\ the Indian Journal of Agricultural! Economics

Home , Permanent Settlement, Shahabad district

\ THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL! ECONOMICS

(Organ of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics)

•

Vol. I July 1946 No.

CONTENTS

PAGE.

The Journal . • • • • • • •. • • 5

The Land System of Bihar—Gyan Chand .. • • 01,

Agricultural Statistics of India—N. S. R. Sastry • • 28 Land Management and Economic Planning—Tarlok Singh 36 Future of Indian Agriculture—S. Kesava Iyengar • • • • 42 Government and \AgTiculturc—E. R. Dhongde • • • • 56

Book Reviews :— Royal Institute of International Affairs—A Food Plan for India—M.L.D. • • • • • • 65 N. Gangulee—The Battle of the Land—M.L.D. • • 66 P. N. Agarwala—Economic Planning and Agriculture— D.T.L. • • • • • • 67 Dr. Baljit Singh—Whither Agriculture in India S.M.J. 69 M. N. Desai—Rural Karnatak—S.M.J. V. Liversage—Land Tenures in the Colonies—S.M.J.

V. Balsubramanian—A Policy for Agriculture—M.B.D. • • 72 Government of India—Blue Books on Agricultural Econo- mics—M.L.D. •. • • • • • • • • 74

R • 3/- per Copy. Rs..12j- per annum. THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS BOMBAY

AIMS .4ND OBJECTS

To promote the investigation, study and improvement of the economic and social conditions of agriculture and rural life through

(a) periodical conferences for the discussion of problems;

(b) the publication of papers or summaries of papers, eithc— separately or collectively; or in a periodical which may be issued under the auspices of the society;

(c) co-operation• with other institutions having similar objects, • such as the International Conference of Agricultural Eco- nomists and the Indian Economic Association; etc. THE LAND SYSTEM OF pIHAR

• BY GYAN CHAND Professor. of Economics and the Head of the Department of Economics, Patna College, Patna University.

The land system of Bihar, as it exists today, has given rise to extremely complicated agrarian-relations and has developed under the provisions of the permanent settlement introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, Bihar and a part of Orissa. The Per- manent Settlement was, as is well known, originally a measure de- signed to ensure the prompt and punctual payment of revenue which was fixed in perpetuity. The State has, by this measure, foregone the right to increase its revenue by enhancement of its fiscal demand and suffered a considerable loss. Fiscal stability has been secured but the price which the community has had to pay for it is measured not merely by the loss of revenues to the exchequer. The loss which the community has suffered is far greater almost incalculable, and is due to the growth of an agrarian economy in which land—the most important asset of the community—is being cultivated under a system which is exceedingly wasteful and inefficient and has become a source of enormous amount of human suffering and social conflict. In this system, there are four principal elements i.e. the State, the landlords (including the classes who do not bear that name but are in effect rent-receivers), the cultivators and agricultural labourers. A detailed statement of the existing position of these various classes, may be given here in order to show the complicated character of the system and its inhibitory effects.

Estates Held Directly By The State The estates held directly by the Government are either managed by it for proprietors or as proprietors. The former are estates with regard to which Government is in the position of a trustee owing to the proprietors' inability to manage them for various reasons. The reasons generally are: minority of proprietors, disputes of titles, the estates being encumbered by debts or general lack of ability of the proprietors. The management of these estates is restor- ed to the proprietors when they come of age or are otherwise in a 7 position to resume their management. Estates of the other type are permanently held by Government and have been acquired by it by forfeiture, escheat, or purchase of proprietary rights. The total number of both varieties of estates directly managed by the State in 1941-42 was 368 and their rental value Rs. 13.56 lakhs. These estates are held by the State, but in their management no new principles of land administration or utilization are introduced. Most of the land in these estates, as all over the province, is in the hands of the protected tenants; the unit of cultivation is in most cases small and uneconomic and holdings are fragmented. In the estates held permanently by Government, over which it exercises absolute proprietary rights, there are in several cases also tenure holders or sub-proprietors, who realise rents from tenants, exercise landlord's powers over them and have to pay fixed amounts to Gov- ernment as their superior landlord. The state management of these estates has therefore no special significance from the economic standpoint. A certain amount of these incomes of these estates is spent upon improvements and to that extent the state management is bene- ficial. In 1941-42 Rs. 1.45 lacs out of the total realization of Rs. 14.28 lacs (Rs. 7.76 lacs current + Rs. 6.52 arrears) or little less than 10 per cent was provided for improvements. This is a higher percentage than what is spent by private landlords on the improvement of their estates for the latter hardly spend anything for the purpose. But the standard of cultivation and the average yield from land in Government estates are about the same as in other estates. The percentage of collection in these estates is lower than in private estates and also much lower than the percentage of revenue collections. In 1941-42 only Rs. 7.76 lacs out of the total current demand of Rs. 13.56 lacs or nearly 57 per cent was realized. For the same year percentage collection of revenue was nearly 90. In the collection of revenue, promptness of payment has, ever since the introduction of the Permanent Settlement, been insisted upon and enforced, but percentage of rent collection in these estates is known to be lower than in private estates and may be;taken as an index of the greater ineffi- ciency of Government management of landed estates or partially of greater consideration in the realization of dues in hard cases. The general impression is that though petty exactions by Gov- ernment agents in these estates are as common as in other public de- partments, tenants are relatively better off on Government estates than on private estates, i.e., they are treated with less lack of consideration than by private landlords or their agents. 8

