CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem Land is the crucial issue in the lives of people of an agrarian economy, like India. It has inherent value, and it creates the same as well. A plot of land can provide a household with physical, financial, and nutritional security, and may also provide to poor peasants, landless labour and other disadvantaged sections of the society for his livelihood and wages. Land is a basis for identity and status within a family and community. It also creates the foundation for political power (World Bank, 2003). Land therefore, occupies a central place in the lives of the people who toil hard to derive their livelihood from soil. The plot of land on which they work, without right to ownership, therefore acts as a limiting factor in their quest for improving their earning from the same plot of land. For the millions of peasants, small and marginal farmers the size of land determines their socio-economic conditions. Land reforms programme is a tool to enhance the capacity of the peasants, small and marginal farmers in improving their socio-economic conditions by giving them the ownership of the land and or increasing their size of the land by distributing vested land. Accordingly when the Communist Party of India (Marxists) dominated left alliance came into power in the late seventies in the state of West Bengal, it distributed patta of small chunk of land to landless, small and peasant farmers including agricultural labourers under the Land Reforms Act of 1971 which was further amended in 1972 to plug its loopholes. Patta is a legal document certifying the ownership right over a piece of land given to poor people under the land reform programme of the Government of West Bengal. This was implemented through the village Panchayats œ the elected local body of the village people. The patta land which lies with the Government is the surplus land (vested land) divested from the land owners and distributed to the poor people to improve their socio-economic conditions under the programme. The extent to which the exercise of land reforms has benefited the peasants, small and marginal farmers, needs to be assessed.

Mankind‘s association with land goes back to the dawn of civilization when man learnt the art of using land to grow its own food requirements. Over the time, this association

grew and strengthened as land met man‘s other requirements as well, from survival to economic, social and ultimately, political. This also created man‘s dependence on land and, and over the centuries shaped the ownership pattern of land and thus, the concept of management of land came into being. Land is the first asset that mankind held dear to its heart as not only it provided food and shelter and generated livelihood for to people but also as it determined their social and political status. Land has been the object, over which most battles have been fought and maximum blood has been shed over the ages across continents on this earth. The most significant fact of a nation is how its members produce and distribute their food and generate their source of livelihood. Economic production is the basic activity of a society and it plays a determining role in creating its socio-economic and political structures. As individuals, how living is earned, is the most important fact of life. In a country like ours, which is dominated by villages and majority of the population is dependent upon agriculture and its related activities for their survival, agriculture continues to be the primary economic activity and basic means for livelihood generation of people. Agrarian structure, therefore, forms a critical aspect of any discussion on social, political and economic development of India. Issues of economic backwardness and rural conflicts are inherent in the basic nature of land possession, if it is skewed and not in the hands of tillers. Land continues to be the main concern of the people and the single most determinant of social status and economic power in an agricultural society (Chakroborty, Mukhopadhyay and Roy, 2002). Economic development depends upon agricultural development, which in turn depends primarily on land condition and its distribution, in other words, the agrarian structure. Changes in land relations or agrarian structure therefore, act as a significant indicator and are very crucial step in the process of social and economic development of a nation, more so when it has agrarian character. Many factors, viz., the agro-climatic, cultural, political, social, economic and lately the demographic play determining roles in the development of land management system. The ownership pattern of land, by and large, follows the pattern of growth of the region and nation. However, the basic feature underlying ownership of land across all the societies has been to have control over agricultural production, the most essential return from the land ultimately determining wealth, prosperity and wellbeing of the people.



