Post Independence

In the years immediately following India’s independence, a conscious process of nation building considered the problems of land with a pressing urgency. In fact, the national objective of poverty abolition envisaged simultaneous progress on two fronts: high productivity and equitable distribution.

Accordingly, land reforms were visualized as an important pillar of a strong and prosperous country. India’s first several five-year plans allocated substantial budgetary amounts for the implementation of land reforms. A degree of success was even registered in certain regions and states, especially with regard to issues such as the abolition of intermediaries, protection to tenants, rationalization of different tenure systems, and the imposition of ceilings on landholdings

Need of Land Reforms in a Developing Economy

Productivity in agriculture is mainly dependent on two sets of factors:

a)Technological

b)Institutional

Among the technological factors are the use of agricultural inputs and methods such as improved seeds, fertilizers, improved plough, tractors, harvesters irrigation, etc. which help to raise productivity, even if no land reforms are introduced.

The Institutional reforms include the redistribution of land ownership in favour of cultivating classes so as to provide them a sense of participation in rural life, improving the size of farms, providing security of tenure. They weaken the capacity of farmers to save and invest in agriculture as also to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Scope of Land Reforms

Land reforms aim at redistributing ownership holding from the viewpoint of social justice and reorganizing operational holdings from the viewpoint of optimum utilization of land. Besides this there is the problem of conditions of tenancy, i.e. the rights and conditions holding land. Land reforms aim at providing security of tenure, fixation of rents, conferment of ownership etc. The entire concept of land reforms aims at abolition of intermediaries and bringing the actual cultivator in direct contact with the state.

The Scope of land reforms, therefore, entails:

a) Abolition of Intermediaries.

b) Tenancy reforms i.e. regulation of rent, security of tenure for tenants and conferment of ownership on them

c) Ceiling and floors on land holdings

d) Agrarian reorganization including consolidation of holdings and prevention of sub divisions and fragmentation

e) Organization of Co-operative farms. Basically , land reform measures are aimed at alleviating rural poverty in the following manner:

(i) By distributing land among the landless by taking possession of surplus land from large land holders.

(ii) By providing security of tenure and ownership rights to tenants and share – croppers and by regulating rent payable by them to the landlords.

(iii) By protecting the interests of tribal in land and preventing non-tribal to encroach upon tribal lands.

(iv) By promoting consolidation of holding to improve the size of operational holdings thereby paving the way to raise productivity.

(v) By development of public lands thereby proving better access to the rural poor to obtain fuel, wood and fodder.

(vi) By providing access to women to land and other productive assets.

(vii) By protecting homestead rights of the rural poor on the lands owned by them and providing them with house sites to enable them to construct residential houses.

A. THE ABOLITION OF INTERMEDIARIES

It is customary to classify the various categories of land tenure systems before independence into three broad heads: Zamindari, Mahalwari and Ryotwari.

Zamindari Tenure: The 'Zamindari System' is a kind of feudal system, introduced by the Mughals to collect taxes from peasants. The practice was continued under British rule. After independence, however, the system was abolished in India and East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), but is still current in Pakistan.

Under the Zamindari system, which was introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, land was held by one person or at the most by a few joint owners who were responsible for the payment of land revenue. The system was introduced by the East India Company to create vested interests in land and thereby cultivate a privileged and loyal class. The Zamindari settlements made them owners of land, thereby creating a permanent interest in land.

The Zamindari settlements were of two types-

· Permanent Settlement

· Temporary Settlement

Permanent Settlement: The permanent settlement fixed land revenue in perpetuity. This system prevailed in Bengal, North Madras and Banaras.

Temporary Settlement: Under this settlement land revenue was assessed for a period ranging between 20 and 40 years in various states. Land revenue, therefore , was subject to revision. Temporary settlement was effected with remaining zamindars of Bengal, taluqdars of Oudh, etc.

MAHALWARI TENURE:

Under the Mahalwari tenure, the village lands were held jointly by the village communities, the members of which are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of land revenue. Under this system, the village common is the property of village community as whole. Similarly, the waste lands also belong to the village community and it is free to rent out. This system is product of Muslim Tradition and development, particularly in Punjab.

RYOTWARI TENURE:

Under the Ryotwari Tenure, land may be held in single independent holdings. The individual holders were directly responsible to the state for the payment of land revenue. The first Ryotwari settlement was made in Madras in 1972.It was the product of Hindu Tradition. The Ryotwari is at liberty to sub let his land and enjoys a permanent right of tenancy so long as he pays the assessment of land revenue. Some elements of Zamindari settlement did appears in this system too because the peasants in Ryotwari areas could sublet their land.