Management by Government of private estates in certain cases is unavoidable in the existing circumstances when proprietors are too ,young to manage their estates or the title over them is in dis- pute and being adjudicated upon by courts. But Government also take over management of heavily encumbered estates or when the proprietors are likely to lose their estates by their extravagance or reckless dissipation. In such cases Government policy has been to save the landlords from the consequences of their own folly and pro-- tea them against bankruptcy or alienation of their properties to their creditors who in a number of cases" belong to classes with very slender traditional connection with land or agriculture. The Government solicitude for landed gentry is intelligible and is based Upon the assumption that it is in the interests of the tenants in parti- cular and agrarian economy in general that landed aristocracy should be preserved and the growing influence and power of the newly rising classes checked. But experience is showing increasingly that confidence in the traditional position of the landed aristocracy is mis- Oaced and attempt to save them from themselves a waste of effort. In Chota Nagpur, special measures have been taken to preserve indi- genous chieftainships and the estate exempted from ordinary Sale Law; and when their estates get heavily encumbered, they are taken under protective management by Government to prevent them from passing into the hands of the money-lending classes. The result has been that "many of the Zarnindars regard" to quote from the Settle- ment. Report of Mr. B. K. Gokhale, I.C.S., of the Manbhum district, "protective management of their estates, varied with brief intervals Of dissipation, as their'natural condition." Mr. Gokhale is of opinion that -struggle for existence should be given free play in these cases and the Zarnindars allowed to succumb if they cannot look after themselves under modern conditions. Protective management of estates is common throughout the Province and many estates have been preserved which otherwise would have been broken by the struggle for existence. There is really not much to choose between the old and the new landlords so far as the interests of the community and tenants are concerned, but the artificial preservation of a decaying class in a disintegrating economy only increases its stresses and heightens the contrast between the needs of to-day and the con- ception of the proprietors of land of their place and importance in the rural economy. Landlords—Their Origin - The estates held by Government are a very small proportion of the total area of the province and their rental value is, as stated 9 above, about 13 lacs while the total- estimated gross rental of private estates is Rs. 12.78 crores for 1941-42 for the Province as a whole. That means that the private landlords' rental is nearly hundred times the rental of estates held by Government. In a sense it is true that these landlords were created by Permanent Settlement. There were no landlords in the Province who held absolute proprietary rights over their land and could do whatever they liked with it. But all over the Province at the time of the introduction of the Perman- ent Settlement there were feudatory chiefs who were practically rulers in their estates, landlords who have been given revenue-free estates as grants for their services or held them in lieu of the remu- neration for services which they were expected to render, revenue collectors who too had acquired hereditary rights through the pass- age of time and were in a very strong position and, lastly, revenue farmers whose rights were less firmly established but were in different stages of consolidation owing to the weakness of central administration. Under the Permanent Settlement the position of all these classes was assimilated, they were invested with proprietary rights and charged with the obligation of paying revenue to the treasury. The important point to remember is that even if the Settlement had not been made permanent i.e., revenue demand had not been fixed in perpetuity, these classes could not have been dislodged from the position which they occupied in the rural economy of the time and their position had to be recognised and regularised because revenue administration could not have been carried on without them. Permanent Settlement accorded to all these classes the status of Zamindars, landlords or proprietors in the British sense of the word. Since 1793—the year in which Permanent Settlement was introduced—the composition. of this class has changed. Some of the older estates have survived—particularly those in whose case the succes- sion is governed by the law of primogeniture. They are owned by landed magnets who trace their lineage to the founders who acquired the estates centuries ago and have an unbroken connection with what are now their properties extending in some cases to seven or eight hundred years. But besides these ancient families there are others, who now occupy the same status and have acquired it in the last 150 years. Immediately after the introduction of the Per- manent Settlement there occurred what has been described as an agrarian revolution. The failure- on the part of the Zamindars to meet the revenue demand by the prescribed day carried with it the penalty of their estates being sold up to the highest bidder by the sunset of the day. As cash at that time was scarce and the revenue 10 demand ten-eleventh of the assessed rental assets of the estates, a very large number of them were acquired by the highest bidder at these auctions; and within two or three decades one-third to one-half of the properties changed hands by the operation of what is known as the Sunset Law and passed into the hands of an entirely new class of people. The Sunset Law is still in force but its rigour has decreased considerably. In 1941-42, for example, 18,207 estates, shares or interests became liable for sale under the law out of which only 294 were actually sold. The revenue demand of the properties liable to sale was Rs. 23.43 lacs and that of properties actually sold Rs. 35 thousand. In the earlier years, however, the law was enforced strictly and produced the result referred to above. The transfer and sub-division of landed properties has been going on all these years for other reasons also. The landlords as a class are extravagant and thriftless and maintain a standard of living not .justified by their means. In spite of the fact that in some areas special measures have been taken to protect the landlords from the results of their impro- vidence, the transfer of landed properties has continued all these years and is still in progress. The most important factor, however, which has brought about a fundamental change in the situation is the splitting up of estates through sub-division owing to the operation of the law of inheritance. The extent of the sub-division is dealt with below. This change is all-important and has a profound bearing on the whole agrarian situation.

