The Continuing Possibilities of Land Reform
There
was a long period during which land reforms had completely dropped from
the national policy agenda, and even from the policy discussions of
most state governments. Not only were there seemingly insuperable barriers,
but it was made to appear that land reforms were unlikely to deliver
much in terms of growth or productivity. Also, land reforms were typically
seen as essentially taking the form of land redistribution, which is
generally regarded as politically so difficult as to be next to impossible.
The
more recent crisis in agriculture has created a new and different sort
of cynicism about land reforms: it is being argued that since peasant
cultivation is barely viable given the increasing costs and uncertain
prices, it is in any case pointless to try and provide small amounts
of land to peasants.
All these arguments ignore the range of possibilities of changes in
land relations which remain not only necessary but even essential for
ensuring viable conditions of farming. While land distribution is doubtless
important, it is not the only kind of institutional change that can
affect the peasantry. Indeed, there are large problems in farming today
because of poor recording of land rights, inadequate official recognition
of tenants,
The experience of West Bengal shows very clearly how even relatively
limited land reforms such as tenancy reform and distribution of vested
land can play very important roles in improving agricultural productivity,
generating a range of complementary economic activities in the countryside,
and generally enabling a small-producer led pattern of growth at least
for some time. Therefore, it is important to consider how even small
changes in legislation - and in some cases - the mere enforcement of
existing legislation - can transform the conditions facing a large proportion
of small farmers.
Since land reforms are essentially a State subject in the Indian constitution,
it is more useful to consider the possibilities in any one state. In
this article, we focus on Andhra Pradesh, a state which has been experiencing
agrarian crisis for some time now, and where the need for major policy
changes has been recognised also by the state government.
Land relations in Andhra Pradesh are extremely complicated and this
complexity has contributed significantly to the problems facing actual
cultivators in the state. Because of the fact that in many areas (especially
Telengana) the names of the current holders and actual cultivators are
not recorded in the land registers, such cultivators are not eligible
for institutional finance and a range of other public benefits such
as subsidised inputs from public agencies, compensation in the event
of natural calamities, and so on.
In addition, some regions (especially in more irrigated areas) have
a high proportion of tenancy, which is typically unrecorded, and tenant
farmers face similar difficulties in accessing bank loans and other
benefits. They are therefore all driven to the informal credit market,
which supplies loans at very high rates of interest, which in turn adds
greatly to their cost of cultivation. In tribal areas there are even
more difficult issues of land entitlement, and tribal people are typically
being denied their land rights through encroachment and lack of official
protection.
Recording of land rights
In large parts of Andhra Pradesh - as , indeed, in many other states
- the state, the existing land records do not accurately portray the
actual position with respect to land holding and cultivation. Subdivision
and fragmentation of holdings over generations, consequent upon household
division, are not reflected in the land records, which sometimes continue
to list the names of deceased holders, etc. This problem is especially
acute in Telengana. The settlement of revenue records is meant to take
place every ten years because of such processes of changing ownership
and cultivation holdings; however, in Andhra Pradesh, the revenue records
have not been altered for more than fifty years. (This is not uncommon
- in most states, land records have not been altered for several decades.)
This has meant increased disputes related to land and insecurity of
holding, especially for small farmers.
Additionally, women cultivators are rarely if ever listed as the owners
of land, even when they are the actual cultivators. This is despite
the fact that the state's own Land Revenue Act of 1999 makes it the
responsibility of the state government to enter the name or names of
the actual cultivators in the Record of Rights.
It is obvious that several things can be done to resolve these problems
without embarking on any legislation at all, and simply implementing
the provisions of existing legislation such as the Land Revenue Act
of 1999. To begin with, a fresh settlement of revenue records is imperative.
This requires a major administrative drive to record the actual cultivators.
While this has to be undertaken by the state government, it will obviously
require the assistance of local panchayats and other agencies, since
it can of course urn out to be a complicated process.
The state government had tried to bypass the problem of poor and inadequate
revenue records through the provision of pattadar passbooks to all cultivators.
However, as can be expected, this process was flawed in the absence
of adequate proof, and many farmers have not received such passbooks.
Once again, a concerted administrative drive would ensure that pattadar
passbooks are provided to all cultivators. A special focus on recognising
women farmers would ensure that women cultivators also receive passbooks.
In addition, the land rights of tribal populations need to be clearly
recognised and tribal farmers should also be issued pattadar passbooks.
Recognising tenancy
In Andhra Pradesh there are no records and therefore no official statistics
on the extent of tenancy. But reliable estimates suggest that tenancy
is quite high, amounting to around one-third of the cultivated land
and often a larger proportion of farmers. It has been seen that, in
addition to completely landless cultivators, many small farmers who
own very small plots also tend to lease in additional land. The incidence
of tenancy tends to be higher in irrigated tracts and in regions where
rainfall is more plentiful, in other words, where there is more assured
water supply.
The increasing extent of tenancy in this state over the past few decades
has been associated with a shift away from sharecropping to fixed rent
tenancy. Earlier, sharecropping tenancy dominated, with the crop being
shared on a 50:50 basis. However, most tenancy contracts are now fixed
rent contracts. The fixed rent systems are of two kinds: those which
involve an advance of working capital from the landlord, and those which
involve no such advance. The latter type of tenancy contracts tend to
be more common.
Tenant farmers face a range of problems, dominantly stemming from the
lack of official recognition of tenancy and the fact that their status
as actual cultivators is nowhere recorded. This continues despite the
fact that the Land Revenue Act 1999 stipulates that the names of tenants
should be recorded in the revenue records. This lack of recognition
effectively denies tenant farmers all access to institutional finance
such as bank credit and crop insurance. In addition, they cannot benefit
from any of the government schemes directed to farmers, or get any assistance
or compensation at times of natural calamity, since such benefits go
to the registered owner of the land. Nor do they receive any of the
free or subsidised inputs which are distributed to owner cultivators
from the state government, such as seeds, subsidised fertilisers and
pesticides and implements.