Historically, the world over, it is observed that land has been under the ownership of the ruling family, class, aristocrats and other influential of the society as mark of wealth or economic power, who almost never tilled the land. Tilling was done by the people who were poor and came from the lower caste and class, the one who were ruled, i.e., the serfs and the slaves. The produce was shared in the ratio reflecting the relationship between the landlord and the tiller or the extent, to which the owner of the land (ruler) was alien to the tillers (ruled). The system of land management in Indian sub-continent goes back to the Vedic period (roughly from C . 1500 to C . 500 BCE). In Rig Veda, which recognised private ownership of land (Compendium of Lecture Notes, Analysis, Research &Training Institute, Shalbani, Medinipur), mention of kshetra (fields), khilya (demarcating lines), daya (inheritance), dayada (heir), etc., are indicative of the presence of individual ownership of land and the concept of heir, the chief or rajan (king) and raja-bhaga (royal share) of the crop raised. The Vedic references contain that land belonged to him, who first cleared it for cultivation, thus, lending recognition to peasant proprietorship on land and his right to transfer. In a way, land management system then was what the present land policy envisages to achieve, which owes its origin to the ancient Vedic hymn on land œ —Land to Tillers“. The great epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata also depict man‘s relation with land, but in a different context-land for political power. Arthashastra , a treatise on the polity of Kautilya and I ndica of Megasthenes also reflect on relation of land with man. References are found of grama (village), S thanivya (a fortress of that name) - set up in the center of eight hundred villages, a dro‘namukha in the center of four hundred villages, a kharvatika in the center of two hundred villages, and S angrahana in the midst of group of ten villages. The villages were of various categories from the taxation point of view and in a way indicated the relationship of land of the village with its people. Pariharaka villages that were exempted from taxation, ayudhiya villages that supplied soldiers, hiranya villages that paid taxes in form of grains, cattle, gold and raw material, vishti villages that supplied free labour and karapratikara villages that paid dairy produces in lieu of taxes. Land management system then recognised the right of ownership to the tillers of land and its produces and the state always encouraged higher production. Land was settled with

 the agriculturists who first brought it under cultivation and usually for life-time on payment of revenue. Alienation was strictly prohibited. Failure to put land to its proper use might end in resumption of land by the state. The cultivators paying revenue regularly were favoured with grains, cattle and money for better return. Remission of taxes was admissible on any emergent occasions. Land was also allotted to the state officials for their maintenance without right to sale or mortgage. During the Pathan rule, the land management system did not undergo much change except that collection of revenue being extreme during the rule of Alla-ud-din Khilji (1296-1316 AD), who believed that heavy taxation is a matter of statecraft as subjects will be so busy in securing their livelihood after paying heavy tax that they won‘t have time to raise their head against the king. The other extreme was during the rule of Muhammad Ghias-ud-din Tuglaq (1320-1325 AD), who perceived promotion of agriculture for higher production as a wise way to earn more revenue. It was Sher Shah Suri (1540-1545 AD) who left a strong mark in land management system of the country. He believed in a direct relationship between the state and the peasants and emphasised on the relationship between the state and the peasants on land management as supreme. For efficient land administration and revenue collection Sher Shah Suri reign lasted for a very short time to allow his system of land management to take firm root throughout his empire. However, suffice to conclude that peasant proprietorship was recognised as a state principal. The siqdars, munsifs (revenue officials) of the state were enjoined to abide by this principle and issue pattas and kabuliyats (state documents) to peasants in recognition of their right over land. The system introduced by Sher Shah Suri was carried forward further by Akbar (1558-1605 AD). The Mughal‘s elaborate system of land administration was spear headed by Raja Todarmal . Through various trials and error methods, a system came into place, under which revenue was collected by a set of intermediaries œ chiefs, headmen, revenue farmers, assignees of the state and all of them had their own system of land management and revenue collection. Assessment and system of revenue collection greatly depended on the strength of power of the ruler. By the eighteenth century, Mughal power had declined to a great extent and was confined in and around the periphery of Delhi resulting in great anarchy all over the country and hence revenue collection was reduced to extortion.



