Rameshwar's IAS

Impact of Land Reforms in India

Tags: Gig Economy Economy WTO WTO Public Stockholding MSP Economic Growth Masala Bond Environmental Performance Index Forecast of Economic Growth Functions of the Finance Commission

The objective of land reforms is to bring changes in the socio-economic status of the population dependent on agriculture in different ways. For countries with a large agricultural base, the key to development is greatly dependent on the quality and quantity of agricultural lands being utilized productively. Land reform in India was aimed to achieve equity in the distribution of land with the shift of ownership from rich to poor. In India, there were large differences and irregularities in the arrangement of agricultural lands causing dissatisfaction and unrest among rural people. Since independence, India has taken various measures to implement land reforms to empower the farmers. Most observers of the land reform have judged its performance as a limited success. Nevertheless, land reforms have made some major changes in Indian society as listed herein:

Reducing inequalities in rural areas: Land reforms, along with other factors like increased democratization, rising political consciousness and participation and immobilization, has played an important role in the reducing inequalities in rural India. 1Landlessness and insecure tenancies forced the majority of the rural population to be dependent on the landed minority which often lead to exploitation. The problem also has a caste dimension. Generally it is the upper castes which owned most of the land while the Shudras and the untouchables were mostly tenants and agriculture labourers. Consequently caste based inequalities and oppression is related to land ownership. This situation went against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which promised justice - social, political and economic. Thus the land reform programme was a step towards the realization of these goals. In areas where land reform has not been implemented, the inequalities have persisted, caste oppression is most acute and have generally experienced low socio-economic development.

Rise of new political forces: The political process in the decades after Independence Impact of Land Reforms on was dominated by the client patron model. The rural elite usually from the dominant Economy and Society castes would persuade or force the lower caste members to vote for the candidates of their choice. Therefore, the major concern of the political parties was to ensure that the dominant caste members of the rural areas support them. However, along with other changes like growing political consciousness, greater competition among elites land reforms paved the way for the rise of new political forces in the country. Most of the new forces were from the sections which can be called superior tenants. They belonged to the middle Shudra castes - the Yadavs, the Jats and the Ahirs. They were the major gainers in the land reform programme and it gave them sufficient economic strength and independence to assert themselves politically. These sections were also able to take advantage of the government initiatives to increase food production through use of hybrid seeds, fertilizers and provision of irrigation facilities. Rudolph and Rudolph (1987) have called these groups 'bullock capitalists'. Many of these groups began to organize themselves politically and were able to gain political power directly or indirectly. They constitute a pressure group, which no government can afford to ignore and many of their demands like subsidised power, fertilizers etc. have been almost always met. The participation of the backward classes deepened Indian democracy and made it more participatory and inclusive. It has also made the political system more competitive and complex.

Consequences of incomplete land reforms: On the other side, the failure of the land reforms to benefit the agricultural labourers and the landless most, of who belong to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, has been a growing concern. The lack of growth in Jobs in the non-agricultural sector has further contributed to poor condition of these groups. Related to this is the problem of Left extremism, popularly called, Naxal movement. The core issue that attracts the people to such movements is landlessness and tribal land alienation. Again, it is mainly in areas where remnants of feudalism still survive that the support bases of these groups exist and flourish.

Land reform and land inequality: Land reform is basically aimed at asset distribution for a more egalitarian society. Has land reform made a major influence in the land ownership pattern in the country? As we have already seen, only about two percent of the cultivated land was distributed, which could not have had a large impact on the landowning pattern. The Gini coefficient of ownership holding was 0.710, 0.713 and 0.716 and of operational holding were 0.586, 0.629 and 0.672 in 1971, 1981 and 1991 respectively, indicating that landholding patterns have become more and more skewed over the years. However, this does not mean that there has been no significant change in the land ownership pattern.

The distribution of ownership holdings in rural India from 1952-53 to 1982 shows certain changes. In 1952-53 large holdings was 52.51 percent of all landholdings and households owning these holdings constituted 7.72 percent of all landowning households. By 1982 the percent of large holding to all holdings had declined to 33.26 percent and the households owning these holdings were only 3.98 percent of all landowning households. The number of landless households experienced a percentage decline from 23.09 percent to 11.33 percent. During the same period, the share of area under sub-marginal holdings, marginal holdings, small holdings, and medium holdings increased from 1.36 percent to 2.75 percent, from 4.86 percent to 9.47 percent, from 12.40 percent to 16.49 percent and 31.18 percent to 38.03 percent respectively. Similarly the percentage of households holding sub-marginal holdings, marginal holdings, small holdings, medium holdings, increased from 24.18 percent to 36.88 percent, from 13.98 percent to 18.43 percent and from 13.49 percent to 14.70 percent. Medium holdings showed a decline from 17.54 percent to 14.68 percent. Thus there has been an increased concentration of land in the middle, especially in the categories of marginal and small holdings. However, there are interstate differences. While the middle concentration of land is more pronounced in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Land Reforms in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and West Bengal, in other states like Bihar, Independent India Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh concentration of land has increased. Another important characteristic has been that the percentage of land owned by the top 40 percent has not changed in majority of the states, except Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Orissa and Rajasthan. The major causes, apart from land reforms, include the' growing population which lead to fragmentation of large holdings.

Did Land reforms contribute to decline in poverty in India? Studies show that even the limited land reforms which were implemented in India made a significant impact on the poverty levels. Land reform in general appears to be associated with reduction in rural poverty, with these effects most strongly attributed to tenancy reforms. There was less so due to distribution of surplus land. This is not surprising that less than 2 percent of the operated land was distributed. The increased security of tenure removal of fear of arbitrary eviction allowed the tenants to invest more capital and adopt new technologies. Consequently, returns improved and incomes improved. For agricultural labourers, the abolition of intermediaries resulted in the increase in bargaining power, which in turn increased wages contributing to the decline in poverty rates. These observations have been supported by micro studies conducted at regional levels. However, it is conceded that indifferent implementation by the administration limited the efficacy of the reforms.

Questions ? Contact Us