Land Reforms in India - Growth, Development and Structural Change, Indian Economy | Indian Economy - B Com PDF Download

Introduction

Land is the crucial factor in the agricultural operations. The size, distribution and ownership pattern of land holding referred to as land tenurial determines the social-economic status of cultivators. These factors are important components of institutional framework of agriculture. The institutional framework also affects the agricultural productivity. In India the ownership and control of land was highly concentrated in a few landlords whose main intention was to extract maximum rent, either in cash or kind, from tenants. As a result, agricultural productivity suffered and oppression of tenants resulted in a progressive deterioration of their plight. Land reforms were initiated to change land relations favorable to actual tillers of land.

Land Reforms: Meaning and Rationale

In India, the average holding is small in size and is highly scattered which makes it uneconomic for production. Further, the land tenurial system (i.e. size, distribution and ownership pattern of land holding) in India has been characterized by wide disparity in the land ownership whereby land is owned in bulk by few. It is evident from the fact that according to the most recent agriculture census more than half of rural  population dependent upon agriculture (nearly 63 percent) own smallholdings of less than 1 hectare, with large parcels of 10 hectares of land or more in the hands of less than 2 percent. The absolute landless and the nearly landless (those owning up to 0.2 hectares of land) account for as much as 43 percent of total peasant households.  Further, the existence of exploitative intermediaries in the form of zamindari system, allow the land owners to collect large share of production as rent from the actual cultivators. The actual tillers thus possessed no ownership rights over land and worked as tenants on land who can be evicted form the land at will by zamindars. Apart form adding misery to the life of tiling peasants, the system provides no incentives to improve productivity. The land reforms were initiated to ensure incentives and fair reward to cultivators. Thus the importantrationale of land reforms is:

1.  The farm structure based on owner-operated units is more efficient than one based on wage labor.  There is little economic motivation for tenant farmer or wage labor to develop farmland for increased production.  Since a cultivator who did not have security of tenure, and was required to pay a high proportion of output in rents, was less likely to invest in land improvements, or use high yielding varieties or other expensive inputs likely to yield higher returns. As a result, agricultural productivity suffered. The land distribution in favor of actual cultivators thus helps to increase agriculture productivity as it offers direct economic benefits to the actual tillers.

2.  Land being the most important productive asset in the rural areas. The ownership and the tenacity of land determine the social and economic status. The redistribution of land in favor of rural poor would help to improve their economic well-being, nutritional intake and access to credit. This would reduce income inequalities and rural poverty.

3.  Apart from its economic role, land reforms have profound social impact. If the patterns of ownership are fair and just it enhances faith in justice and equity.  A skewed land distribution pattern, alienation, or poverty is bound to lead to social discontentment, widespread unrest, and violent venting of frustration and anger. This could further increase volatility in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like India.

4.  The small and marginal land-holding results in under-utilization of land since the uneconomic land area is generally put to non-agriculture use mainly for housing or sale of land.

5.  The inequality of land holding cause land degradation and has adverse ecological impact. In an effort to increase production on the limited land it is rigorously exploited by applying overdose of artificial fertilizers and chemical. This reduces the natural fertility of soils and increases its vulnerability to erosion. The excessive ground water irrigation causes salinization and problems like water logging.

 Definition of Land Reforms

Land reforms may be defined as institutional changes that aim at changing the land relations favorable to the actual tillers of land and increasing the average farm-size of the cultivators.  Land reforms consist of two changes or reformsone is to reform the land relations between the owners and actual tillers of land and second is to change the average size of land holding so as to make it an economically viable unit.  The objective of land reform is to provide social justice to the cultivators in order to assure equal opportunity to the larger section of rural population and to promote agriculture growth. The land reforms consist of the following measures:

1. Abolition of Intermediaries
2. Tenancy Reforms
3. Reorganization of land holdings

1. Abolition of Intermediaries
Broadly speaking the intermediary pattern of land tenure system can be grouped into three distinct categories viz ryotwari, mahalwari and zamindari. Under ryotwari system the registered holder of land is recognized as its proprietor and pays revenue directly to the government. The holder is at the liberty to sublet the property or transfer it. The system led to increase in the number of tenant peasants and landless labor.

In the Mahalwari system, the community of peasant own land and are co-sharer of the land. The co-sharers were jointly and severally liable for land revenue. The system developed community based agriculture and attain economies of large scale production. In this system, the village head colleted revenue for which the commission is paid.

Under Zamindari system one or few household owned one or more villages and were responsible for the payment of land revenue to the Government. The basic problem of the system was that it gave rise to a widespread absentee landlordism whereby the landowner or Zamindar own land but don’t actually cultivate it. These landlord adopted exploitative practices in terms of charging high rents from tenant peasants who worked on land. These landlords symbolized oppression and tyranny on tillers. It provides no incentive to the cultivators to improve productivity.

