Unit 4
Indian economics
The Indian National Congress appointed the Agrarian Reforms Committee under the Chairmanship of J.C. Kumarapppa, for creating an in-depth study of the agrarian relations prevailing within the country. The committee submitted its report in 1949 which had a substantial impact on the evolution of agrarian reforms policy within the post-independence period. The committee recommended that each one intermediaries between the state and therefore the refore the tiller should be eliminated and the land must belong to the tiller subject to certain conditions. Allow us to now examine the varied agrarian reform measures undertaken after independence. As already mentioned, the term ‘land reforms’ refers to reforms undertaken within the tenure system.
The steps include
(i) abolition of intermediaries,
(ii) fixation of ceilings ashore holdings and
(iii) redistribution of surplus land among landless or semi-landless peasants.
Besides, any special measures adopted to stop alienation of tribal land and consolidate fragmented holdings come within the broad definition of agrarian reforms.
Abolition of Intermediaries
Following the advice of Kumarappa Committee, all the states in India enacted legislation for the abolition of intermediary tenures within the 1950s, although the character and effects of such legislation varied from state to state.
In West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir, legislation for abolishing intermediary tenures was amid simultaneous imposition of ceilings ashore holdings. In other states, intermediaries were allowed to retain possession of lands under their personal cultivation without limit being set, because the ceiling laws were passed only in the1960s. As a result, there was enough time left for the intermediaries to form legal or illegal transfers of land. Besides, in some states, the law applied only to tenant interests like sairati mahals etc. and to not agricultural holdings.
Therefore, many large intermediaries continued to exist even after formal abolition of zamindari. Nevertheless, it's been estimated that consequent upon the legal abolition of intermediaries between 1950 and 1960, nearly 20 million cultivators within the country were brought into direct contact with the govt . 3.3.2 Tenancy Reforms The Agrarian Reforms Committee recommended against any system of cultivation by tenants and maintained that leasing of land should be prohibited except within the case of widows, minors and disabled persons.
This viewpoint received further strength subsequently in various Five Year Plans. Consistent with the Second Five Year Plan, abolition of intermediary tenures and bringing the tenants into direct relations with the state would give the tiller of the soil his rightful place within the agrarian system and supply him with full incentives for increasing agricultural production. Immediately after Independence, although the main emphasis was on the abolition of intermediaries, certain amendments to the prevailing tenancy laws were made with a view to providing security to the tenants of ex-intermediaries. But these legal measures provoked the landlords to secure mass eviction of tenants, sub-tenants and sharecroppers through various legal and extra-legal devices.
The highly defective land records, the prevalence of oral leases, absence of rent receipts, non-recognition in law of share- croppers as tenants and various punitive provisions of the tenancy laws were utilized by the landlords to secure eviction of all kinds of tenants. To counteract such a bent , therefore, it became necessary on the a part of the State Governments to enact or amend the laws within the subsequent years and supply for adequate safeguards against illegal eviction and ensure security of tenure for the tenants-at-will.
Broadly speaking, tenancy reforms undertaken by various states followed four distinct patterns. First, the tenancy laws of several states including Andhra Pradesh (Telengana region), Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh banned leasing out of agricultural land except by certain disabled categories of landowners, so on vest the ownership of land with the particular tillers. But concealed tenancy continued to exist altogether these states. Second, the state of Kerala banned agricultural tenancy altogether without having any exception. Third, States like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Haryana didn't ban tenancy intrinsically . But tenants after continuous possession of land surely specified years, acquired the proper of purchase of the land they cultivated. However, altogether these states, leasing out by both large and little farmers continued.
In fact, a bent towards reverse tenancy during which large farmers leased-in land from marginal farmers was set in since the arrival of revolution within the mid-sixties. Fourth, states like West Bengal , Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Andhra area of Andhra Pradesh didn't ban leasing-out of agricultural land. But share-croppers weren't recognised as tenants.
The State of West Bengal recognised share-croppers as tenants only with effect from 1979, with the launching of ‘Operation Barga”.
Indian Agriculture : Institutional Perspectives most State Governments provided for the regulation of rent, excepting Kerala where leasing out was completely prohibited. The regulated or fair rent ranged between 1/4th to 1/6th of the produce. But actual rent remained always above the regulated or fair rent. In many places where small and marginal farmers leased-in land from large or absentee landowners, things continued to be exploitative, thereby discouraging the particular tillers to cultivate the land efficiently.
