohtak and Karnal, big water places are available for animals outside the villages. Economic political and social backwardness inhabited the path of development of villages.

An attempt has been made to analysis the rural ownership of the Small farmers in rural Haryana in table no 1. An average Small farmer household accounts net land under cultivation in rural Haryana is 2.49 Acres. District Rewari gives the highest average in all the selected districts (2.95 Acres)in the position of net land under cultivation. District Rohtak and Karnal are at second and last position net land under cultivation is 2.29 acre and 2.24 acre respectively. But in owned land position shows that District Rewari has recorded lowest (1.55 Acre) position than district Rohtak and Karnal, accounts 1.67 and 1.64 acre. The most important thing is clear from the above table that high productivity district (given in 1st chapter) Karnal recorded lowest net land under cultivation. It means productivity of land Karnal is far highest of than other selected district. It is also important to clear that lowest farm production of district Rewari accounts highest net land under cultivation also.

Table no. 2 attempts to find out the position of irrigation of land in rural Haryana especially related to Small farmers. It is clear from the above table that 100% irrigation is there in the selected districts in rural Haryana. It is also important to know that total land leased in and leased out, mortgaged in and mortgaged out is also 100% irrigated in selected districts. In this study, it has given in chapter number first that (Small farmers who own 4.5 acre or less irrigated land) Table no.3 shows the level and composition of average income or mean value of income per household (district wise) in rural Haryana. An average Small farm household income is Rs.54879.49 in rural Haryana. District Karnal has

no. 3 that farm business income accounts highest proportion in selected districts or in rural Haryana. District Karnal contains highest mean value of farm business income and same district recorded highest per-hectare productivity in all the selected districts also. Second major proportion or component of income is dairy and dairy products in selected districts. Non-farm income and income from agricultural based sources accounts meager proportion. It is clear from the same table that major source of income of Small farmers in rural Haryana is farm business.

An attempt has been made to classify the Small farmers household in rural Haryana according to size of the family in table no. 4. It is clear from the above table that the highest percentage of 4 and 5 members of a family exists in the selected districts. District Rohtak has recorded highest family size of four members followed by Rewari and Karnal. Karnal has recorded highest 42 percentage followed by Rewari 33% and Rohtak 26% in these two family size household percentage of Small farm household from total selected house in rural Haryana is 30.00% and 33.66%. 4 and 5 members of family size recorded highest percentage about 64% in rural Haryana from total houses.

The family size of one and nine members recorded lowest percentage in rural Haryana, accounts 1.33 and 1.66 percent. Third lowest family size is of eight members, accounts 2.33% in rural Haryana. So it is clear from the appraisal of the table that Small farmers are very alert to family size. Family size of Small farmers in rural Haryana is 4.72 members. Table no. 4 attempts to find out the nature of family of the Small farmers in the selected districts. It is clear from the table that 99.33 per cent families are native in rural Haryana. District Karnal and Rewari accounts 100 percent native families and Rohtak records 95 percent. Different position in independent families where 97.33 percent are in rural Haryana. District Karnal contains 96 percent independent families this percentage is lowest in the selected Districts . District Rewari and Rohtak contains 99 and 97 per cent independent families. So there is no doubt that more than 98 percent families of Small farmers in rural Haryana are native and independent. So one can conclude that nature of family is better.

4

can write and read) District Rohtak has recorded highest 20.50 percent followed by Rewari(18.36) and Karnal(15.36) respectively. But Karnal accounts highest 42.71 percent in second category.(primary to matric) seconded by Rewari and Rohtak. In the last category (higher than matric) district Rohtak is at the top with 7.81 percent and at the second and third position adopted by district Rewari and Karnal. It is clear from the table no. 5 that percentage of literacy and illiteracy is equal to each other in the selected districts of rural Haryana among the Small farmers.Over all aprusal of table shows that 64.30 percent litracy and 35.20 percent illiteracy is found among the Small farmers in rural Haryana.

Table No. 6 traces out about sources of drinking water in Small farm households in rural Haryana 53.66 percent household take water from water supply services in rural Haryana. District Karnal contains highest 65 percent households take water from water supply seconded by Rohtak 51 percent and Rewari 45 percent. Hand pump is second major source of drinking water(35%) in rural Haryana. District Rohtak has recorded highest 46% followed by Karnal and Rewari accounts 32 percent and 27 percent. The lowest percentage of (11.33%) household to take water from well in rural Harvana. District Rewari is topposition with 28 percent. So it can conclude that more than fifty percent households are taking water from government water supply services.

Haryana. In Karnal 94 Small farmers household are not using flush and septic they go outside the village area, which is the highest percentage then remaining two districts. While the lowest percentage of services is in Rohtak. So as regards latrine used by Small farmers district Rohtak is in better position to use the flush and septic type of latrine also. It is clear from the table that about 91.33 percent household are not using any kind of latrine, they go for purpose outside the village area. Only about 9 percent household are using different fields of latrine.

