Blog

Land Reforms in India: Pre and Post-independence

Agriculture's contribution to a country's economic growth and development has long been recognized. Agriculture is viewed not just as a source of food and industrial raw materials but also as a source of income for many people.

The land is the most important resource base in the agricultural sector, serving as a source of production, a valuable asset, or a tool of social, economic, or political power. 

What are land reforms?

Land reform may be defined as a deliberate effort to alter the process of owning agricultural lands, the methods of cultivation used, and the establishment of a relationship between agriculture and the economy. As an institutional intervention, land reforms may significantly impact alleviating poverty, rectifying social disparities, safeguarding the status of impoverished landholders, and organizing and enabling them to reap the fruits of their work. Land reform is regarded as a crucial step toward social justice since it tries to eliminate the exploitative attitude of wealthy landowners toward insecure farmers.

Is there a need for land reforms?

• To redistribute land to create a socialist form of society. Such an attempt will minimize inequities in land ownership.
• To guarantee a land cap and remove surplus land for distribution to small and marginal farmers.
• The ceiling limit is used to legalize tenancy.
• All tenancies must be registered with the village Panchayats.
• To determine the relationship between tenancy and ceiling.
• To eradicate rural poverty.
• Spreading socialist development to reduce social inequality
• Women's empowerment in a typically male-dominated culture.
• Increasing agricultural production.
• To demonstrate that everyone has a claim to a piece of land.
• Tribal protection by not allowing strangers to seize their territory.

Importance of Land Reforms in India

It has been noticed that land ownership becomes a determining element in the production process that combines land and labour. This, in turn, impacts the amount and distribution of agricultural goods. Land reforms aim to improve the socioeconomic position of the agriculturally dependent population in many ways. The key to development for nations with a substantial agricultural base is the quality and quantity of agricultural lands that are used productively. Land reform in India tried to establish fairness in land distribution by shifting ownership from affluent to poor people. Large discrepancies and anomalies in the organization of agricultural fields in India caused unhappiness and unrest among rural people. 

Since its Independence, India has taken several steps to enact land reforms to empower farmers. 

The following are some critical measures:

• Elimination of the Zamindari system and acknowledgement of peasant land rights.
• Tenancy reforms to recognize tenants' occupation of land and to regulate rent structure.
• Initiative and plea to landowners to give productive agricultural areas to benefit people and society.
• Transparency in land ownership declarations through the National Land Records Modernization initiative

Background

Since British rule, the land policy has been a major topic of government policy discussions in India. During the various pre- Colonial regimes, land taxes received by the state established its title to land produce and that it was the exclusive owner of the land. Following in the footsteps of this system, British rulers permitted the existence of non-cultivating intermediaries. 

The existence of these parasitic intermediaries served as an economic tool for extracting high revenues as well as maintaining the country's political hold. Thus, at the time of Independence, the agrarian structure was characterized by parasitic, rent-seeking intermediaries; disparities in land revenue and ownership across regions; a small number of landholders owning a large share of the land; a high density of tenant cultivators, many of whom had insecure tenancies; and exploitative production relations.

A committee was established shortly after Independence to investigate the land issue, and the late Shri J. C. Kumarappa, a prominent Congress leader, served as its chairman. 

Measures for comprehensive agrarian reform were advised in the Kumarappa Committee's report. In the decades following Independence, legislative efforts to address the problems identified by the Kumarappa Committee dominated India's land policy.

A substantial volume of legislation was adopted, much flawed, and little seriously implemented.

Several important issues confronted the policy-maker are

• A small number of people controlled a large portion of the land, and many intermediaries had no incentive to encourage self-cultivation. Leasing out the land was a common practice.
• The lease arrangements were expropriative in character, and tenant exploitation was prevalent.
• Land records were in disarray, resulting in a flood of lawsuits. Ironically, the Supreme Court of India stated in 1989 that revenue records are not legal title documents.  

Land policy in India has undergone broadly four phases since Independence.

• The first and longest phase (1950-72) 

• It was characterized by land reforms that included three major efforts: the abolition of intermediaries, tenancy reform, and land redistribution through land ceilings. The elimination of intermediaries was relatively successful, but tenancy reform and land ceilings were not.

• The second phase (1972-1985) 

• focused on cultivating previously uncultivated land.

• The third phase (1985-1995)

• The Watershed Development, Drought-Prone Area Development (DPAP), and Desert-Area Development Programmes (DADP) were implemented during this phase. The central government established the Wasteland Development Agency to focus on wasteland and degraded land.

• The fourth and most recent phase (from 1995 onwards) 

• Focused on disputes regarding the requirement to continue with land law and attempts to enhance land tax administration, particularly clarity in land records.

The emergence of land policy in India

Considering India's breadth, variety, and numerous political, economic, and social influences from successive rulers and foreign conquerors throughout its history, it is not unexpected that land tenure and administration methods differed substantially across the subcontinent at the time of Independence. 