The abolition of intermediaries in all forms that covered around more than 40 percent of total land area started in 1948 with the enactment of legislation in Madras. Later on, other states followed the suit. The abolition brought large section farmers into direct relationship with Government i.e. the tillers were made the owners of land they cultivated and were responsible to pay land revenue to the Government. The landless agricultural laborers were also given land from the cultivable waste-land and forest land. The intermediaries were compensated by the Government.

Critical Appraisal

(i) Long delay in Passing Legislations and its Implementation

The delay occurred in passing the bill for zamindar abolition which gave zamindar and other elite class enough time to circumvent the legal requirements of handing over land to peasants. The implementation also suffered as zamindar adopted delay tactics in handing over documents that declare their land-holdings.

(ii) Existence of Loopholes

The big land owners misuse certain provision in enactment to their favor. For instance the land could be evicted and taken back by zamindar for “personal cultivation”. The term personal cultivation is defined very loosely. In this manner, zamindars were able to hold large piece of land in their family where cultivation was done by hired agriculture labor. In fact, this led to the new rural capitalist class in the rural economy and brought back the absentee land-lordism

(iii) Manipulations by Zamindar

The large scale manipulations in the form of repurchase of land by fair or foul means from the peasants were very common. The abolition of intermediaries thus suffered from various snags and gave rise to absentee landlordism on the large scale and exploitation of landless laborers persisted in the rural India.

2. Tenancy Reforms

Tenancy cultivation is quite common in rural India whereby the land is cultivated by small farmers and share crop with owners as payment of rent for using land. There are two types of tenants prevalent: i) occupancy or permanent tenants’ ii) tenants-at-will or temporary tenants. Occupancy tenants enjoy permanent right of cultivation which is heritable i.e. transferred to the next generation. Tenants- at-will can be ejected from the land at any time at will of landlords. These peasants are subject to insecurity and exploitation in terms of huge rent. The legislative and administrative measures were taken by the Government to provide security tenants and regulated the rent payable by them. Tenancy reforms included the following measures:

(i) Rent Ceiling: The maximum rent payable by the tenant has been fixed. It cannot exceed one fourth to one fifth in most states.

(ii) Tenure Security: The security of tilling of land is provided whereby the tenants now cannot be ejected at will except for self-cultivation provided the rent is paid.

(iii) Conferring Ownership Rights to Peasants: The legislative changes have been made to provide for conferment of ownership rights on all the cultivating farmers on the payment of specified amount to the landlords.

Critical Appraisal

Tenancy reforms progressed in a large number of states though with varied degree of success with quite a number of peasants and landless laborers were given ownership rights. However, the reform process suffered from ineffective implementations of enormous legislations due to the following reasons:

(i) Misuse of Exemptions and Escape Clauses: In the legislation escape clauses were provided that were misused by big land-owners. For example land-owners resorted to ejection of tenants on the pretext of self-cultivation. In fact, tenancy-at-will with no formal contract was increased. The term self-cultivation was defined very loosely. In this manner the owners were able to resume a substantial part of the land. These owners don’t cultivate land but informally lease it out on the basis of sharing of crop. The cultivators under these informal leases are under constant threat of ejection.

(ii) Fictitious surrender of land by tenants to landowners’: Land-owners on paper showed that the tenants have been voluntarily given up right on the land in favor of landowners.

(iii) Lack of Information and Economic Support among Poor Tenants: The policy required the payment of specified amount to the owners to obtain ownership rights but the cultivators lack resources to acquire land from owners.

(iv) Non-Availability of Updated records of Land-Ownership: also created problems in proper implementation of land reforms.

(v) Lack of Political will to rigorously implement Tenancy Reforms: As large politicians were big land owners so the slow progress of reforms was in their self-interest.

(vi) Higher Rent: The efforts were made to fix rent rather than to reduce rents. In many places rents were fixed at a level already prevailing or fixed traditionally.

Thus the implementation of tenancy reforms left much to be desired. The land favored well-off land lords and created greater insecurity of tenure in the form of informal leasing of land. The resource constraint of the tenants also prevented the large transfers of land in their favor.

3. Reorganization of Land Holdings

Reorganization of land-holding involves changing the land-size of cultivators so as to make it a viable economic unit. This will help to adopt modern technology and improved agricultural practices. The reorganization of land is undertaken through the following measures:

(i) Ceiling on Land Holdings: The legislative enactments were adopted that fixed the maximum size of the land a person or a family can own. The land over and above the ceiling is declared surplus which is redistributed to the small, marginal and landless farmers. The wide differences exist in the legislative enactments from state to state in terms of ceiling limit, exemptions and distributive policies. Since the inception of ceiling laws Government fixes targets for possession and distribution of surplus land. However, the actual possession and distribution fail to meet these targets. The implementation of the ceiling laws has been very tardy. In the recent years some state Governments have given relaxation in the ceiling laws to the industry and big farmers.