B. TENANCY REFORMS

Under the Zamindari and Ryotwari system tenancy cultivation had been quite common in India.Tenants are divided into three categories:

a) Occupancy or permanent tenants

b) Tenants-at-will or temporary tenants

c) Sub-tenants

a) Occupancy or permanent tenants- The rightest of tenants of occupancy are peranent and heritable. They can also receive compensation from the landlords in case they make some improvements on land. They enjoy a fixity and security of tenure which makes them the virtual owners of land.

b) Tenants-at-will or Temporary Tenants & Sub-Tenants - There position is extremely weak. They subject to ruthless exploitation. Frequent enhancement of rent, evictions on minor pretexts of several kinds, extractions and beggar are some of popular ways of exploitation.

Informal tenancy has been a common feature of traditional agricultural societies. Although attempts have been made to provide security of tenure, redistribution of land and fixation of fair rents, yet informal oral tenancy has continued to exist even to this day.The term informal tenancy loosely referred to as oral tenancy, refers to tenancy without legal sanction and permission, or without any written agreement.

The purpose of shifting to informal is to extract higher land rents from tenants.This is more so in view of high yielding varieties programme which has brought a realization among landlords that land is a very valuable asset and promises high rate of return.

C. CEILINGS ON LAND HOLDINGS

Land reforms in India had envisaged that beyond a certain specified limit, all lands belonging to the landlords would be taken over by the state and allotted to small proprietors to make their holdings economic or to landless laborers to meet their demand of land.

The case for pursuing a policy of imposition of land ceiling rests on the following grounds:

i) In the rural sector, land is the principal source of income. If land-the fountainhead of income – benefits only a minor fraction of the rural population, the whole structure of land ownership fails to meet the ends of social justice. The best course of bringing a reduction in inequalities of income is to bring about a reduction in inequalities of land-ownership.

ii) A policy of application of capital-intensive methods in Indian agriculture will lead to unemployment on a massive scale.

Legislation for ceiling on existing holding and unit application has been enacted in two phase. During the first phase which lasted up to 1972, ceiling legislation largely treated land holder as the unit of application. After 1972, it was decided to have family as the basis of holding. Further, the ceiling limit was also reduced to bring about a more equitable distribution of this scarce asset.

PROBLEMS OF CEILING:

i) Mala fide Transfers: The legislation pertaining to ceiling on holdings led to a large number of malafide transfers.These transfers are principally of three types: a) transfers among the members of the family b) Benami transfers and other transfers which have not been made for valuable consideration and through a registered document. c) Transfers made for valuable consideration through a registered document.

ii) Compensation and Allotment Of Surplus Lands: Ceiling legislation aims at obtaining surplus lands above a specified limit and then passing it on to small holders, evicted tenants or landless persons against the payment of a purchase price.Thus, this problem has two aspects-i) Compensation that may be paid to the landowners for the acquisition of surplus land; ii) the price that may be recovered from the allotees of surplus lands.

In the allotment of surplus lands those tenants who have been displaced as a result of resumption for personal cultivation should be given preference.Along with the case of farmers with uneconomic holdings, landless labours, particularly those belonging to scheduled caste and tribes, should be kept in priority list.

IMPLICATION OF SCOPE OF LAND REFORMS

As to the implementation of the two other sets of reforms, namely tenancy and regulation of land holdings, legal, administrative, and other factors became principal bottlenecks. In most cases and for a long time, the factual evidence and administrative machinery for enforcement of the laws just did not exist. For instance, land policy in the First Five Year Plan was formulated without sufficient knowledge about the size and distribution of agrarian land holdings. It was in the 8^th round of the National Sample Survey in 1954 that a considerable volume of data was collected for the first time; this too was submitted to the Union Government only in 1960, a full six years later.

On tenancy reforms, from a lifetime of study, P. S. Appu has concluded that the laws have not put an end to absentee ownership of land, nor has it led to the disappearance of tenancies. Being a state subject, there have been striking differences in the track records between the various States in the formulation and enforcement of the reform measures. It was not before the Operation Barga in 1978, for instance, that tenancy reforms met with any noticeable success in West Bengal, and then overtook the rest of the country in a most spectacular manner. If political will is taken as the main reason behind the success of tenancy reforms there, the absence of such a will must be held responsible for its failure elsewhere. Taking the country as a whole, by 1992, ownership rights over 14.4 million acres of land have been conferred on some 11 million tenants. That constitutes, however, no more than 4% of operated area. The seven States of Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and West Bengal account for 97% of the beneficiaries. Practically no benefits accrued to the tenants in the other states.

