Which one of the following best describes the concept of 'Small Farmer Large Field'?

Describes collectivisation (kolkhoz) where small peasant holdings were eliminated and peasants forced to cultivate collectively on large, state-controlled farms.

A student could combine this pattern of forced consolidation and collective cultivation with knowledge of post‑war land policies to test whether "Small Farmer Large Field" refers to resettlement of wartime uprooted people or to internal collectivisation.

Explains that most holdings are small/marginal and fragmented, and that such small size is viewed as unsuitable for modern (mechanised) agriculture.

Use this rule (small fragmented holdings motivating consolidation) plus knowledge of state responses to land fragmentation to judge if the concept implies consolidation into large collective fields.

Notes variation in what counts as a large farmer and that large farmers were the main gainers from modernisation, able to adopt new technology and expand landholdings.

A student could extend this by checking whether "Large Field" implies state-created large units (collective/state farms) or simply larger private holdings, helping separate collectivisation from resettlement-based schemes.

Highlights widespread existence of small plots and their relation to landless labour, and asks whether cultivated land distribution is unequal.

Combine this pattern of unequal/fragmented holdings with historical examples of land consolidation to assess if the concept involves collective cultivation and shared produce.

Describes how small/marginal farmers are disadvantaged (lack access to inputs/credit), which can motivate policies to reorganise agriculture into larger, more viable units.

A student could link this motivation for reorganisation to either privatized land consolidation or state collectivisation, and then check whether the statement's specific claim about wartime resettlement matches either option.

Gives a clear definition of contract farming as an agreement between buyer and farmers for production and supply of specified quantities and quality — establishes the general pattern of contracts between firms and farmers.

A student could compare this definition with the statement to check whether 'contract' in practice involves only produce (not land surrender) by consulting further legal/text sources or land-tenure norms.

Model Contract Farming Act salient features explicitly state 'No rights, title ownership or possession to be transferred or alienated or vested in the contract farming sponsor.'

Use this rule to infer that formal contract-farming frameworks disallow surrendering land to a corporate sponsor, so the statement's claim of land surrender conflicts with this model provision.

Describes Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) as institutional mechanisms that organize small farmers while keeping ownership and control with the members.

Combine this with knowledge that groups are used to achieve scale — a student could see 'many farmers jointly contracting' is plausible via FPOs but that ownership remains with farmers rather than being surrendered.

Notes that the predominance of marginal/small holdings (very small marketable surplus) creates high transaction costs for buyers contracting with many small farmers.

A student could use this pattern to justify why many farmers might 'jointly' contract (to reduce transactions), but would then check whether joint contracting implies land transfer or only collective supply arrangements.

Explains companies sometimes enter contracts with cooperatives and specifies the contract focuses on producing and selling agreed volumes/quality — emphasis is on produce and purchase, not transfer of land.

Extend by checking whether 'contracts with cooperatives' historically include land lease/surrender clauses; the snippet suggests the core object is produce, so a student should treat land surrender as an extra condition requiring independent verification.