Size of Estates It has already been stated that in Bihar there are still in existence some very big estates. Their survival and continued existence is mainly due to the operation of the law of primogeniture. Some of the well-known estates are Darbhanga, Bettiah, Hathwa, Pachet, Ramgarh, Amawan, Damraon and Chota Nagpur. The Bettiah estate, for example, •has a total area of 1,443,073 acres, the Pachet estate 852,580 acres and the Chota Nagpur estate 426,116 acres. In these big estates the absolute proprietary right of the Zamindars is limited to a small fraction of the total area and on the rest of the area cultivation is done by the occupancy tenants who are practically part-proprietors. Even in the area in direct occupation of the landlord, the unit of cultivation is small, cultivation on crop-sharing basis is common and the cases of large farms directly cultivated by the landlords by old or modern methods of cultivation are practically unknown. The only purpose which this area serves is that it enables the Zamindar to rack-rent the cultivators and enables the 11 petty Zamindars to maintain their position by more intense exploitation of the cultivators. Excepting a small number of big estates, most of the estates are very small and the income of their owners accordingly limited. The total area of Bihar is 44.33 million acres out of which the cultivated area, including current fallows, is 26.5 million acres or roughly there are 126 acres to an estate, the total number of estates being nearly 209,000; but the number of recorded shareholders in the estates, which does not include estates partitioned privately, is about 836,000 or 4 shareholders per estate, i.e. the average estate of each Zamindar is a. little over 30 acres. As a number of the estates cover an area of half a million acres or more and there are hundreds of estates with an area of more than a hundred thousand acres, the average is no index of the extent to which landed estates have been divided or their actual size.. Since the Permanent Settlement the number of estates has greatly increased. In Shahabad, to give one instance, the average size of property of each shareholder is 21 acres and the sannual rental income Rs. 138; but in this district there are a number of large estates besides one very big estate—Damraon—whose annual income is known to, be over Rs. 20 lacs. In the Darbhanga District average land per proprietor is 15 acres and average income Rs. 85. But in this district a very large proportion of land, nearly one third, is owned by the, well known landed magnate—the Maharaja of Darbhanga—whose annual income from land in the province exceeds Rs. 60 lacs. These averages therefore give a more favourable idea of the size of property and income of the vast majority of proprietors than is justified, by facts. Furthermore, the proprietors have delegated the right to collect rent of their property to a large number of what are known as tenure holders who in their turn have, in a large number of cases, transferred their right to under-tenure holders and actually receive a small proportion of the income to which they are nominally en- titled, much larger proportion being retained by the under-tenure holders. In the Champaran district in which the number of estates is 2,285 and the number of proprietors 7,000, the number of tenures is 4,085 and the number of shareholders in these estates is 15,442. In the Singbhum district though there are only three estates, the number of tenures is 3,278 and that of shareholders 3,185; the average income of rent receivers is Rs. 710. In the district of Manbhum there are only 165 estates, but nearly 58,000 tenures and 89,000 tenure holders. Similarly in the districts of Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Santhal- Parganas, Palamau and Purnea—the districts in which relatively 12 speaking the number of proprietors is small—there are a large number of tenures and shareholders in the tenure, which are, for all practical purposes, district properties. The number of proprietors with large income even in these districts is small. For the Province the total number of estates in 1941-42 was 209,000 and the number of tenures 346,448 and the districts in which the number of estatea is small, tenures are far more numerous and swell the number of rentiers. How small are the properties may be illustrated by giving an instance of the scale commonly used for measuring fractional shares. The one commonly used is given below:— Estate=16 annas. One Karant=3 Dants. One anna=16 Gandas. One Dant=20 Rens. One Ganda=4 Kauris. One Ren=16 Parast. . One Kauri=3 Karant. One Parast=16 Kanwa. One Kanwa in the scale is equivalent to 59 millionth of sixteen annas —the estate unit—and the fact that the scale is in use is an index of the fractional shares of properties to be measured. In the Gaya district 'a small of a rupee measure—Til—equivalent to 9 216 000 000 was found in one estate. In the Patna district, another scale is in use in which sixteen annas contain 8,192,000,000,000 Balatis—the lowest unit and the Settlement 'Report, which was written in 1911, gives shares of two properties which represented each 9 square yards and in -another estate the share of a proprietor stood a little over ten square feet. In Monghyr, in a single plot with an area of just half an acre there were found 1582 co-shares each of *hose share represented 7-L- square yards. The Settlement Reports of other districts also give similar instances of sub-division of properties. Properties in Bihar are incredibly small, almost microscopic in size. The number of small properties is predominently large and the general impression that the Zamindars are a class of landed magnates is an utterly wrong impression. Vast majority of Zamindars are men of very, limited means and their most distinctive characteristic is their extreme reluctance and inability to perform any useful function in the rural economy of the Province. Land Ii Direct Occupation Of. The Landlords And Tenure-Holders :Most 9f the agricultural land- in Bihar is being cultivated by protected tenants and tenants-at-will. But a certain proportion of it is in private cultivation of the landlord and tenure holders The land in direct occupation of the rentier class is of two classes, i.e. Zariat, the privileged land over which occupancy rights cannot 13 accrue, and the unprivileged land over which they can under certain. conditions. But in practice there is hardly any distinction between the two for the proprietors see to it that no occupancy or protected interests accrue on any part of the land in their direct occupation. The proportion of such land varies from district to district. The percentages of areas in cultivating possession of the landlords and tenure-holders are given below. The information is not up-to-date,. having been extracted from the Settlement Reports some of which are very old.

TABLE SHOWING THE PERCENTAGES OF. AREAS IN CULTIVATING POSSESSION OF LANDLORDS AND TENURE-HOLDERS.

8hahabad 16 Bhagalpur 8 Gaya 13 North Monghyr. 13 Muzzaffarpur 19 - South „ 11 . . ..._. Saran 10 Manbhum 16 Rice land and 14 Upland Champaran 9 Palarnau ' 30 Rice land Purnea - 21 • and 22 Upland

