“The balance of power in a society accompanies the balance of property in land.” – John Adams
The second US president, John Adams, viewed broad land ownership as a key ingredient in maintaining a balance of political power. Property rights are the most fundamental institution in any economy and society.
The entire economic, social, and political status revolves around it. Land not only provides economic sustenance but also helps in the prospects of asserting citizenship and demanding political rights within a country or state.
Historically it also plays a critical role in determining class. In an economy like India, where still more than 60% of the population is dependent on agriculture, land ownership becomes a central factor not only in one’s livelihood but one’s social and political status. Access to land in an agriculture-based rural economy is important because land is a primary means and instrument of production.
In ancient India, land ownership was mostly community-based, and private ownership was generally unheard of. With the arrival of the British, the scenario went through a sea change. Land revenue was one of the major sources of income for Britons in India.
The British changed the system of land revenue collection, as a result of which the ownership of land also changed. They instituted a policy of eviction and sale of land if revenue was not paid in full with the introduction of zamindar system in 1793 by Lord Cornwallis.
Under this system, zamindars were recognized as permanent landowners, leasing out land to tenant farmers in exchange for a share of the produce. Afterward the zamindars paid a fixed sum to the British government.
The revenue rate was fixed at a very high level, which was unsustainable and led to mass evictions, poverty, and hardships among the cultivators. As land became a mobile commodity, many peasants became landless, and zamindars became wealthy.
The caste system
In every society, the interconnectedness of class and land serves as a crucial indicator of wealth distribution. However, in India, wealth distribution is further shaped by the intricate influence of caste.
I have discussed in detail the caste system and its influence on Indian society. The zamindar system significantly contributed to the widening wealth divide, with a majority of zamindars belonging to the upper castes.
Issues related to peasants were an important part of the freedom movement, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s Champaran movement in 1917 against forced indigo cultivation. Post-independence, Indian leaders were in consensus that land reforms would address poverty eradication and wealth inequality, and foster equitable development, given the predominantly rural and agrarian nature of India.
In 1947, Bihar became the first state to pass a Zamindari Abolition Act, transferring land rights from zamindars to the state. However, subsequent land reforms faced complexities involving rules, data, laws, and litigations.
The slow implementation was exacerbated by a majority of national leaders and bureaucrats, predominantly belonging to the upper castes, who were either zamindars themselves or closely related, further hindering the process.
Failure of India’s first land reform
Despite the implementation of the Zamindari Abolition Act, many former zamindars retained a significant portion of their land.
The objective of providing land to the landless, set 70 years ago, has seen limited change on the ground. For example, in Punjab, upper castes, mostly Jat Sikhs who constitute 25% of the state population, own 80% of the land, while 32% of the Dalit (lower caste) population own only 3.5% of the private land, according to the Agriculture Census of 2015-16. The national average is 8.6% of farmland for 16.6% of Dalits.
In Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state, upper castes, mainly Thakur and Brahmin, who constitute 17% of the population, own 26% of the land. Similarly, in Bihar, Bhumihars (2.8% of the population) own 39% of the land.
According to a survey by BAMCEF (All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation), the top four upper castes in Bihar (15% of the population) own a staggering 78% of the land, highlighting significant caste-based land ownership imbalances.
The land reforms intended to help the disadvantaged are subverted by vested interests who dominate the country’s politics and bureaucracy. Addressing this wealth disparity requires a renewed effort to implement comprehensive land reforms with accurate data.
Need for a Mandal-like commission
Insufficient land data and a weak institutional infrastructure, including land records offices, and tribunals contribute to the failure of past land reforms, perpetuating India’s feudalistic society. Land reforms are crucial for the transition from feudal to modern capitalist societies.
India is one of the most unequal countries in the world, where the top 1% own 22% of the nation’s income while the bottom 50% own 13%.
According to National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) 2017 data, an average Indian household keeps more than 65% of its assets in land. Wealth inequality has been relatively little explored in the context of caste. Yet acquiring accurate land data is crucial to understanding inequality among different social groups and castes, enabling informed policy decisions and reducing disparities.
To address India’s wealth inequality, a national commission, akin to the Mandal model, must be proposed to assess caste-based land ownership.
Modernizing and digitizing land records is vital to overcoming past failures, as evidenced by the 2021 approval to integrate land records with the Unique Identification Card (UID) system as part of the Digital India Land Records Modernization Program.
After linking lands record with UID or Aadhar, a proposed unique number will be assigned to each land parcel known as ULPIN (Unique Land Parcel Identification Number). However, consent-based linking poses challenges for acquiring true picture of land data.
Breaking away from the remnants of the old British structure is imperative for India’s growth, aligning it with counterparts like Japan and China, otherwise India’s dream of an industrialized nation will remain just that – a dream.