This was the time that imperialism reigned supreme in Europe with expedition to all the parts of the world to capture more land for expanding its economic and political power. As part of this great imperial rush, the Portuguese, French, Dutch and British made expeditions to the Indian sub-continent with England finally striking roots. Decline of Mughal power in Delhi, rise of powerful regional rulers, rivalry among them and their internal succession conflicts and court intrigues provided the British with the ideal opportunity to interfere with the internal administrative affairs of India and through their tenacity, guile, advance military power and greed for money, took control of the sub- continent through the battle of Plassey in 1757. Being representative of the East India Company, a business house, its sole objective in India was to earn more money very quickly. They had no interest in the well being of India and its people. Land, then being the main source for revenue, British took keen interest in management of land system in India to ensure maximum return with least interference, involvement and cost. To this objective in mind, Lord Cornwallis came to India as the Governor General in 1786 and set upon himself the specific task of re- orienting the land management system, which was to have a pronounced detrimental effect on the pattern of land management and peasants‘ relationship with land in the sub- continent. British introduced three major forms of land settlement in the country, viz., ”Zamindari,‘ ”Rayaotwari‘ and ”Mahalwari‘ systems. Under the Zamindari system, which covered the areas of the present eastern India and Bangladesh, the rights to property of land were given to ”rent gatherers‘ known as Zamindars , who were from the upper caste of the community and never tilled land. They converted the actual cultivators, who were generally from the lower castes, into tenants. This structural change in the land system created a class of intermediaries in the form of zamindars between the state and the actual tillers. Under the Rayaotwari system, which was prevalent in the present south India, there were no intermediary owners. The actual tillers of the land were given transferable rights on their land. However, in due course, the influential Rayaots emerged as powerful landholders and hardly tilled their land. Under the Mahalwari system, which was prevalent in the northern India, property rights of the land of a village was given to the owner of the village and he was responsible for collection of revenue from the said

 village. The main objective of the colonial ruler in choosing different types of land settlement systems for revenue collection in different parts of the country was to ensure a large and steady source of revenue for the government by maintaining a certain political equilibrium (Banerjee et al. , 1995). To meet this objective the Permanent Settlement Act, was enforced in 1793 in undivided Bengal. It sacrificed the interest of the cultivators and created a class of landholders- the zamindars . The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 benefited the neo-landlords- the z amindars who were in several ways. To start with, it secured and guaranteed the zamindars permanent hereditary and transferable rights on the soil and sub-soil of the land under their control and possession, irrespective of their status and nature of tenure. Secondly, the revenue assessed under the Decennial Settlement Regulations of 1789, by which the collection of revenue was left entirely to the zamindars and was required to be deposited by a fixed date in the year, was fixed for all times to come, subject to the sole condition as under the ”sun-set-law‘, from which there was no remission. Finally, the intermediaries as well as the cultivators under the zamindars were left entirely to the discretion of the later. The Permanent Settlement Act thus subjugated the cultivators to the landlords and zamindars , who by their very origin had no compunction for them. An entirely new parasitic intermediary class came into being between the state and the tax paying masses to collect revenue totally discarding the age-old and time tested formula of taxation. It is pertinent to mention that as against the cap of one-sixth taxation on agricultural production as per the ancient Manusmriti , which during the alien Muslim rule was raised to a three-forth to half of the produce, rose to two-third of the total produce during the British rule as a consequence of the permanent settlement of land management leaving the peasants with barely a third of their total production. ( Problems of Indian Agriculture œ South Asian voice views from South Asia). In addition, these intermediaries were also obliged by their colonial masters to collect taxes from the toiling masses not in kind but in cash, thereby giving enough opportunity to fool, fraud and extort the innocent and illiterate peasants resulting in making the lives of the cultivators even more difficult. Besides, colonisation had other impacts as well. Several laws were passed, trade tariffs and excise duties were levied that led to destruction of the traditional self supportive Indian village industry and squeezed the domestic trade, on which a sizeable proportion