The area held by the _landlords and tenure-holders or in their_ cultivating possession is not actually cultivated by them. The areas held by individual proprietors are not in compact blocks. They are divided into holdings and sub-divided into plots almost as much as areas are very rare. Though in a few cases landlords and, tenure-holders cultivate the areas through hired labour the rule is to give them an annual or short-term lease for high cash rentals or on crop-sharing basis; and the incidence of rents in such cases is much higher than in the case of occupancy tenants. Generally, it does not pay the proprietors to cultivate these areas through hired labour, and it is much easier and more profitable to lease them to tenants-at-will who ^find seeds, labour and cattle for cultivation and the risk is almost entirely borne by them, except in crop-sharing tenancies in which case it is partially shared. The fact that the areas are held by the proprietors has, as a rule, no bearing on the unit, method or standards of cultivation. The only difference between the areas held by proprietors and tenants is in the legal right over land and the incidence of rent. Direct occupation of the area by the proprietor, involves greater exploitation and rack-renting of cultivators and the right is highly prized just on that account. The proportion of area held varies according to the size of properties; 14 the smaller the size, the larger the proportion. In every district the proportion is higher in the tracts in which small properties are predominant and small proprietors cling to their Zarait and Bakasht holdings with the tenacity born of the knowledge that, bad as their position is, it would be much worse if the cultivators on these holdings acquire protected interests, i.e., they are given fixity of tenure and their rents are regulated by statute. There is no possibility of , the area being used as a means for increasing the scale or standard of cultivation or improvement• of agriculture in general. The proprietors have neither the resources nor the ability nor the inclina- tion to use it for any beneficent purpose from the standpoint of the community.

Role of Landlords In Rural Economy The landlords, big and small, in this Province, are, as a class, all renters pure and simple and not interested in improving agriculture or the condition of the cultivators on whose labour they live. This role they have maintained since the introduction, of the Per- manent Settlement. For nearly sixty years after the event they were practically entirely unhampered in their dealing with the cultivator. During this period the tenants were entirely under their control without any protection whatsoever and this power was used by landlords to enhance rents, eject tenants, impose illegal exactions, levy forced labour and break the backbone of the peasantry. The extension of cultivation was merely the result of the growing pressure of the population and the cultivators, docile and submissive, by temperament and tradition, found their increasing numbers a • serious handicap in bargaining with the proprietors and had to submit to their demands without any chance of getting a square deal. It has taken more than seven decades since the introduction of the protective legislation for the Government to enforce the legal rights of the cultivators and even now, in spite of the improvement which has undoubtedly taken place, semi-feudal conditions prevail in the countryside and the tenants as a class are not in a position to hold their own in the unequal struggle for existence. The official publications on the agrarian position, mostly the settlement reports, are full of severe indictment of the landlords and tenure-holders, who, as stated above, are also sub-proprietors and it would be utterly unrealistic to expect them to change their role. or expect them to contribute anything of value to the development of agriculture or to the improvement in .the condition of the tenants and' labourers. 15

This is true of all landlords, but much more so of the petty ones. Theirs is a truly unhappy lot. They are numerous, necessitous and therefore more grasping. It is admitted in almost every Settle.- ment Report that small landlords are more oppressive, rackrent their tenants to a greater extent and levy heavier illegal exactions.. That is the reason why they have larger proportion of land and, as stated later, rely more on produce rents. Most of the 7,000,000 shareholders in estates and tenures belong to this class and their total strength assuming that on the average there are five members in each family, would be nearly 35 lacs, i.e., one-tenth of the total population of the Province. This diversity is now as permanent as the Permanent Settlement and can be changed only when there is a complete overhaul of the agrarian system.

Occupancy Tenants Besides the landlords, big and small, the occupancy and settled tenants, non-occupancy tenants and agricultural labourers are other three classes in the rural economy of the Province whose position has to be considered for assessing the present agrarian situation. Of these, the -occupancy and settled tenants are the most important, numerically and by virtue of their economic position. They have acquired this position owing to their having been granted fixity of tenure and right to pay only fair rent under the tenancy legislation. But their position entitles them not only to fixity of tenure, but also to other rights the possession of which makes them part proprietors of the land they occupy. They can transfer their holdings by inheritance, sale and mortgage. Their credit is largely based on their legal rights and they can be dispossessed of them only for non-payment of rent. Most of the tenants were supposed to enjoy security of tenure by custom before the time of the introduction of the Per- manent Settlement and it was the intention of that measure to preserve the customary rights of the tenants unimpaired in spite of the grant of proprietary rights to the Zamindar. But in practice owing to the pre-occupation of the British rulers with the prompt and punctual payment of the land revenue, their rights were completely sac- rificed to the over-riding necessity of ensuring the realisation of the fiscal demand of the State and they were left uncared for and un- looked after. In 1859, when measures to grant them some degree of protection were enacted, their position was extremely weak and insecure and they were, as they had been for nearly seventy -years, at the mercy of the Zamindars. Their rents- had been enhanced, they had been freely evicted and they had to submit to all kinds'of 16 illegal exactions and unreasonable demands of their masters. Since 1859, however, the position has been retrieved to a considerable extent, though the process has been slow and the enforcement of legal rights of the tenants has been difficult in practice owing to the in- herent weakness of the tenants' position. Even nbw in places there is disparity between their actual and legal position, but to a very large extent they have acquired and exercised semi-proprietary rights and can, as. stated above, leave their holdings to their desten- dants, sell and mortgage them, and of course, cultivate• or sublet them. The occupancy right of these tenants does not carry with it the obligations to cultivate their holdings themselves. Occupancy right is really a legal right and not a description of economic function, i.e., all occupancy tenants are not ,and need not be actual cultivators. The right is being bought and sold and has, in a fairly large number of cases, been acquired by persons who exercise it to sublet the holdings and realise much higher rents than what they have to pay to the superior proprietors—the Zamindars. The occupancy. tenants are in such cases really tenure-holders—intermediaries between the cultivators and the Zamindar and belong to the rent-re- ceiving classes. But a large majority of the occupancy tenants are actual cultivators and have been benefited by the acquisition of statutory rights under tenancy legislation. Nearly four-fifths of the occupied area is in the hands of the protected tenants. Most of them are occupancy or settled tenants and their rents can under certain conditions be enhanced, and, subject to the payment of rent fixed by law, they have, as already stated, almost complete right over the land in their occupation; but there is also a small proportion of tenants whose rents are fixed and can on no account be increased. 'The latter have acquired this privileged position for historical reasons. The proportion of the occupied area in the possession of the protected tenants in the various districts of the Province so far as the information is available is given in the following table:—

TABLE SHOWING THE PROPORTION OF THE OCCUPIED AREA IN THE HANDS OF PROTECTED TENANTS.