They all had in common that land policies were influenced by rulers' efforts to extract land revenue or tax from those who worked on the land. 

Over most of the nation, monarchs employed Zamindars, or tax collectors, who were hired to collect land income for a specific wide region and pay the government predetermined sums (but often extracted as much as they could from the landholders and pocketed the difference). 

Since tenurial circumstances vary greatly by location, the various tenures may be divided into two major categories: 

• the Zamindari 
• One or more property rights tiers distinguished the Zamindari system between the state and the real landholder. 
• Rayatwari systems 
• There were no intermediaries in the Rayatwari (or peasant proprietorship) system by design; they only materialized during the operation.

With a few important changes, the British authorities maintained existing land-revenue regulations and processes. Most notably, the British transformed tax collectors become owners of the estates over which they had tax collection obligations. 

This reform was intended to achieve two goals: 

• streamlining the collection of land income and 
• forming a rural elite with interest in British rule

Regrettably, it changed the once-proprietors into insecure renters. During this time, many Zamindars delegated their land-revenue collection responsibilities to one or more levels of middlemen who were also allocated property holdings. The historical creation and continuation of intermediaries aimed to administer land income and exercise political control over subsequent kings, but their numbers grew. 

They rented out enormous tracts of land to tenants at exorbitantly expensive rents. This provided a disincentive for tenant cultivators to improve the land, influencing productivity. Hence, to successfully govern the nation, the Colonial Government made no significant adjustments to the land-revenue system but instead promoted the class of non-cultivating middlemen. 

At the time of Independence, India faced significant difficulty restoring the agricultural system promised during the freedom movement. 

The first duty assigned to India's first parliament was to handle land policy. Because India had a highly populated agrarian economy, nearly all previous developmental projects included land as a major and complicated problem, as it plainly expressed social standing rather than merely the means of production.

Although acknowledging the necessity for land reforms in the country, Article 39 of the Indian Constitution stated that: 

•  Ownership and control of the country's material resources should be dispersed so that they best serve the general interest;
• The functioning of the economic system should not lead to concentrations of wealth and means of production to the detriment of the general public. 

The Indian Constitution also made land a state (provincial) subject. As a result, only state legislatures have the authority to initiate and execute land-reform legislation. Nevertheless, due to its constitutional responsibility in social and economic planning, the central government had a considerable consultative and financial role in land policy (a role held concurrently with the states). To fulfil this social and economic planning responsibility, the Government of India formed the National Planning Commission shortly after Independence.

Since 1951, the Planning Commission has produced a succession of Five-Year Plans. The land policy has been integrated into all plans as an important component. The First Five-Year Plan outlined land reform policies. The plan intended to minimize income and wealth disparities, eradicate exploitation, provide renters with security, and accomplish social change through equality of status and opportunities for diverse population segments to engage in development projects.

Land reforms: did they succeed or fail?

Earlier stages of land reforms focused on food production, expanding technology, and eliminating regressive institutions; poverty needed to be addressed. Land-reform measures were divided into four categories by Raj Krishna: 

• Liberating
• The liberating measures attempted to free the real tillers of the soil from the landlord's oppression. This was accomplished by granting the renter land ownership or occupation rights. Rent fixing was done in a few states, such as West Bengal's "Operation Barga," where the tenancy was documented. 

• Distributive
• The distributive measures were intended to do this by providing tangible resources to the poor, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, particularly those who required land as a productive resource. This was accomplished by dispersing land ownership from major landholders to the landless, particularly from socially disadvantaged groups. 

• Organizational
• In the mid-1960s, organizational changes aimed at selecting and executing a specific type of agricultural production practice were implemented with the support of technical advancement.

• Developmental
• Developmental reforms addressed additional concerns related to land policy, which influenced the entire agricultural industry's growth.

Raj Krishna said the tenancy reforms and landholding ceilings were liberating and distributive policies. 

Although Raj Krishna authored this chapter around the start of the first phase of land reforms.

Soon after Independence, four key components of land reform were seen as crucial policy interventions in land policy development. They included

(1) the elimination of middlemen; 

(2) tenancy reforms; 

(3) the imposition of landholding limitations; and 

(4) the consolidation of landholdings 

All four components are part of the overarching distributive and development programs launched soon after Independence.

By 1960, the entire process of legalizing the abolition of middlemen had been finished. This was the most fruitful aspect of the land reform project.

The main tenancy reform pillars were security of tenure, eviction, landlord reinstatement of personal cultivation, rent control, and affirmation of ownership rights. 

Between 1960 and 1972, many state laws were passed.  

