|
Introduction
Productivity in agriculture is mainly dependent on two sets of
factors, they are technological and institutional. Among the
technological factors are the uses of agricultural inputs and
methods such as improved seeds, fertilizers, improved ploughs,
tractors, harvesters, irrigations etc. All these factors help to
raise productivity, even if no land reforms are introduced. On the
other hand the institutional reforms include the redistribution of
land ownership in favour of the cultivating classes so as to
provide them a sense of participation in rural life, improving the
size of farms, providing security of tenure, regulation of rent
etc. Also these institutional factors, such as the existence of
feudal relations, small size of farms, sub-division and
fragmentation, insecurity of tenancy rights, high rents, etc. help
the peasantry to raise production.
When the socialist
school of thought emerged, they believe that the existence of
feudal or semi-feudal relations was the real cause of backwardness
and poverty in the Indian rural communities. The other school of
though that emerged believes that agricultural productivity is
purely a technological phenomenon and can be raised by the
application of superior agricultural methods. Thus, whereas the
key to higher productivity lies in technological change according
to one school, it lies in institutional reform according to the
other. Quite recently, both the schools of thought are converging
and opinion has come to the idea that land reforms and
technological change are not mutually exclusive factors but are
complementary in the process of agricultural development.
The purpose of land
reform and thus the tenancy reform is twofold. On one hand, it
aims to make more rational use of the scarce land resources by
affecting conditions of holdings, imposing ceilings and floors on
holdings so that cultivation can be done in the most economical
manner, i.e., without any waste of labour and capital. On the
other hand, it is a means of redistributing agricultural land in
the favour of less privileged classes, and of improving the terms
and conditions on which
the land is held for cultivation by the actual tillers, with a
view to end exploitation.
Scope of Land
Reforms
Land reforms in general and tenancy reforms in particular aim at
redistributing ownership holding from the view point of social
justice, and reorganizing operational holdings from the viewpoint
of optimum utilization of land. Apart from this, the problem of
tenancy i.e., the rights and conditions of holding land also come
under the scope of land reforms.
The entire concept
aims at the abolition of intermediaries and bringing the actual
cultivator in direct contact with the state. The provisions of
security of tenancy and rent regulation provide a congenial
atmosphere in which the agriculturist feels sure of reaping the
fruits of his labour. The scope of land reforms therefore entails
abolition of intermediaries, tenancy reforms, i.e., regulation of
rent, security of tenure for tenants and conferment of ownership
on them. It also focuses on land ceiling and land holdings,
agrarian reorganization including consolidation of holdings and
preventing of sub-division and fragmentation and organization of
cooperative farms.
Land Tenure
At the time of independence, there existed three types of
proprietary land tenures in the country. The term land tenure is
used to refer to the terms and conditions on which land is held
and used.
1. The Zamindari
or Landlord Tenure
Lord Cornwallis is considered to be the father of Zamindari system
in India. He introduced this system for the first time in 1793 in
West Bengal and was later adopted in other states as well. Under
this system, the land was held by a person who was responsible for
the payment of land revenue. They could acquire the land mostly
free of charge from the government during the British rule and it
is called
estate. Landlords never cultivated the land they owned
and rented them out to the cultivators. The amount of land revenue
may either be fixed once one for all when it was called ?permanent
settlement? or settlement with regard to land revenue may only be
temporary and may, therefore, be revised after every 30-40 years,
as the practice may be. The Zamindari system is known as
absentee
landlordism. In this system between the actual state and the
tiller there grew an intermediary who was interested in the land
only to the extent of extraction of exorbitant rent. The Zamindari
tenure covered about 57 percent of the area of the country.
2. Ryotwari
System
It took its birth in 1792 in Madras at the hands of Caption Read
and Thomas Menro and was later extended to other states. Under
this system, the responsibility of paying land revenue to the
Government was of the cultivator himself and there was no
intermediary between him and the state. The ryot had full right
regarding sale, transfer and leasing of land and could not be
evicted from the land as long as he pays the land revenue. But the
settlement of land revenue under ryotwari system was done on a
temporary basis and are periodic, after 20, 30 or 40 years.