1. Patna 84 pc. 5. Monghyr 83 pc. 9. Champaran 86 pc. 2. Gaya 83 pc. 6. Darbhanga 83 „ 10. Purnea 76 pc. 3. Shahabad 81 pc. 7. Muzzaffarpur79 pc. 11. Palamau 82 pc. 4. Bliagalpur89 pc. 8. Saran 89 pc. 12. Manbhum 82 pc. This table is based upon information given in the Settlement Reports and is in most *cases out of date. But it indicates the pre- 17 ponderance of the protected tenants in the agrarian economy of the Province. Rents Rents are paid in kind and cash, cash rents being much more common. Cash rents are mostly lump sum rents, i.e., they are not fixed according to classification of lands; and though there is some relation between rent and the productivity of land, generally speaking, the statement of the Land Revenue Commission, Bengal, made with regard to that Province that "the absence of systematic assess- merit has led to a rate of rent the incidence of which varies considerably from district to district and from holding to holding and has little relation to the productivity of land" is also true of this Pro- vince. Incidence of rents varies widely and has been determined by historical factors, such as (1) high incidence of revenue from the very beginning in some districts like Patna and Gaya (2) Unequal incidence of assessment on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate information and (3) greater demand for land in the densely popu- lated parts of the province. But most important than any other cause of differences in the incidence of rent has been the extent to which the landlords have been successful in imposing, their will over the tenants. High-handedness in their (dealings with the tenants has been well nigh universal, but there have been differences of degrees in the application of the screw. Still another cause of variations of rents has been the practice of charging Salami-capitalized advance rents—at the time of settlement of land, rents varying in- versely to the amount of Salami paid; and the present level of rent is no measure of the actual burden of rents as low rents are not un- commonly used due to the realization of capitalised value of rent in advance. Until 1859 the determination of rents was left to the free play of economic forces, i.e., it depended upon the millions of cultivators who on account of the growing population, the increasing scarcity of land and ,absence of alternative occupations were in the grip of land hunger of increasing intensity which the landlords, also increasing in number and struggling to maintain their position with diminishing income, utilized ruthlessly to enhance rents, levy illegal exactions and demand forced labour. Since 1859 attempt has been made to restrict the working of the competitive forces but with varying degrees of success. Different degrees of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of tenancy legislation have widened the range of variations of rents and the incidental liabilities. For all these reasons it is difficult to speak of the prevailing rate of rents in the same districts or even estates, not to speak of the Pro- 18

vince as a whole. Cases are not uncommon in which a tenant of a holding under two or more co-sharers pays different rates of rents to different landlords. The average incidence of rents in the different districts, as the reports of Survey and Settlement show, varies widely and may be anywhere between 1-12-0 (minimum) per acre in Manbhum to Rs. 10-8-0 (maximum) in Palamau.'" The actual extent of variations may be illustrated by giving difference in the incidence of rents in 30 villages of Behar for which figures were col- lected two years ago. In these villages average rent per acre was found to be Rs. 4-11-0 but the rents of tenants at fixed rates varies from Re. 1 to Rs. 35 per acre and those of the occupancy tenants from Re. 1 to Rs. 13.

Produce Rents.

Produce rents are found all over the province. A large proportion of under-tenants or tenants-at-will cultivate their holdings on crop-sharing basis, the proportion received by the lessor being generally half. At the time of the last settlement the proportion of the occupied area held on produce rent was 67.9 p.c. in Gaya, 44 p.c. in Patna, 32 p.c. in South Monghyr, 21 p.c. in Shahabad and 16 p.c. in South Bhagalpur. Produce rents for occupancy tenants are also common in these districts. In the other districts, produce rents are relatively unimportant. Formerly the landlord's share used to be and the tenant's -17-c- Under the Tenancy Act of 1939 the porpor- tion was changed in favour of the tenants, i.e. pr the remaining being taken by the landlord. The prevalence of produce rents in

