This map shows the level of pressure on land, which is a rare asset in a country suffering from a high population density jointly with a low rural economic diversification. It is not possible, however, to deduce from the percentage of agricultural workers the level of regional rural poverty, since two other factors intervene. First, the dynamics of the non-agricultural economy which can relieve at least partly the pressure on land; second, the level of cropping intensity (number of crops per year) allowed by irrigation.

Out of the four States, one has a high ratio of agricultural workers, namely Tamil Nadu. Another one has a generally low ratio, namely Karnataka. On the whole, deltas (Godavari, Kaveri) and large command areas explain a great deal of the high ratios thanks to irrigation. On the contrary, a semi-arid environment often implies low ratios (northern Karnataka, Rayalaseema). Note that there are some exceptions. Some areas have a comparatively rather low ratio in spite of irrigation, such as the Kaveri delta: it is not a mark of rural wealth, however, but rather a proof that irrigation is not efficient for bringing high yields and high cropping intensity. Plantation areas (Kerala) also have a rather low ratio, which proves their low labour intensity (note the discrepancy between the Karnataka and Kerala littorals, which is rarely to be seen on other maps). Conversely, some areas suffer from a rather high ratio without clear sufficient resources (borders of South Karnataka and North Andhra Pradesh, Dharmapuri district in Tamil Nadu, etc.).

There is no relation with the presence/absence of cities, which leads to the assumption that the first possible factor of land pressure relief (economic diversification) is much less important than the second one (cropping intensity), except in a few regions such as coastal Karnataka.

F.L.