3. The Mahalwari
or The Joint Village Tenure
This system was introduced by William Bentinck in Agra and Oudh
and was later extended to Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. Under this
system, the village communities held the village lands commonly
and it was joint responsibility of these communities to make
payments of the land revenue.
Thus the overall
system of collection of revenue was based on exploitation. The
British government snatched away whatever surplus above the
minimum subsistence the cultivator produced. The latter were
forced to lead a wretched life of slavery and deprivation. Under
the above-mentioned systems the practice of cultivation by tenants
became widely prevalent. These tenants were also exploited in a
number of ways. It was basically to stop the exploitation of the
actual tillers of the soil and pass on the ownership of the land
to them that land reforms introduced in the post-independence
period in India.
Tenancy reforms
The land reforms refer to the reforming of defective structure of
the land holdings and are a planned and institutional organization
of the relation between man and land. The agriculture system that
existed at the time of independence consisted of several defects
including that of tenancy i.e., the insecurity of tenure and high
rents charged by the landlord. The reforms aimed to eliminate all
forms of exploitation and social injustice within the agrarian
system, to provide security for the tiller of the soil and to
remove such impediments to increase in agricultural production as
arise from the agrarian structure inherited from the past. One of
the major aspects of the land reforms in India has been the
tenancy reform.
Under the Zamindari
and ryotwari systems, tenancy cultivation had been quite common in
India. Tenancy cultivation may be done by small proprietors who
find that they have an insufficient quantity of land or it may be
carried on by landless labourers. Sometimes, the tenants holding
land from an intermediary may sub-let it for cultivation. Broadly
speaking tenants are divided into three categories:
1. Occupancy tenants-enjoyed permanent and heritable rights on
land. They had security of tenure and could claim compensation
from the landlords for any improvement affected on the land.
2. Tenants at will-did
not have security of tenure and could be evicted from the land
whenever landlord so desired. There is no security of tenure for
them and they are also made to pay exorbitant rent to the
landlords.
3. The Sub
tenants-were appointed by the occupancy tenants.
The rights of tenancy
are permanent and heritable. The tenants can also receive some
compensation from the landlords incase they make some improvements
on the land. The tenants enjoy a fixity and security of tenure,
which makes them the virtual owners of the land. It can be said
that the only difference between the occupancy tenant and the
peasant proprietor is that the former is required to pay rent to
the landlord and the latter to pay the land revenue to the state.
So, for all practical purposes, occupancy tenants are treated as
land owners. The position of tenants at will and that of
sub-tenants is extremely weak and mostly they are subjected to
ruthless exploitation. Frequent enhancement of rent, eviction of
minor pretexts of several kinds,
extractions and beggar are some of the popular ways of
exploitation. In a country like India where the demand of land is
more than its supply on account of its growing population,
exploitation of weak and unprotected is a widespread evil. Fifty
percent of the produce was the normal rent under Batai or
sharecropping. On several occasions, the peasant had to forgo even
two thirds of the produce as rent.
The tenancy
cultivation suffers from three main defects; they are insecurity
of tenure, rack-renting and lack of incentives of the actual
cultivator. The National Sample Survey (8th round) had estimated
that in 1953-54 about 90 percent of agriculture land was under
tenancy system. The percentage of area leased out varied from 11
to 26 percent, though the all India average was 20 percent. It
showed that about one-fifth of the total area was held under
tenancy and thus it was not possible to ignore a problem affecting
such a wide area. According to the 1961 census, 77 percent of the
total-cultivating households were in the nature of ownership
holdings, 8 percent of pure tenancy and 15 percent in mixed
tenancy.