* AVERAGE INCIDENCE OF RENT PER ACRE IN THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS OF BIHAR

Ps. As. Rs. As. Patna 7 8 Champaran Shahabad 1 15 4 1 Purnea 1 Gaya 15 6 1 Palamau 10 _ 8 (Max.) Bhagalpur 6 4 (Min.) 2 10 Hazaribagh '5 6 (Max.) , N. Monghyr 2 0 (Min.) 2 15 Ranchi 3 2 (Max.) 2 12 (Min.) S. Monghyr 3 8 Manbhum 5 4 (Max.) 1 12 (Min..) Darbh.anga 3 12 Muzzaffarpur 3 12 Saran 4 5 This table, like other tables, has been compiled from the Reports Settlement which of Survey were carried out in different years. Some of them comparatively recent while others are are several decades old. The relation of the tables to figures given in these the actual facts has to be appreciated and the limited utility as representative of these tables of the existing state of things b to be borne in mind. 19 certain districts was due to a system of irrigation under which the landlords constructed reservoires (Ahars) and channels (Pains) and the same was responsible for their maintenance. In Gaya where produce rents are widely prevalent, the system was best developed. But owing to the sub-division of properties this system has been in a state of neglect and decay for a long time and an attempt made by, the Government to revive it has practically failed. Incidence of cash rents seldom exceeds 20 p.c. of the value of gross produce and is generally less while the incidence of produce is seldom less than 40 p.c. and not unoften more. There is a provision for commutation of produce rents into cash rents and is generally made by striking a mean between the average cash rent of the area and the value of produce rent realised by the landlord in the pre- vious decade. In the districts in which produce rent is common, it has been commuted into cash rent to a certain extent but the incidence of the commuted rent is also higher thah that of the cash rent by 33 to 50 p.c. Even now produce rents are widely prevalent in certain districts, the most important of which are Gaya, Patna, Monghyr, Shahabad and South Bhagalpur, and these involve heavier burden on the tenants and are a cause of chronic conflict between them and the landlords. There are generally three different systems of produce rent. Division on the threshing floor (Batai) is generally favoured by tenants while division through appraisal of the stand- ing crops (Bhaoli) is more to the liking of the landlords because it gives them an opportunity of over-estimating the yield and saves them the trouble and expense of watching the crop after it has but nearly, matured. Incidence of rents paid in fixed quantity of grain (Mankhop) is the highest, but the proportion of land held under this system is relatively small. Under all the three systems the entire cost of cultivation in money, seeds and labour is borne by the tenants and the landlord receives his share without making any contribution whatsoever. The system is now purely a relic of the past and is being maintained because it enables the landlords to realise higher rents and keep the tenants under their thumb. The proportion of land held on produce rent is higher in the case of small landlords owing to their being in a position to supervise the division of crops personally and their need for resorting to a method of rent collection which increases its incidence and also their hold over the cultivator. During the war the disparity between the incidence of cash and produce rents has been greatly incleased on account of the rise in prices of agricultural produce. 20

Besides rents, the tenants have to pay other contributions in cash, kind and labour. These are commonly called Abwabs. Their realization was declared illegal in 1793 and under the Tenancy Acts of 1859, 1885 and 1938 the same tention was affirmed and re-affirmed and yet it has not been possible to stop these exactions, though in some parts of the Province they have become comparatively unimportant. These contributions are levised for celebrating festivals, for making sacrifices, for building the landlord's house, for purchas- ing elephants, buffaloes or motor cars, for defraying the marriage expenses of the landlord's sons and daughters for meeting his tour- ing expenses, for issuing receipts, for maintaining the Amla—establ- ishment of the landlord—as a matter of fact for every purpose for which the landlords, their agents collect levies on their own and add to the burden of the tenants. They are all most miserably paid and they take their jobs on the understanding that they would supplement the pittance allowed to them by the landlords by levying private dues of their own. Incidence of these exactions varies from 20 p.c. to 100 p.c. or more of rent and the tenants pay them quietly if they are kept within the customary limits. The continuance of these dues has• been a measure of the inability of the Government to enforce their authority over the landlords and of course, of the power of the landlords. Their existence and importance shows the semi-feudal character of the agrarian condition in Bihar.

Fair Rents

Inequality in the incidence of rents has been known to exist for all these years and attempts have been made to adopt and enforce some standards by which rents can be fixed or altered to make them fair or equitable, but without any success. One-fifth of the gross produce has been taken as fair rent but this standard has no intrinsic justification from the economic standpoint. In practice rents have been presumed to be fair and equitable unless the contrary is prov- ed. This rule had to be adopted as a matter of practical necessity but as there is no rate which can be called the prevailing rate, the average rate has had to be adopted as a basis for the assessment of fair rent. But the average of rents, unfair in themselves, cannot possibly give us .the criterion by which the fairness of rents can be judged. Raising of rents on account of rise in prices has been per- mitted and enforced through courts and the Settlement operations in this province, even more than in the country; where most of the holdings are uneconomic, with little surplus to sell,_a rise in prices does not mean anything like corresponding rise of incomes of the 21

small tenants. Rise of rents to competitive level has been checked owing to the certainty of competitive rents becoming oppressive because of the pressure of population and acute land hunger. But no method has been found by which the restraints can be exercised on any rational or even intelligible basis. The result has been that the fair rent provisions of the tenancy acts have been administered • without reference to any clear guiding principle. By permitting the rents to be raised in proportion to the rise in prices, the difference between high and low rents has been widened and the complexities of the rent structure increased. The search for a fair rent standard has been as futile as the search for the philosopher's stone and the administrators have been muddling through and creating greater perplexities for themselves and the community in the process. If the state buys up the landlords and tenure-holders, all these anoma- lies will be laid bare and will have to be redressed. But even then the task of standardilation will be truly baffling. To accept them as reasonably fair merely because they have a history and evolution of over 150 years behind them may be a gooid escapist device but will not work in practice because continuance of these flagrant inequali- ties will have to be justified if the state is going to replace the landlords, and it is clear that they are not justifiable.

Size of Holdings As almost all land, including the landlords' private land, in this Province is cultivated by tenants, the size of their holding is an all- important consideration from the point of view of efficiency of cultivation, the standard of living of the cultivators and full utilization of labour, land and cattle power. From all the standpoints, the size of the tenant-holdings in Bihar is uneconomic, i.e., they are too small to permit efficiency of cultivation to be materially increased, to en- able the tenant to maintain any but woefully low standard of living or to utilize fully the available land, labour and cattle power. The result is that the standard of cultivation is low and yields from land small, the vast majority of tenants are living in a state of abject poverty and there is waste of land, labour and cattle power, i.e., large- scale all-round unemployment. This applies, as is well known, to all parts of the country, but is even truer of this Province owing to the greater pressure of population and the repressive effect of the present system of land tenure. These holdings are not only small but, as in all parts of the country, extremely scattered and nothing has been done to consolidate them. The table on p. 22 shows that the average size of holding in the several districts varies between 1-4 22

acres in Saran and 5.43 acres in Shahabad, while the average size of plots varies between .28 acre in Saran and .81 acre in Purnea.