 of the population depended for their livelihood generation. This led to even greater pressure on land since large categories of highly skilled artisans and non-agricultural workers were thrown out of work. Not only that the peasants were reduced to a state of utter degradation and abject poverty, the social relations within the village also became distorted. Traditional solidarity that existed between and among villagers was subjected to divisive and ruinous tactics of the intermediaries with always available protection from their colonial masters. In absence of any alternative livelihood source, this compounded the suffering of the impoverished peasants and displacement of masses from their age-old hereditary professions and homestead resulting in their further pauperization. Zamindars as a class were looked upon as the native agents of the colonial rulers for purporting these conditions and creating deep rooted hatred against them across the length and breadth of the country. This united the masses and gave them a common platform to raise their voice against the colonial rulers and their native exploitative representatives. Situation often got beyond the limits of tolerance resulting in frequent eruption of rebellions at many places in the country forcing the British to further tighten the administrative measures. The oppression that the permanent settlement brought in coupled with famines and destruction of opportunities for livelihood generation made the already difficult life of the peasants and the common man, even more difficult and over the next century became the raison d‘être in demand for independence of the country from the colonial rule. Naturally, when India got independence, one of the foremost objectives in the mind of the law makers of the nation was to abolish zamindari and give back land to the tillers and the opportunity to enjoy right of ownership over the land they tilled. This was also essential for livelihood generation of the people in order to live with honour and dignity, in addition to other measures to improve the agricultural sector in terms of productivity and production. This urgently necessitated the Government of India to enact and implement land reforms laws to address the problems of tilling masses and provide them livelihood as a foremost concern and for the economic development of the country as a prerequisite. Land Reform refers to the measures undertaken to change the agricultural land holding pattern. It is essentially a government or government backed programme (Land reform -



Wikipedia) implemented by enacting legislations, which makes possession of land beyond certain specified limits as illegal. Excess land beyond the specified norms is redistributed among the landless peasants, marginal and small agricultural farmers to sustain their livelihood. The process involves transfer of ownership of the redistributed land with or without the consent of and compensation to the owner, which may vary from token amount to the full value of the land. Land reforms have meanings, both in narrow and broad sense. In narrow sense which is generally accepted, it refers to the process of distribution of land for benefit of small farmers and landless people. In broad sense, it is understood to mean any improvement in the institution of land system and agricultural organization for economic purpose. Thus, land reforms do not only mean the re-distribution of land but also imply measures taken to improve the condition of agriculture. The UN observes, —ideal land reform is an integrated programme of measures designed to eliminate obstacles to economic and social development arising out of difficulties in the agrarian structure“. Land reforms have been widely implemented in many countries across the continents, particularly which were under the colonial rule as an important tool for socio-economic and cultural reorganisation of the society in order to confer the right to dignity of labour of the farming class and provide impetus to the economic development of the country. Apart from giving social and economic freedom to the masses who hitherto toiled hard in the fields for their survival and for the prosperity of the landowners, it has also been used as a measure to enhance agricultural production by instilling a sense of belongingness among the class of tillers, particularly the landless peasants, marginal and small agricultural farmers. The sense of belongingness provides them the much needed impetus to produce more and more as they are not required to share their produce. Broadening the scope of access to land and strengthening cultivators‘ land rights lead to generation of overall expansion of economic activities (RDI Report, 2000). Access to land is a crucial determining factor in a war to eradicate food insecurity and rural poverty. Land provides shelter and food œ allowing a household to improve its food consumption. It also enables the household to have more income, when surplus food is produced and sold (Land reform œ Wikipedia). Absence of ownership over land carries numerous negative consequences; such as lack of motivation to invest in the land, stagnant agricultural