LAND REFORMS IN PARTS OF INDIA

Recently, a massive rally of almost twenty five thousand persons including tribals, dalits and landless farmers from 18 states marched towards the capital city. They demanded the rights to land and livelihood and overhauling of land policies and reforms. They also emphasized setting up of national land authority which would make recommendations on land policies, judicial reforms and speedier disposal of court cases related to land disputes. In India, a whopping more than 20 million farmers are facing an acute shortage of water. Other issues are related to ceiling of land holdings, distribution of land to eligible persons, including landless and homestead landless and for ensuring their possession, speedier disposal of land related court cases and necessary mechanisms. What does all this imply? Are the already existing land policies making poorer more miserable?

Land reforms have been a national agenda of rural reconstruction since independence. The major objectives of land reforms have been:

*Reordering of agrarian relations in order to achieve an democratic social structure.

*Elimination of exploitation in land relations and enlarging the land base of the rural poor.

*Increasing agricultural productivity and infusing an element of equality in local institutions.

Land reforms are an attempt by the Government to achieve social equality and optimum utilization of land by redistributing the land holdings. These reforms are intended to eliminate exploitation and social injustice within the agrarian system, to provide security for the tiller of the soil and to remove obstacles arising from the agrarian structure that has been inherited from the past.

But despite this vision of the leaders of the nation, there was inertia, lack of sincerity by governments and pressure tactics of powerful land owning class discouraged land reforms in most of the states. Moreover, land demand for industrial development and other complicated economic development issues have resulted in many thousands of marginal farmers and those who were living in agriculture-oriented cottage industries were thrown out of their livelihood drove off their habitats, who have settled in the outskirts of big cities making slum clusters.

Bad results of this kind of deprivation are many, one of them are lack of healthcare and education facilities for these people. There are paradoxical examples of Bihar and Kerala. Kerala is one of the few states which took brave step of land reforms in early years, where the landless agricultural workers were provided land to settle down; the result was highest public health and distribution of basic educational facilities and least slum dwelling. Bihar had least bothered for land reforms, the state has the highest rate of illiteracy and lack of healthcare administration and highest slum dwellers in the country are from Bihar.

These land reforms have not only deprived rich landowners of their inherited property, but also have helped the medium prosperous farmers. However, who are still left are the actual tillers of the soil. In UP former feudal lords still own hundreds of acres of land either by exploiting legal loopholes or through illegal stratagems. Official data gives an easy to believe picture according to which redistribution of land is impossible, however, reality lies beneath these facts and figures. The absolute landless and the near landless (those with less than half an acre of land) make up 43 per cent of rural households in India. Economic liberalization has not made any significant impact on the lives of the poor and others backward castes that lack education. Bihar serves as a good example of the same. Rich in natural resources, Bihar is one of the poorest states in India.

The lack of development in Bihar is due to the almost total failure to implement land reforms and the lack of any real mass movement against the existing land holding system.

ITS IMPLICATIONS IN INDIA

*The slums of metros like New Delhi and Mumbai thrive with countless landless labourers who have flocked to the city in search of livelihood. Many among the migrants are from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar - states which have a terrible record in land reform.

*State of Karnataka in southern India tried to grant occupancy rights to tenants. Many state governments have banned agricultural tenancy but concealed tenancy still exists. Many of the affluent states like Punjab and Haryana show a growing tendency towards 'reverse tenancy' in which large farmers lease land from small and marginal ones.

*Land reforms are the responsibility of individual states. Therefore the degree of success in implementing land reforms has varied considerably from state to state with the agenda remaining unfinished in most states.

*Today, land reform in rural India is at a turning point. Despite the inequity, the constituency advocating land reform is weakening day by day and the number of people pushing for a revocation of land ceilings is increasing.

*The land reforms have not put an end to absentee ownership of land nor has it led to the disappearance of tenancies. Although the contribution of tenancy reforms could not be totally neglected but the programs including these reforms did not lead into any significant redistribution of land, or the removal of all the obstacles to increasing agricultural production.

CONCLUSION:

The framework of analysis provided above describes the increasing importance of land reform to the national and global agenda from national food security, economic, ecological, and social perspectives. The direction of land politics and land reform in India will continue to be one of struggle and hope. It will be important to widen the scope of land reforms beyond the mere activity of redistribution of land or revisions of ceiling limits. In order to be e¤ective, land reform must be seen as part of a wider agenda of systemic restructuring that undertakes simultaneous reforms in the sectors of energy and water. Deeper structural reforms will ensure that the exercise of land redistribution actually becomes meaningful, enabling small farmers to turn their plots into productive assets.

REFERENCES:

· Indian Economy, 61^st edition, 2010. Ruddar Datt and K P M Sundharam, S Chand Publications.

· Land Reforms in India: Manpreet Sethi

· The Oxford Companion to Economics in India, Kaushik Basu, Oxford University Press.

Received on 02.02.2012

Revised on 11.03.2012

Accepted on 22.03.2012