Farmers - 60% of India's Population

The Financial Times in one of their editions in June 2007, (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed531a4c-1add-11dc-8bf0-000b5df10621.html - can read it on-line only if you subscribe to ft.com) states that 60 % of India is in agriculture.

India does not have an appreciable food surplus or deficit. That means that 6 families are working to provide food to 10 families. Or, each one family lives on income it generates from providing food to 10/6 = 1 and 2/3 families. One of them is their own family. So, each family lives on income it generates from providing food to 2/3 of another family.

Doesn't sound very good. It is even worse than this:
1. The farmers get their money from selling to the first of many middle-men, so they get much less than what what we pay at a retail store.
2. This money is used for all their non-food expenses - living, education, retirement, ...
3. This is the average amount. So, broadly speaking, about half the families get less than this. My guess is that it many more than half get less than this amount.

One way to do something for India, is to increase this ratio of 2/3. So, if each family provides food for even 2 families, they increase their earning by a factor of 3.

Doable?

Musical Instruments - simple vs. mechanical

I compare the musical instruments that my children and their friends use in the US, with what I used as a child in India.

My flute was a bamboo tube with a few holes in it; each finger movement covered or uncovered a hole. The Western flute is a sophisticated mechanical device with a large number of levers.

The shehani was an analog of the bamboo flute. Its Western equivalent, the oboe, seems as sophisticated as the western flute.

Clearly, the cost of producing a shehnai is much less than an oboe. And, there are fewer things to go wrong, and tune-up in the shehnai.

What does this mechanical sophistication, and increase in cost, do? Does it make it easier for the musician? Or, does it allow the production of better music? Or both?