productivity, rural poverty and malnutrition, lack of status and power of the landless, pressure to flee from the rural society to ill-equipped cities, and land degradation. In contrast, successful redistributive land reform can confer several benefits, including improved livelihood generation, increased crop production, improved nutrition, reduction in rural poverty, greater grass root empowerment and a lessenend social unrest, reduced pressure on migration, better environmental stewardship and creation of wealth in the rural economy. The chemistry of poverty reveals that it is not only an economic phenomenon (lack of access to economic resources) but social and political too. Most of the poor people, by and large, belong to the lower strata of the society and remain in the periphery of the political decisions. Any meaningful development exercise cannot therefore be successfully completed unless poor have been provided with uninterrupted access to basic economic resources (land and capital constitute the basic economic resources ) and brought into political main stream besides enactment of legislative measures against caste based discrimination and exploitation. Land being limited and its demand being more, emerges to be the natural subject of concern of the policy makers to ensure land availability to the tillers. Capital œ an equally important resource, takes time in generation and can be created through developmental schemes, training, education and adequate finance. While land reform is not a panacea against rural poverty, it has been a foundational element for the affected economies and social development in many countries. The introduction of land as a private property during the colonial rule destroyed the community ownership system earlier prevailing in the sub-continent. It made a few rich and powerful and the majority very poor. In the years immediately following India‘s independence, land ownership was recognised as an important resource for economic and social status. In order to address the problems of economic development in general and rural poverty in particular, land reform became imperative for livelihood creation of the masses and for the agricultural development of the country. Land reform, no matter how defined, has broader economic, social and political implications. It neither creates nor destroys land; it simply puts the existing population into a relationship with an existing agricultural land base that is likely to be fairer and

more productive than the present one. There is sufficient evidence showing that land holdings- big or small are better managed, if tilled by the owners. Besides, it leads to greater participation in the community‘s socio-economic and political affairs with increased income, improved nutrition and children‘s education including girls. It further provides to the landless a new status as a ”land owner‘. The social and economic gains of land reforms have also underlined political connotation. By providing the means (land) and resources (capital, training, inputs, etc.), a platform is set for the have-nots to come out of the periphery of the society to the main platform and tilt towards the setup (political), which provides with such an opportunity and there lie the socio-economic and political significance of land reforms. Land reform, thus, assumes special significance in the backdrop of the agrarian nature of the economy and dependence of majority population on agriculture for their livelihood and survival. There is a near consensus among development protagonists that land reform is a must in order to strengthen and sustain the agrarian economy in terms of improved productivity and production and to ensure livelihood for the poor peasants, landless labour and other disadvantaged sections of the society. Land reform therefore, must proceed with entitlement of ownership of land distributed to tillers. Most of the studies with regard to land reforms concentrate on its essentiality, provision of agricultural inputs to improve productivity and production, and various socio-economic objectives of land reforms etc. However, the benefits of land reforms in terms of increased income, possession of assets, improved consumption and living conditions are largely uncovered. Besides, not much information is available on impact of land reforms across different agricultural production systems as well as how the size of agricultural ”patta‘ (land) distributed to poor peasants has impacted agricultural production in the state of West Bengal and as a result promote livelihood generation. In this background the present study is carried out to unravel these uncovered areas of land reforms with the following objectives

1.2 Objectives of the Thesis The present study has the following objectives: 1. To assess the nature and extent of land reforms in West Bengal and its impacts in ameliorating socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries. 2. To identify the factors of farm productivity in agriculture in relation to patta holders and in adoption of agricultural technology. 3. To elicit the effect of land reforms on the cropping pattern and its diversification with reference to different agricultural production systems in the state. 4. To assess the efficacy of the size of patta land distributed in relation to agricultural production systems in creation of livelihood opportunities. 5. To suggest policy recommendations on land reforms to make it further effective.

1.3 Organisation of the Thesis The Thesis has six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the subject matter followed by review of literature in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 on methodology incorporates sample profiles of the respondents, measurement of constructs and the procedure followed to collect data. Data analysis with discussion of the results is done in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, summary of the findings is mentioned. It also contains contribution of the present study and its implication, besides limitation of the study and scope for further research.