Besides this
open tenancy, there is a considerable amount of land leased out on
the basis of oral or hidden tenancy that accounts for anything
between 35-40 percent of the total cultivated area. The informal
or the oral tenancy has been a common feature of traditional
agricultural societies. Although attempts have been made to
provide security of tenure, redistribution of land and fixation of
fair rents, yet informal or oral tenancy has continued to exist
even to this day. The term
informal tenancy is referred to as oral tenancy which
refers to tenancy without legal sanctions and permissions, or
without any written agreement. The principal of shifting to
informal tenancy is to extract higher land rents from the tenants.
This is primarily done so as to get
high yielding varieties programme that has brought a realization
among the landlords that land is a very valuable asset and
promises high rates of return. India, which is marked by land
hunger, it is possible here to take advantage of the situation by
charging higher rents. Also, informal tenancy arrangements are a
convenient device with the landlords for nullifying tenancy
reforms. Thus, unrecorded or clandestine tenancy perpetuates a
semi-feudal land system that was sought to be abolished by
measures of land reforms.
Measures of Tenancy
Reforms
The legislation for abolition of intermediaries was aimed at
providing land to the tiller but it did not put an end to the
problem of tenancy. Moreover, even with the limit of ceiling, it
may not be possible for a family to cultivate the entire land and
so some sub-letting is unavoidable. Besides, in order to induce
agricultural population to take over non-agricultural occupations,
some sub-letting to tenants may be allowed. A total ban on letting
or sub-letting land would neither be socially desirable nor
administratively practicable. That is why measures were taken up
so as to minimize the evils of tenancy
cultivation and to safeguard the interest of the tenants.
Regulation of rents:
during the pre-independence period, rents were fixed either by the
custom or were the result of the market forces of demand and
supply. Supply of land being fixed, the demand of land rowing with
an increasing population, there has been a continuous tendency for
rents to rise. The decay of handicrafts increased the dependence
of land further and thus pushed up the rents. Rack-renting was a
common feature of the Indian agrarian structure.
It was, therefore,
imperative that rents should be fixed by enacting legislation. The
rates of rent prevalent were one half of the produce or more.
Considering the return on investment in other sectors of economy,
these rents were excessive by any standard of social justice.
Consequently, the
First and the Second five-year plan recommended that rents should
not exceed one fourth or one fifth of the gross produce. Various
states have passed necessary legislation regulating rents, but
there are large variations in the rents fixed in different states.
In Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan, one-sixth of gross produce
is fixed as maximum rent. In Assam, Karnataka, Manipur and Tripura,
maximum rents vary between one-fourth to one-fifth of the gross
produce. In Punjab,
one-third of produce has been considered as fair rent, while in
Tamil Nadu it is between 33.3 and 40 percent of the gross produce.
In Andhra Pradesh one-fourth of the gross produce for irrigated
land and one-fifth in other cases has been fixed as rent.
Owing to the weak
position of the tenants and the prevalence of the widespread land
hunger, the law regulating rent is observed more in its breach
then in its compliance. Another suggestion in this regard is to
fix rents in cash rather than in kind. Historically, rents have
been paid in kind in India but in view of the fact that the
peasants have to make a good many payments in money, while
purchasing seeds, fertilizers, implements and other necessaries of
life, it would be desirable to switch over to cash payment of
rents. This is in fitness with the requirements of a rural economy
changing rapidly from barter to money economy.
Security of Tenure: the
security of tenure is aimed to provide some incentives to tenants
to make certain improvements of permanent nature on the land they
cultivate. Many states have, therefore, enacted legislation
providing for the security of tenure so long as they continue
paying the rent. In some states like Maharashtra, Gujarat etc.,
the landlord for his personal cultivation has granted tenants
security of tenure in respect of areas not resumable. In some
states, the minimum period of lease of land has been prescribed,
e.g., five years in Punjab, Haryana, etc., and in Andhra Pradesh
four years for one category of tenants and six years for another.
Ownership
rights: experience of the implementation of Zamindari abolition
showed that, on the plea of resumption for personal cultivation,
eviction of tenants took place on a massive scale. There is no
doubt that in certain cases and categories on holder's resumption
should be allowed, but the plea of resumption should not lead to
large-scale ejectment of tenants. During the Second plan, states
formed provisions for resumption broadly on the following
patterns:
1. All tenants have
been given full security of tenure, without giving the owners the
right of personal cultivation.