TABLE SHOWING THE AVERAGE SIZE (IN ACRES) OF HOLDINGS AND PLOT IN BIHAR. Size of Years of Plot. Survey. Size of holding. 1. Patna. 1.62. .37. 1918-19. - 2. Shahabad. 5.43. .73. 1907-11. 3. Gaya. _ 3.60. .50. 1907-16. 4. North Monghyr. 2.91. .70. 1902-10. 5. South Monghyr. 4.80. .78. 1905-12. 6. Bhagalpore. 5.00. .68. 1902-10. 7: Darbhanga. 2.00. .40. 1896-1903 8. Muzzafarpur. 1.82. .35. . 1892-1900 9. Saran.. , 1.41. .28. 1893-1901 10. Chanaparan. 3.19. .74. 11: Purnea. 4.74. .81. 1901-10.

• It may be noted that these figures relate to survey years the latest of which (for Patna) was completed more than 25 years ago. Since then the population of the Province has increased by nearly 30 p.c. and presumably a corresponding reduction in the size of holdings and plots has taken place. These figures are only a rough indication of the extent to which holdings have been divided and fragmented, for two or more holdings (which have separate survey numbers) are held by the same tenants, but they do show generally the small size of holdings and plots in Bihar. Some of the recent unofficial surveys show that the position is definitely getting worse. A survey, for example, of 30 villages in different parts of Bihar shows that 3,292 tenants hold 9,115 acres or 2.8 acres per tenant. What, however, is more important is that most of the holdings in Bihar are below the average, i.e., the tenancy-holdings are_unequally distributed and there is growing con- centration of holdings in the hands of a relatively small number of tenants. Most of the holdings which are sold by tenants every year are being purchased by other tenants, though landlords, money-lend- ers and professional classes who acquire a fair proportion of them. In the Shahabad district, to give one instance, 85 p.c. of the holdings sold were, at the time of the last survey, purchased by ry.ots. A recent survey of the distribution of four villages of the Saran district shows that 20 p.c. of the tenants hold 61 p.c. of the area' with holdings averaging over 6 bighas in size and 34 p.c. of the tenants (class V and VI) hold only 10 p.c. of the area with holdings having 23 an average size of 2 bighas and less. There is reason to believe that these figures are representative and distribution of holdings in other parts of Bihar is not very different. In a village—Baght-Lin the Muzzaffarpur district 6 tenants out of 110 hold, according to another survey, 112.5 bighas out of 415.75 bighas over 27 p.c. and in Nawada, a village in Monghyr district, 100 acres out of 346 are held by one tenant and the remaining 246 by 87 tenants, i.e., nearly on the aver-, age 3 acres per tenant. In the thirty villages referred to above 25 tenants were found to hold 220 acres or about 9 acres each, 36 tenants 256 acres or 7 acres each, 21 tenants 184 acres or 9 acres each while 229 tenants held 182 acres or .8 acres each, 133 tenants 122 acres or .9 acre each and 152 tenants 144 acres or .98 acre each. Most of the larger holdings are in the hands of the higher castes. In the village in Muzzaffarpur district referred to above the average holding of Rajput, Brahmin, and Kayastha (three high castes) was found to be 51, 5, and 41 Bighas respectively and of Kurmis, Mushars,—Dusadhas and Chamars (low castes) was 91 Kathas, 9 Kathas, 8 Kathas and 9 Kathas respectively (1 Bigha=-20 Kathas). Most of the small tenants and the landless labourers who are hardly distinguishable from the former, belong to the low castes—a state of things which exists all over the country and points to the existence of internal stresses in villages which have an important bearing on the whole agrarian situation. The point which needs to be stressed again is small as average holdings are, most of the holdings are smaller still and the preponderance of the latter needs to be very clearly appreciated.

Under-ryots and Tenants-at-will Some of the under-ryots as sub-tenants have acquired occupancy rights and the difference between them and the occupancy tenants is that they pay higher rents and hold, as a rule, smaller holdings. But most of the under-ryots are tenants-at-will, have no statutory protection, take land on annual leases and pay high rents or• are share- croppers, generally paying half the gross produce. Their holdings are much smaller than the occupancy holdings, the average being to one Bigha. Some of these tenants are small occupancy tenants whose own holdings are small and who have to lease out more land in order to supplement their meagre income from their own holdings. But most of the tenants come from the class of labourers who take these tiny holdings, employ themselves, sweat hard for their lessors, are rackrented and make whatever living they can from their labour. Almost 'all the land in private possession of the land- 24 lord and tenure-holder is cultivated by these class of cultivators. They also take land from the more well-to-do cultivators and in a few cases from windows, orphans and emigrants from the •village who cannot cultivate their own land. No exact estimate of the area leased by them can be had for the province as a whole, but a guess that at least 20 p.c., probably more, of the area cultivated by under- ryots would not be very wide of the mark. Incidence of rents in such cases is much higher than the 'prevailing' rate—in most cases- 100 p.c. higher if not more. Landless Labourers As has been stated above, the tenants-at-will generally belong to the class of landless labourers and possess about the same status. The number of landless labourers in Bihar is large and increasing. As most of the smaller tenants also supplement their earnings from their holdings working as agricultural labourers, no estimate of their total number is available. Even in 1911, their number according to the Census Report of that year, varies between 20 in Palamau and 61 in Patna district, per 100 cultivating tenants. The depressed classes ordinarily are agricultural labourers and get less than customary wages when they work for the landlords and are subject to the usual disabilities of being segregated for residential purposes and denied the right to take drinking water from the village wells or tanks. They have on occasion to do forced labour and suffer most from the high-handedness of landlords and high-caste well-to-do tenants. Their greatest and most vital need is land, but as there is no uncultivated cultivable land in the Province, there is no way out for them in the existing agricultural economy. Agricultural wages are paid both in kind and cash and are extremely low. The pre-war rates were two to four annas per day, the rate for women being less than for men, and when they are paid in kind they receive a small quantity of cheap coarse grain, varying from 1 to 11 seers and some very rough fare for the mid-day repast. Unemployment for a good part of the year is a common feature of the life of these classes except in the case of the labourer who gets a steady job with the landlord or tenure -holder. Some of them are given a small allotment of k to acre for their own cultivation and in return bind themselves to work for the landlord whenever required' and are paid wages in kind at rates generally below the customary rates. The lot of these agricultural labourers whose number cannot be less than 8 or 9 millions or nearly one-fourth of the total population of the Province is not only hard and their existence precarious, but lacking in hope and incentive to better their. condition.