The following initiatives were given to state governments in the national guidelines for inclusion in state legislation:

• The real farmer will get the security of the tenancy.
• 20 to 25 per cent of the total production should be reasonable rent
• Landowners may be allowed to cultivate the land for personal use.
• the mutually agreed-upon surrender of tenancy rights
• The landlord-tenant connection will be severed in certain areas, and the tenant cultivator will be brought into direct contact with the state.
• Allowing handicapped people, military members, and others to lease their land;
• If landlords can evict tenants to continue cultivation, "personal cultivation" should be explicitly defined.
• Tenancy records should be updated, and oral tenancies should be outlawed.

Ceilings on holding

Land distribution was significantly skewed at the time of Independence. Seven per cent of landowners controlled 53 percent of the land, while 28 percent of landowners with submarginal and marginal holdings owned roughly 6 percent. The allocation of land between states was also significantly skewed. It was believed that landholding ceilings were necessary due to three economic imperatives: 

1. There was strong evidence indicating an inverse size - productivity relationship, implying that aggregate production efficiency is hampered when land is held in large holdings; 
2. There was some evidence that large holders of land left large areas fallow, perpetuating uneconomic land use; and 
3. A sizable section of the population was land-based and impoverished, desiring land as an economic resource for subsistence. It was believed that extra land might be handed to such impoverished individuals. The broad support for land limitations was focused mostly on promoting social justice and fairness rather than raising productivity and growing agriculture.

Despite little effectiveness in redistributing excess agricultural land, ceiling regulations have been effective in limiting the concentration of land in the hands of a few.

Consolidation of holding

Because of the date of its attempted implementation and its political process, the consolidation of holdings has gotten the least attention of all land-reform components. 

Several landowners were found to have many fractured plots distributed among the revenue villages in the early 1970s. This was an easy way out of the Land Ceiling Act, so an individual's landholding should be consolidated.

Several states passed consolidation legislation to eliminate inefficiencies in operations and farming. Most of this legislation and related consolidation programs have failed to fulfil their objectives due to a lack of political will and administrative problems. The legislation was tough to draft and ignored the realities of the caste structure inside farming communities and local political processes. 

Consolidation programs have had little effect, except in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Although legislative measures for consolidation were approved in 15 states, these statutes had far too many exceptions. For example, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal only allow for voluntary consolidation; Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Maharashtra are comparable. Considering its significance and the program's dismal performance, it is critical to assess the effectiveness of the law and reconsider an institutional solution.

Political and Economic Aspects of Land Ownership

Land in India has long been related to social status and historically controlled by specific social groups.

 In India, social stratification is substantial and is based on the caste system. 

The four major caste groupings are Brahmin, Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Shudra, with hundreds of subcastes inside each. Certain communities, particularly tribals and other groups with limited access to productive resources, are excluded from this categorization. 

Because castes are related to distinct jobs and activities, they may be divided into land-associated castes and other castes. 

Traditional farmers are generally land-associated castes.

Regarding caste, the social system aimed to segregate groups engaged in farming, trade, teaching, clergy, and other activities. This social structural division was linked to the political base and the country's land ownership pattern. This social isolation benefited the power relationship, and the country's political power growth may be easily related to caste groupings. Although land reforms became a prominent post-independence policy initiative, land-associated caste groups wielded significant political power after Independence, so the interests of those responsible for lawmaking were linked with the implementation of the land reforms. As a result, the land reform legislation either needed to be fully implemented or twisted with the assistance of administrative entities.

Into the Next Phase

In recent years, the government's land policy interventions have concentrated on the correction and computerization of land records, the improvement of the land survey process, and the enhancement of land quality through the reclamation of degraded wastelands and forests. 

Land reform implementation is becoming less of a priority. 

Indeed, the key policy debates revolve around whether some land-reform initiatives should be reversed, including whether land caps should be raised and tenancy restrictions should be relaxed. Land marginalization and land governance are also big concerns.

Enabling larger holdings would result in economies of scale, and that large farms would attract more investment in the agriculture industry. This is required before producing an exportable surplus and effectively engaging in the global market is feasible. Pooling small farms together to establish official or informal producer groups for marketing might be one approach to achieving this aim. Growing rose onions and gherkins for export was a successful experiment in Karnataka.

The concept that loosening tenancy limits will benefit the poor has gained traction. It is expected that small and marginal farmers would benefit the most from tenancy liberalization. Currently, most hidden tenancies do not protect the tenant or the landlord. Moreover, informal (or hidden) renters cannot access funds from banks or financial organizations. 

Legalizing tenancy will also enable small and marginal renters to gain access to institutional finance. If the tenant is granted legal standing, there may be less opportunity for flaws in the tenancy market, such as disguised tenancy and unilateral determination of land rent. The opening of the leasing market is also expected to encourage much-needed private investment in agriculture. 

Way forward

• The NITI Aayog and several industry organizations are now advocating for large-scale land leasing to allow landowners with unviable holdings to lease out land for investment, resulting in higher revenue and employment in rural regions.
• Consolidation of landholdings might be beneficial to this aim.
• Digitization of land records, for example, is a contemporary land reform policy that must be adopted as quickly as practicable.