2. Owners have been given the right to resume a limited area (not
more than family holding in any case) subject, however, to the
condition that a minimum area is left with a tenant.
3.
A limit has been
placed on the extent of land which a land-owner may resume, but
the tenant is not entitled to retain minimum area for cultivation
in all cases.
Thus the tenancy
reforms aim at conferring the right of ownership of land on the
tenants. To encourage hard-working tenants to become
owned-cultivators, many state governments have given tenants the
right to purchase their holdings. This right however, is subject
to the condition that the total holdings of the landlords is not
thereby reduced below the limit laid down for maximum holding of a
landlord.
Right of Ownership of Tenants: A very important feature of
the land reform is the provision of the right of ownership of
tenants. The Second plan considered it very desirable to bring
tenants in non-resumable area in direct contact with the state.
Earlier the right to purchase was optional to the tenants but this
did not prove to be effective. Thus, the third plan suggested the
optional clause to be removed and peasants be required to purchase
land. Legislation for this purpose was enacted in various states.
For instance, in West Bengal the tenants and sub-tenants have been
brought into direct relationship with the state by the conferment
of full ownership rights. In Punjab, the right to purchase is
optional. Legislation has been enacted in Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal and the Union Territories. Whereas in Assam, Jammu and
Kashmir and Tamil Nadu, no provisions exists even for an optional
right of purchase. While the state can facilitate the transfer of
ownership rights from the landlords to the tenants, no financial
burden
is imposed on the state.
In case of voluntary
surrenders, to check its evil two recommendations were made in the
Third Plan. First, the volunteer surrenders of land by tenants
should not be considered valid unless they were duly registered by
revenue authorities, and second in case of voluntary surrenders,
the land-owner should be entitled to undertake cultivation only to
extent of his right resumption by law. There is much leeway to be
covered in implementation in this regard so as to save the poor
tenants-the most vulnerable, though the most important section in
rural India. Legal Protection to Tenants unable to bring about
redistribution of ownership of land, the legislation attempted to
provide security of tenure to tenants, to fix land rents and
condition of tenancy. Also, in order to enable tenants to obtain
institutional credits, tenants should have the right to pledge
their interests in land taken on rent by them. Some states have
taken steps in this area of tenancy legislation. In few states,
creation of a tenancy in future has been prohibited, i.e., only in
special cases that also for a limited period of three years at a
time. The steps for the Remission of rent for the tenants in times
of famines or natural calamities when the landlord is given relief
through the remission of land revenue have also been taken.
Begar
and other unauthorized levies have been declared illegal.
Moreover the tenancy
legislation being not comprehensive has failed to grasp the
interdependence of fixation of ceiling on rents and security of
occupancy rights. Myrdal focuses attention on this problem in the
following words: ?In the absence of limits on rent, all rules
about security of tenure can be nullified, the landlord can simply
raise the rent beyond the tenants capacity to pay and legally
evict him for non-payment. By the same token, legislation on
maximum rentals is meaningless if not buttressed by security of
tenancy. Besides this, legislation aimed to provide security to a
minority of tenants who paid fixed rentals and left out the
majority of sharecroppers who represented the more vulnerable
section of the Indian peasantry.
Conclusion
The most important beneficial result of the reform is that it put
an end to the system of parasitic intermediaries. On the other
hand it has not put an end to absentee ownership of land nor has
it lead to the disappearance of tenancies. All in all, although
the contribution of tenancy reforms could not be totally neglected
but the programmes including these reforms since independence did
not lead into any significant redistribution of land, or the
removal of all the obstacles to increasing agricultural
production. The policies adopted in case were ambivalent and there
were large gaps between policy and legislation and implementation.
|
Tenancy Reforms in India
More Related Topics:
The
author can be reached at:
jayantbhatt@legalserviceindia.com /