The old system of cultivation today is totally out of list in Haryana. Today the agriculture is fully mechanized. The agriculture implements and power driven method share very costly (initial cost) as well as very costly to operate and maintain. Day by day procurement of agriculture implement is becoming out of reach of the M.F., per force he has to hire these implements which add to the overall cost of a M.F. It ultimately effects his level of living and level of comfort. In today's economic environment near about 99% M.F lives in a Pucca house. The general thinking is to live in an open, airy Pucca and bigger places. The old concept of living in a small house is excepted by the very poor. The Haryana M.F is part of lower middle class. He is also keen to construct his house on a road or a wide street. He is also providing basic amenities like separate kitchen , bathroom and a convinced open space or veranda . He is also catering for water, electricity and drainages. Overall one should that the houses of M.F's are comfortable dwellings. He is also catering for the modern needs. The M.F of Haryana comes in the lower middle class. He generally owns T.V./Radio or both. He also reads newspapers. He also attends political or social rallies. Generally speaking his exposure to mass media is of a good standard. He is incapable of analyzing the various aspects being influenced in all walks of life by T.V and cinema. It is thinking and an activity both are being influenced by mass media. Health care consciousness is still not at desired level, although the sickness rate is less. This is purely because of healthy climate good living condition. The health awareness is preventive knowledge of disease immunization.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A Bheemappa, Nair M K., "A study on Farm Technology Diffusion Among the Farmers of Raichm District in Karnataka." Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. 55 Page 129(3) 1998. 2. Atteri B R, Joshi P K, Capital Requirement of Small and Small Farmers: A Case Study in the Union

3. Acharya Sarthi, Small Fanners and the Landless in Indonesia: An Assessment, Asain Economic Review, Vo! 29, P 68 (2), 1987. 4. Ayanwale A B, Baniire A S, Rural income, savings and Investment Behaviour Among Farmers in Osun state of Nigeria, Indian Journal of Economics, Vol SEP 49(320) 2000. 5. B M, Farmers Agitation: Limits and purposes, Economic &Political Weekly, Vol 23, P 456(10), 1988. 6. Bhatt Brahrnakumar, Report of Evaluation Study of Small Farmers, Small Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Projects, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 23, P-4(13) 1979. 7. Chakraverty M L, Singh J P, Atibudhi H N, Economic Analysis of Emploxment, Income and Consumption Pattern of Tribal Farmers, Journal of Rural Development , Vol. 8, P-97(l) 1989. 8. Chadha G K, Sharma R K, Farm Size, Irrigation and Intensity of Land Use in Indian Agriculture, Arthavijnana, Vol. 24, P-15(1), 1989. 9. Chaubey P K, Approaches to Rural Poverty in India: Issue of Measurement and Analysis, Anvesak, vol. 18, P-251(l-2), 1988. 10. Dhaliwal R. S, Grewal S S, Levels of Living of Agricultural Labourers in Punjab, Indian Journal of Economics, Vol 26, P-257(3), 1983. 11. Dixit. Anil, Grover R K, Rai K N, Fanners Attitude Towards Risk in Green Belt of Haryana (India), Agricultural Situation in India, Vol 57, P-3(l), 2000. 12. Dhanasekaran K, Socio-Economic Measures of Quality of Rural Life: An AlternativeApproach for measuring rural poverty, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol-46, P-34(l), 1991. 13. Deoghare P R, Sharma B M, Goel S K, Impact of Credit & Technology on Income & Employment of Small anna under Different Farming system in Karnal district, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, vol-46, P-65(2), 1991. 14. GhoseB K, Pate! K V, Institutional Credit for Farm sector Small and small fanners, IASS1 Quarterly, vol- 9, P-35(4), 1991. 15. Ghosh M G, Problems of Small Farmers in West Bengal, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol- 15, P-36(10-11), 1971. Development, Vol-5, P-187(1), 1989. 17. MaheshwariAsha, Green Revolution, Market Access of Small farmers and stagnation of Cereals yield in Karnataka, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol- 53, P- 27(1) 1998. 18. Narayanamoorthy A, Farmers education and Productivity of Crops: Approach, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol- 55, P-51 1(3), 2000. 19. Naik Copal. Babu K R, Developing Small Holders Agriculture through Changing Crop Conposition, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol-52. P-485(7), 1995. 20. Pandey S M, Small Farmers and Agricultural Labourers development Programmes: An Appraisal, Social Action, Vol-27, P-53( 1), 1977. 21. Rao R S Tripathy P K, Indentification of Small and Small Farmers, Their Numbers and Characteristics in the State of Orissa, Arthavijnana, vol- 35, P-230(3) 1993.