Sunday, August 25, 2002		Books

Assessing the status of land reforms
Padam Ahlawat

Land reforms in India. Volume 6. Intervention for Agrarian Capitalist Transformation in Punjab and Haryana.
Edited by Sucha Singh Gill. Sage Publications, New Delhi. Page 249. Rs 495.

THIS is the sixth volume in a series of studies conducted for the IAS Academy, Mussoorie. The primary aim of the series is to assess the current status of land reforms in India. This volume on Punjab and Haryana is edited by Sucha Singh Gill and is a result of several contributors. The basic data was collected by IAS probationers on land reforms, status of tenant cultivators, allotment of land to the landless and common land.

The Congress considered the taluqdars, biswedars, zaildars and zamindars as one of the pillars of British rule. After Independence, the struggle was carried to the villages and land was to be given to the tillers. The country was faced with food shortage and the government took several measures to boost food production. One of the ways was to put a ceiling on land at 30 standard acres (50 for displaced persons) in 1955. This was later reduced to 18 acres in 1972. As a result, 1,32,600 acres were declared surplus by 1994, out of which 1,02,500 acres were distributed, while 30,100 acres were under litigation in Punjab. In Haryana, 92,300 acres were declared surplus and 82,100 acres were distributed.

Landlords managed to evade the ceiling by bribing corrupt revenue staff, showing irrigated land as dry land, dividing land among family members and creating fake tenants. One of the consequences of the ceiling law was that landlords resorted to large-scale eviction of tenants. But this did not give way to owner cultivation, rather tenant cultivation went underground.

The policy was not a complete failure. In the Pepsu area, the biggest landlord (biswedar) had a holding of 24,000 acres. Now he owns only 23 acres. The largest holding now is of 100 acres, whereas most landlords owned thousands of acres prior to the enactment of the ceiling laws. There was a strong peasant movement in the area which forced the landlords to surrender land. Sardar Tehal Singh owned 9000 acres. Now, the family of two brothers has only 56 acres each.

However, there was another aspect to the land distribution. In areas where the peasant movement was absent, the weak could not take possession of surplus land. Judge, in his essay, mentions such cases in Gujrani village of Bhiwani district where two Jat landowners lost 85 acres declared surplus and distributed among 39 persons. But, none of these have got possession of the land. In Mithaal village, five Jat landowners lost 45 acres, but none of the 33 allottees could get control of the land. In Dingsara village of Hisar district, a Rajput landowner lost 256 acres, but none of the 39 allottees could take possession of the land. In Nathwan village, a Jat landowner refused to give possession to 50 allottees for the 350 acres of surplus land.

The existence of surplus evacuee land of 3,74,000 acres led to a scramble for land. The poor peasants and landless labour managed to get 86,943 acres, while the major portion was grabbed by big landlords. The book includes the Harchand Singh Committee Report on land and corruption.

There were also unauthorised occupants of land, who exploited the delay in disposal of surplus evacuee land. The report gives a list of 10 persons who grabbed land.

The Congress government also embarked upon consolidation of holdings, improving land, opening agricultural universities, building canals and mechanising farming. All this led to the green revolution.

Mechanised farming was a boon for big farmers. Fragmentation of land had made cultivation by small farmers uneconomical. This led to large landowners taking land from small and medium landowners to establish modern farms with tubewells, tractors and machine, operated by migrant labourers.

In Haryana, the big farmers have started leasing land from small landowners and non-cultivating castes. However, in Haryana, share-cropping has taken new forms and landowners prefer share croppers.

Farming today in these states is at a crossroads, where cultivation of small farm is unviable and landowners operating big farms with capitalist ways reflect the future trends.