Ceilings ashore Holding The term ‘ceiling ashore holdings’ refers to the legally stipulated maximum size beyond which no individual farmer or farm household can hold any land. Like all other land reforms measures, the target of such ceiling is to market economic process with social justice. It's been duly recognised by India’s planners and policy makers that beyond some extent any large scale farming in Indian situation becomes not only uneconomic, but also unjust. Small farms tend to extend economic efficiency of resource use and improve social equity through employment creation and more equitable income distribution. Consistent with C.H. Hunumantha Rao, small farms offer more opportunities for employment compared to large farms. Hence, albeit large farms produce relatively more output per unit of area, they can't be considered more efficient during a situation of widespread unemployment and under-employment prevalent during this country.
Ceilings on landholdings as imposed during 1960-1970 State Level of ceiling (hectare) Andhra Pradesh 10.93 to 131.13 Assam 20.23 Bihar 9.71 to 29.14 Gujarat 4.05 to 53.14 Haryana 12.14 to 24.38 Jammu and Kashmir 9.21 Kerala 6.07 to 15.18 Madhya Pradesh 10.12 Orissa 8.09 to 32.37 Punjab 12.14 to 24.28 Rajasthan 8.90 to 135.97 Tamil Nadu 12.14 to 48.56 Uttar Pradesh 16.19 to 32.37 West Bengal 10.12 In 1959, Indian National Congress (Nagpur Resolution) resolved that agrarian legislation to hide restrictions on the dimensions of land holdings must be implemented altogether states by the top of 1959
. Accordingly, all the State Governments excepting north-eastern region imposed ceilings ashore holdings within the 1960s. The states of West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir had already imposed ceilings ashore holdings along side the laws for abolition of intermediaries within the early 1950s. However, the Nagpur Resolution of 1959 had significant impact as various State Governments immediately took to the ratification of ceiling legislation.
The Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960; The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960; The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1969, The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceilings ashore Holdings Act, 1960; The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquition of Surplus 37 Land Act, 1961; The Karnataka Land Reforms Act1961; The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1960; The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Land) Act, 1961 and therefore the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 were a number of the results of the Nagpur Resolution ashore Reform. However, because the ceiling laws weren't ratified simultaneously with abolition of zamindari, except in West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir as stated before, several nami and benami transfer of land happened .
This reduced the potential ceiling surplus land that would be available for redistribution. Besides, several states including Andhra Pradesh , Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal followed individuals because the unit of application for ceiling, while family because the unit of application was adopted in Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu .
We present the ceiling limits fixed by various states in Table 3.1. It's going to be seen from Table 3.1 that ceilings were quite high in several states.
The subsequent categories of land were exempted from the ceiling laws:
1) Land under Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Coco and Cardamum Plantations
2) Land used for cultivation of Palm, Kesra, Bela, Chameli or rose when such land holders haven't any land for the other cultivation (U.P.)
3) Sugarcane Farms
4) Co-operative Gardens, Colonies
5) Tank Fisheries
6) Area under orchard up to 4 hectares (Punjab and Haryana)
7) Land held by co-operative farming and other co-operative societies, including land mortgage bank
8) Land held by religious, charitable and academic institutions
9) Land awarded for gallantry
10) Land held by sugarcane factories
11) Land held by state or Central Government
12) Land held by a public sector or industrial or commercial undertaking
13) Land vested in Gram Sabha, Bhoodan or Gramdan Committee
14) Land situated in any area which is specified as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development under the relevant tenancy law (Gujarat)
15) Specified farms engaged in breeding , dairying or wool raising
16) Several categories of other land including those held by public sector or commercial undertakings, research farms, etc. or maybe private forests.
These exemptions as provided within the ceiling laws gave rise to problems of law evasion by manipulating the classification of land. Also the dimensions of the ceiling surplus land available for redistribution was consequently reduced.