(ii) Consolidation of Land-Holdings: Small and scattered land-holding were consolidated into compact economic holdings. The small-sized fragmented and scattered with a person/family land at different places were identified and equivalent of consolidated land were given at one place. The programmed was initially started on voluntary basis but later on made compulsory. The important factors that cause sub-division and fragmentation of land-holdings are:

(a) Pressure of population: The acute growth in the population in the rural causes increasing pressure on the land. Every individual desires a share in the land thus the land gets sub-divided.

(b) Law of inheritance: The Indian inheritance law especially Hindu and Muslim law of succession give equal right of share to all children in the inheritance which led to sub-division and fragmentation of land.

(c) Rural indebtness: Farmers in rural India are largely dependent upon local money lenders who charges huge interest and very often the land is mortgaged to raise loan. In the event of non-payment of loans the part of land has to be sold off. This led to sub-division of land-holdings.

Consequences of Sub-Division

(a) Wastage of Capacity: The small and fragmented holdings sometimes make it impossible to use for cultivation and so the land capacity is wasted due to uneconomic size.

(b) Higher Cost: The cost of production per unit of land on small-size farm increases. Further, the old techniques are used on such farms that further aggravate the cost of production.

(c) Lack of Modernization or land Improvement Techniques: The mechanized method of cultivation like electric pumps thrashers tractors etc or modern irrigation system cannot be adopted due to limited scale.

(d) Loss of Acreage: The large quality of cultivable land is lost due to boundaries and fencing. The litigation due to disputes on these issues further results into wastage of land.

Critical Appraisal

The reorganization of land aims at bringing reduction in the inequalities of land-ownership in rural areas. The data on the land-holding however suggest that the position is far from satisfactory and the concentration of land-holding in the hands of few is a general phenomenon in villages. The factors behind slow progress in the reorganization process are as follows:

(i) Social Causes: Farmers are found to be attached emotionally to their land and so are unwilling to participate in the consolidation process.

(ii) Impractical: Land quality differs at different places and so it is difficult practically to allot equivalent land to farmers at one place for scattered land.

(iii) Lack of Updated Records and Incompetent Administrative Staff: The consolidation process requires the complete knowledge of land and its quality but due to lack of record it becomes difficult to implement it

(iv) Corruption: The dishonest administrators helped the big land owners to make fake transfers and evade ceiling laws.  Further, the waste, barren or low-quality land was declared as surplus land that could not be cultivated.

(v) Long Delays and Litigation: The time-gap between the announcement of the policy and enactment of laws also enable to make fictitious transfers and sales of land to evade ceiling laws. The legal cases were filed in the courts in this regard. Thus the big chunk of potential surplus land was lost as the legal battles dragged for years.

(vi) Lack of Political Will: The ceiling laws lack proper political backing due to excessive big farmer’s pressure on the political parties.

Suggested Measures

1. Strengthening of Legal Framework: The loopholes in the existing laws should be plugged. There should not be any scope of conflicting interpretations. The provisions should be made for speedy settlements of disputes. The laws should provide for easy registration of all the transactions connected with land, including tenancy agreement.

2. Computerization of Land Records: Lack of proper land records is an important cause of slow progress of land reforms in India. The administrative set-up must ensure updated and timely compilation of land records. Computerization can help to improve efficiency and preservation of data on land. This information is useful to determine surpluses of land, distribution of the surplus of land, profile of land ownership, resolving of land disputes.

3. Greater Awareness and support: The beneficiaries of land reforms namely, small farmers, being illiterate and resource-poor lack the awareness of the schemes and procedures on land reforms. The awareness programme at the grass-root level has to be initiated. The financial support should be provided to landless cultivators so as to acquire ownership rights on land.

4. Motivated Administrative Personnel: The efficient and devoted personnel are the prerequisite for an effective implementation of legislations. The time-bound targets on computerization, distribution of land can be started to improve accountability of personnel.

5. People’s Participation: It is important that the people interested in land reforms are associated with their implementation. It helps to improves administration’s accountability. NGO’s may take up the grievance of the farmers and pursue the court cases on behalf of farmers. 

6. Strong Political Will: The political leaders should commit to the speedy land reforms across all states. The mass awakening among cultivators for these reforms can be initiated by them.

7. Prevent Re-emergence of Informal Tenancy: Quick surveys for recording of tenants should be conducted to prevent the coercive transfer of land by cultivators.

Conclusion

A degree of success has been achieved in certain regions and states, especially with regard to issues such as the abolition of intermediaries, protection to tenants, rationalization of tenure systems, and the imposition of ceilings on landholdings. However, a number of problems remain far from resolved. The studies indicate that inequalities have increased, rather than decreased. The number of landless laborers has risen, while the wealthiest 10 percent of the population monopolizes more land now than in 1951. Vested interests of the elite landowners and their powerful connection with the political-bureaucratic system have blocked meaningful land reforms and their implementation. Loopholes in land tenure legislation have facilitated the evasion of some of the provisions in land ceiling reforms by large landholders.