•• • 25

Kamia Among the agricultural labourers are included a servile class of workers, generally called Kamias, who enter into agreement to serve one master in return for a debt, usually of Rs. 10 to 15 for purposes such as marriage. In some cases the borrower not only pledges his own labour but also that of his wife and his descendants until such time as the loan is rapid and the man is held in bondage in- definitely. On the days on which he works for his master he is paid wages in kind which are below those paid to the ordinary labourer. Besides wages, Kamia is generally given a small plot of poor land not more than / acre on which he erects his hut and carries on some cultivation. Kamia being a valuable property receives assistance in times of scarcity, but this consideration is generally confined to Kamias who are fit for hard work. "Efficient Kamias" in the words of T. W. Bridge, Settlement Officer, Palamau, "are not allowed to die of starvation but the old are left to their fate. Once a Kamia, always a Kamia, is the rule." The Kamia invariably belongs to the lowest castes—Dusadhs, Chamars, Moshars, etc. The system is most widely prevalent in the Palamau district in which the number of Kamias and their dependants is reported to be 60,000. But it is also found in the districts of Gaya and Patna and to a small extent in ShAabad, Monghyr, and Santhal Paraganas. Attempts have been made to protect him and the Kamuiti contract was declared illegal in 1921 but the system is still in force though in some districts like Shahabad its importance has considerably decreased. The Kamias are generally the property of small Zaminders and high caste occupancy tenants who need them to cultivate their private lands. The small landlords in Palamau almost entirely depend upon this system for their existence. What is true of small landlords in Palamau is also true of small landlords all over the Province. Before the description of land system of Bihar is concluded it is necessary to say a word about the Kisan Sabas. This movement is less than 10 years old but on occasions it has become an important element in the public life of the ,Province. In 1938, for example, when the new tenancy legislation was under consideration, the Ki- san Sabhas were very active and a source of considerable embarras- ment to the Congress Ministry. During the war, the organization is relatively inactive though it has very largely attended conferences. According to the latest information, the number of members of hisan Sabhas is only 27,168, but its influence is not limited to its members. It can, in certain districts,, mobilise a large measure of support among the cutlivating classes and some of its leaders are Kisans themselves 26

and are men of ability and character and capable of hard disinterest- ed work. The movement as a portent has important significance, It has caused ferment and even awakening among the peasants, and in the districts in which it is strong, it has given them greater confidence and made the Zamindars realise that they cannot count upon unquestioning submissiveness of tenants in their unfair demands and high handed dealings. In places, the tenants have been known to adopt a militant attitude and indulge in excesses. The Kisan Sabhas are now working in close association with the Communist Party. They may not be controlled by it, but as Red-Flag waving and Com- munist slogans are common at their gathering, generally speaking it would be right to regard them as a Leftist movement. For all the awakening of the peasants which it has to its credit, it is still a young institution and suffers from two ,or three limitations. First is that its organisation is weak, and in ordinary times ineffective. It is not capable of sustained work. Second, it is a movement of the more well-to-do tenants and does not include smaller peasants and agricultural labourers. And third, it suffers from internal dissensions, personal rivalries and political feuds. A struggle between the Com- munists and the Congress for the capture of the Kisans is again im- pending and is likely to become bitter. In spite of these limitations, the Kisan Sabhas are, as stated above, a pointer for the future. It is clear that the agrarian problem is going to become one of our most urgent problems in the near future in Bihar and the country as a whole. The solution of the problem will in a large measure depend upon the strength and character of the agrarian movements which are already in existence and can be built up. A system like the one which has been described cannot be reformed—much less radically altered without a ground swell from below and effective action on a large scale. It is not my purpose to deal with the question of agrarian reform or reconstruction in this article. The problem is difficult and may be baffling. The acquisition of the landlords' and rentiers' rights will eliminate a functionless class. But this measure cannot be carried out even if compensation is given to the rentiers. They are not a small, class, their strength being three to four millions in Bihar. elimination, Their however, will not solve the problem: and remove the obstacles to agricultural development and prosperity. Most of the cultivators have now acquired semi-proprietary rights and will remain when landlords are eliminated. Their holdings are in a large majority of cases exceedingly small and uneconomic and will neither be sufficient for giving the cultivator an income which may 27 be regarded as a living wage nor provide conditions for efficient utilization of even the present methods of cultivation and resources, to say nothing about mechanization and modernization of agricultural practice. Further, the problem of millions of agricultural labourers will remain intractable even if the rentier class is abolish- ed and the cultivator becomes a full proprietor. The problem of reconstruction of the agrarian system here is, it is obvious, going tp be exceedingly difficult and a source of as much danger as in count- ries like Hungary, Poland, and China in which it is known to be the most disturbing fundamental problem of their national life. At present, our land system is the most important limiting factor in our agricultural development and the schemes like the Govcrnment of India's scheme of agricultural development which rely upon distribution of improved seeds, rotation of crops, use of fertilisers, etc., for the development of agriculture and seek to by pass the agrarian problems are merely escapist devices and can only end in disappoint- ment.