Bhoodan and Gramdan The Bhoodan movement was launched in 1951, immediately after the peasant uprising in Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh , and after some years, another movement referred to as Gramdan came into being in 1957. The target was to influence landowners and leaseholders in each concerned village to renounce their land rights, after which all the lands would become the property of a village association for the egalitarian redistribution and for purpose of joint cultivation. Vinoba Bhave hoped to eliminate private ownership of land through Bhoodan and Gramdan and maintained that the 38 Indian Agriculture : Institutional Perspectives movement would go an extended thanks to make sure the just redistribution of land, the consolidation of holding and their joint cultivation. However, the movement did not achieve its targeted objectives and therefore the degree of success in respect of both land acquisition and land distribution was very limited.
Of the entire land of about 42.6 lakh acres, received through Bhoodan, quite 17.3 lakh acres were rejected as they were found unfit for cultivation. About 11.9 lakh acres were distributed and 13.4 lakh acres remained to be distributed. In most cases, the village landlords donated only those pieces of land which were either unfit for cultivation or were at issue with tenants or government. In fact, the landlords preferred to part away with their disputed lands as a compromise formula for there was little hope under the prevailing law, of having the ability to stay this land with them. Besides, reciprocally for such land donation, the landlords also received input subsidies and other facilities, which was no less an inducement to part away with the land unfit for cultivation.
Furthermore, while it had been provided under the Gramdan movement that non-public ownership in land is to cease, only the landholders right to sell land was restricted (though not banned), leaving intact the proper of inheritance on such lands by the youngsters .
Protection of Tribal Land All the concerned states ratified laws for prevention of alienation of the tribals from land. Altogether the scheduled areas, land transfer from tribal to non-tribal population was prohibited by law. But thanks to various legal loopholes and administrative lapses, alienation of the tribals from their land continued on an outsized scale. In fact, mortgaging of land to moneylenders thanks to indebtedness, poverty and acquisition of tribal land for irrigation, dams and other public purposes were largely liable for alienation of tribal land. Since land is that the main source of livelihood for the tribal people and that they don't have much upward mobility, indiscriminate acquisition of tribal land for public purposes should be avoided.
Consolidation of Holdings
The term ‘Consolidation of holdings’ refers to amalgamation and redistribution of the fragmented land with a view to bringing together all plots of land of a cultivator in one compact block. Thanks to growing pressure of population ashore and therefore the limited opportunities for add the non-agricultural sector, there's an increasing trend towards sub-division and fragmentation of land holdings. This makes the task of irrigation management, land improvement and private supervision of various plots very difficult. After independence, most states excepting Tamil Nadu , Kerala, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and parts of Andhra Pradesh enacted laws for consolidation of holdings. But the character of legislation and therefore the degree of success achieved varied widely. While in Punjab (including Haryana) it had been made compulsory, in other states law provided for consolidation on voluntary basis, if majority of the land owners agreed.
The consolidation acts provided for
(i) prohibition of fragmentation below standard area,
(ii) fixation of minimum standard area for regulating transfers,
(iii) schemes of Consolidation by exchange of holdings,
(iv) reservation of land for common areas,
(v) procedure for payment of compensation to persons allotted holdings of less market price in exchange,
(vi) administrative machinery for carrying consolidation schemes, and
(viii) filing of objections, appeals and penalties.
However, thanks to lack of adequate political and administrative support, the progress made in terms of consolidation of holding wasn't very satisfactory, excepting in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh where the task of consolidation was 39 accomplished. But in these states, there's a requirement for reconsolidation again thanks to subsequent fragmentation of holdings under the population pressure.
Cooperative farming
It refers to an organisation in which:
1. Each member-farmer remains the owner of his land individually.
2. But farming is completed jointly.
3. Profit is distributed among the member-farmers within the ratio of land owned by them.
4. Wages distributed among the member-farmers consistent with number of days they worked.
In other words, Cooperative farming= pooling of land and practicing joint agriculture. Cooperative farming isn't a replacement concept in India. Since past , Indian farmers are giving international logistic support to every other in weeding, harvesting etc. Examples
Benefits/advantages/potential:
1. Economies of scale:
a. Because the size of farm increases, the per hectare cost of using tube-well, tractor comes down.
b. Small farms=some land is wasted in forming the ‘boundaries’ among them. When they’re combined into an enormous cooperative farm, we will also cultivate thereon boundary land.
c. Overall, Large farms are economically more beneficial than small farms.
