Industrialization and agricultural development

The new growth model favored industry over agriculture and forestry. The planners thought that to advance economically is to grow industrially. Several reasons were advanced for this. First of all, economic development itself is defined that way. Secondly, the growth potential of industry was rated to be higher than that of agriculture. Thirdly, even for agricultural development along new lines we required growth of industry. After all, agriculture does need mechanical implements, roads and electricity, improved methods of irrigation, chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, development of transport and communication, advanced storage facilities and research. Industry was also required for absorbing the surplus manpower currently dependent on agriculture, the unemployed and the underemployed. The results are mixed. Contribution of agriculture to GDP started declining but the proportion of labor dependent on agriculture changed less, leading to increase in urban-rural disparities and conflicts. The condition of rural people started becoming more precarious. The traditional social structure is collapsing and proletarianization of rural labor is on. The economic and cultural conflicts in the rural areas got sharpened and started posing threat to the traditional as well as the modern elite. There is no simple answer to the question: how do we catch up with the Western countries and also meet the needs of the vast masses?