Cash rent rates in rural Andhra Pradesh are typically quite high, ranging
from Rs. 3,000 per acres in unirrigated and less fertile areas (such
as in parts of Anantapur district) to as much as Rs. 7,000-9,000 per
acre in irrigated areas of higher soil fertility (such as in Guntur).
In the fertile south coastal Andhra region, rents can go up to as much
as Rs. 15,000 per acre. These rates are in direct contravention of existing
legislation (such as the AP Tenancy Act of 1956 and its 1974 amendment)
under which land rents are controlled. Of course, such legislation has
been so totally ignored that it is now effectively forgotten, and so
neither landlords nor tenants pay much attention to such limits. In
actual practice, tenant farmers are currently paying more than 3 or
4 times the rents stipulated in this Act.
It is fairly clear that some measures would immediately remedy the situation.
For example, obviously the names of tenant farmers (including also women)
should be recorded in the revenue records. Of course, this is not likely
to be simple - it is not only politically difficult, it is also hard
to record cash rent tenancies that may change with every season. The
administrative costs are likely to be very large, especially in the
absence of a properly functioning system of panchayati raj. But that
may be yet another reason to make sure that panchayats are representative
and function effectively.
Once tenant farmers are recognised as actual cultivators, they should
automatically be entitled to the various benefits provided by government
to other farmers, including subsidised inputs, compensation for losses,
etc. This will require careful separation of owners from tenants and
clearly establishing who is actually cultivating any piece of land,
which means continuous monitoring by some local body.
Land distribution
Land ceiling laws have been relatively ineffective in Andhra Pradesh
- only 5.1 lakhs of surplus land have been acquired in total, which
suggests that the laws have been counteracted on the ground by benami
transactions and distribution of large ownership holdings among family
members. In addition, in the recent past there appears to have been
substantial corporate acquisition of land. Much greater regulation of
land grabbing of public or common land by corporations or powerful individuals
is obviously required. In addition, of course, stricter enforcement
of land ceilings would make available much more vested land for redistribution
among the landless population.
Despite this relative lack of implementation of land ceilings, operational
holdings have become much less concentrated. The data in Table 1 suggest
that there has been a decline in the absolute number and area covered
by large and medium holdings since 1971. There is therefore an increase
in ''peasant'' holdings compared to large holdings, and it is evident
that many of these must be held under tenancy contracts. The substantial
increase in marginal holdings, which accounted for more than half of
farmers in the early 1990s, is likely to have contributed to the difficulties
of ensuring that cultivation provides a reasonable livelihood.
Table
1: Distribution of operational holdings in AP, 1970-71 to 1990-91 |
||||||||
Year
|
Marginal |
Small |
Semi-small |
Total
Small and Marginal |
Medium |
Large |
Total
Medium |
|
Per
cent of holdings
|
||||||||
1970-71 |
46.0 |
19.6 |
17.4 |
83.0 |
12.7 |
4.3 |
17.0
|
|
1990-91 |
56.1 |
21.2 |
14.5 |
91.8 |
6.9 |
1.3 |
8.2
|
|
Per
cent of area covered
|
||||||||
1970-71 |
8.0 |
11.3 |
19.2 |
38.5 |
30.8 |
30.7 |
61.5
|
|
1990-91 |
16.4 |
19.6 |
25.2 |
61.1 |
26.1 |
12.8 |
39.0
|
|
There is also substantial landlessness in rural Andhra Pradesh. The NSS data of Table 2 show that AP has the second highest extent of landlessness among rural households, after Punjab. Some of this landlessness is itself the result of the growing difficulties of cultivation, as indebted small and marginal farmers have been forced to sell or give up their land because of the inability to repay their debts through the proceeds of farming. It is also the case that landlessness is heavily concentrated among the Dalit and tribal populations. This high degree of landlessness is why agricultural labourers outnumber cultivators by nearly two times according to the 2001 census.
Table
2: Per cent of landless households in rural areas |
||||||||
Year
|
AP
|
India
|
||||||
1987-88 |
45.9
|
35.4
|
||||||
1993-94 |
49.5
|
38.7
|
||||||
1999-2000 |
52.3
|
40.9
|
||||||
Land
Degradation
Once problem that is inadequately recognised across rural
India is the decline in soil fertility that has in some areas quite
dramatically affected agricultural productivity. Even in Andhra Pradesh,
there are increasing problems of soil degradation and fallow land.
As is evident from the chart, the proportion of waste and fallow land
has increased significantly since the early 1990s. This has actually
meant a decline in cultivated area. While adverse weather and rainfall
conditions have certainly been associated with this, it is true that
cultivation practices have eroded soil qualities over time. The problem
is especially acute in certain areas of Rayalseema and northern Telengana,
where cropping pattern shifts and greater use of chemical inputs have
led to declining soil fertility and even forced fallows.
In other areas, the increase in current fallows also reflects the lack
of viability of cultivation, as small farmers migrate in search of other
incomes rather than cultivating their fields at a loss. Obviously, a
focus on strategies for land regeneration, such as soil regeneration
practices which can be part of a rural employment programme, would be
important for dealing with such concerns.
While these may be achievable - and even necessary - policy goals, there
is no doubt that they cannot be achieved without strong political will.
In West Bengal, the land reforms were an outcome of decades of peasant
struggle which eventually brought to power a state government committed
to these reforms. Even in other states, similar motivation and social
pressure will be necessary, even to make sure that the existing laws
are actually implemented.