2. Solves the matter of sub-division and fragmentation of holdings.
3. Cooperative farm has more men-material-money resources to extend irrigation potential and land productivity. Members wouldn't are ready to roll in the hay individually on their small farm.
4. Case studies generally means that with cooperative farming, per acre production increases.
1951-1956
• Apart from Cooperative farming, it also recommended ‘Cooperative Village Management’ as a more comprehensive solution for rural development.
• Encourage small and middle farmers to make cooperative farming societies
• If majority of farmers agreed to start out cooperative farming, then decision are going to be binding on the whole village.
• But didn't mention giving enforcement powers to States.
• Result? ~2000 cooperative farming societies formed during the primary Plan period.
1956-61
• 1956: Indian delegations sent to China to review their cooperative farming. Recommended this technique in to extend grain production.
• Develop cooperative farming as soon as possible.
• Target: Setup a minimum of one cooperative farm in every National Extension Block, or about 5000 for the entire country.
• Hoped to convert substantial proportion of Indian farms into cooperative farming by a period of ten years.
1961-66
• Observed that almost 40% of the cooperative farms aren't functioning properly.
• Advocated better implementation of community development program, credit societies, agri-marketing etc. for getting success in cooperative farming.
• ~300 pilot projects in selected district. Each project having 10 cooperative societies.
• Overall, Third Five year plan tried to place a brave face, again reaffirming the government’s faith in cooperative farming, but overall, wishful platitude not an idea of action.
1969-74
1. Observed that cooperative farming programs haven't made any substantial progress.
2. (therefore) it's not been possible to propose any additional programmes for cooperative farming during this Plan
3. Instead, we should always specialise in development of agricultural credit, marketing, processing and consumer needs.
4. In co-operative farming, funding priority just for revitalizing of the prevailing weak societies.
5. But avoid fixing new cooperative farming societies, unless they need a possible for growth.
So, overall we will see that by early 70s, Planning commission’s faith/interest in cooperative farming is vanishing.
1974-79
1. Made no mention of cooperative farming.
2. It did allot some ca$H under the heading “Cooperation”, but it had been only meant for inter-farm co-operative service facilities e.g. Seed-fertilizer-water supply, use of tractors/agro-machineries etc.
After this era, five year plans give more attention (and ca$H) to wasteland management, poverty removal etc. and cooperative farming loses its relevance.
Failures
1) Miscalculations and false hopes
Early planners and policymakers had hoped that
1. Village panchayat and (Congress) party workers will help implementing cooperative farming, but response was lukewarm.
2. Cooperative farming = government will need to spend less money on agriculture (+less leakage in subsidies). But the scenario didn’t change.
• During 2nd FYP, the National Development Council proposed that within the next five years agricultural production be increased by 25-35% via cooperative farming. But most government shied faraway from taking necessary initiatives.
Bogus Farms
By and enormous Cooperative farming societies fell into two categories:
Big farmers = bogus farms
• They’d setup bogus cooperative farms by showing agri.labourers/tenants as bogus members. But actually none of them owned the land individually.
• this was done to evade land ceiling and tenancy reform laws.
• Adding insult to the injury: government even gave them subsidies for seeds, fertilizers etc.
• At times, non-working members had been enrolled so as to fulfil the minimum requirements of registration.
• Even in legit/genuine cooperative farming societies, the rich farmers dominate the management positions.
• Sometimes societies setup with members of only one or two families to urge various subsidies/support.
Apathetic bureaucrats-Government
• State sponsored cooperative farms as a part of pilot projects under FYP.
• Government would allot land to the landless, SC/ST, Displaced persons etc.
• but they didn't get adequate support from government agencies for irrigation, electricity, seeds-fertilizer, extension services etc.
• these farms were run like government-sponsored projects instead of genuine, motivated, joint efforts of the cultivators. Result? These experiments were unsuccessful. No gain in productivity.
• Later, those farmers started cultivating land individual (though on papers, the land continued to be owned by the ‘cooperative societies’.)
Epic fail in Bihar:
• Cooperative farming societies were formed on Bhoodan land- for the landless laborers.
• But later, they started individual farming, although officially the land still continues to be within the name of the societies.
References
1. Indian Economy - Rudra Dutt & Sundarram
2. Bhartiya Arthashastra – L. M. Roy
3. Indian Economy – Uma & Kapila
