LAND REFORMS: Failed Promise or Social Justice

LAND IS THE KEY TO FIGHT POVERTY. HOW CAN WE FIGHT POVERTY WHILE OUR LAND IS NOT SECURED

1. Why is the meaning of land reforms?

• Reform means improving something by correcting the faults.
• Land reforms mean that there were some systemic and institutional problems in the ownership pattern of land which was to be corrected.
• Broadly, it signifies the redistribution of land ownership from the Zamindars to the landless labourers owing to certain conditions. 

2. What was the pattern of land ownership before land reforms?

• In the areas of Permanent settlement, the Zamindars were made the owners of the land permanently. Earlier the peasant itself was the owner and the Zamindars were the official who would collect the revenue on behalf of the state. But, why British made them the owner?
• It is because in the case of rain failure leading to crop failure the British were not getting revenues. This hurt their aim of ruthless exploitation of Indian to finance their trade elsewhere. So, they wanted fixed revenue which should come to them even in the case of rain failure. Thus, they settled the issue by fixing the revenue permanently with the Zamindar.
• They also assumed that by being the owner of land the Zamindar will invest into the land to increase its productivity. As he have to give a predetermined fix amount to the British he can keep the extra revenue earned from the increased productivity.
• But, Indians think differently than the British. Rather than increasing the productivity they brought forest land under agriculture. They resorted to rack-renting i.e. extracting too much rent from the peasant. It led to the progressive under-development of Indian agriculture. The peasant (who is a tenant on his own land) had no incentive to work efficiently. 
• Moreover, the Zamindar settled in cities leaving the responsibility of tax collection to some other intermediary. This further led to increase in burden on the peasant. Sometimes, 95% of the produce was taken away as the rent. If he is unable to pay the rent then he will be evicted of his tenancy and other hard working tenant will be hired by the Zamindar. Thus, the tenancy was also not protected. 
• In Mahalwari and Ryotwari areas also the land alienation was common. As the revenue payment was high, the peasant will go to moneylender who will keep land as a mortgage and finally take it in the case of non-payment in time.

3. What were the effects of this pattern of ownership of land?

• Indebtedness
• Land Alienation
• Absentee Landlord-ism
• Famines and mass deaths
• Decreasing productivity

4. How Indian government planned to tackle these issues?

• Not difficult to guess, by the various agendas which were collectively called as land reforms
• Abolition of Intermediaries.
• Tenancy reforms involving rent regulation.
• Land ceiling and the redistribution of surplus land.
• Consolidation of land holdings.

5. How far the land reforms became successful in India?

• Largely they were unsuccessful, except West Bengal. Left government ruled there for 34 years because of that one single achievement. Narendra Modi should learn something and start reversing his policies of forceful land acquisition. 
• Regarding abolition of intermediaries it was a great success.
• But, tenancy reforms and regulations failed. The strict tenancy laws led to the forceful eviction of tenants by the landlords. In many places the tenancy became informal and oral.
• Even the objective of redistribution was badly affected. Landlords declared their son as different families to get more land. Even if they had extra land they gave it to their servants and relatives on paper but in practice it belonged to the landlord (Benami Holdings). Government officials also helped these powerful people to make the holdings benami.
• In consolidation, the powerful land owners got the fertile land and the poor got the infertile land. 
• On an average, 1.1% of the land was declared as surplus which was available for redistribution. West Bengal declared 10% land as surplus. 
• Now, after liberalization and globalization it is not possible to go for further land reforms. If any state government talks about it now then the private investment will go away. So, Modi will never talk about it. It means he will lose Gujarat soon.