(a) The Idea of Indian Village and Village Studies

Generally speaking there has been a great deal of study on village communities in India dating back to colonial rule. Occident’s scholars were quiet impressed by exotic character of Indian society. Indian society was very different from British society and that aroused curiosity. The

focus of study was village communities because the village communities demonstrated the life of natives in its authentic forms. Village was the repository of Indian tradition. Andre Beteille says “village was not merely a place where people lived, it had a design in which were reflected the basic values of Indian civilization. This is how an outsider, in order to understand the world in which villagers lived gave an explanation.

But this approach can’t be considered properly sociological. Many of them who studied Indian villages were civil servants and they didn’t adopt a systematic approach as would qualify to be a proper sociological enquiry. Out of this view developed a definition of village which shaped idea of scholars and also Indian scholars like Gandhi. An influential but incorrect view of villages came up which tended to semanticist about Indian villages. It is best expressed in words of Charles Metcalf, “Indian village communities were little republics having nearly everything they wanted within themselves and almost independent of foreign relations. They seem to last where nothing else lasted. Dynasty after dynasty tumbled down. Revolutions succeeded revolution, but the village communities remained same.”

The definition is more romantic than authentic. They glorified Indian villages as proof of continuity and stability of Indian civilization. Villages were hardly republic, though

autonomous and self-governing. It was not autonomous as high castes exercised influence. Also they were not autonomous and devoid of foreign relations. This is the way initial perceptions about villages developed though it was not true, but influential. Leaders like Gandhi were carried away by this definition. It was presumed that in colonial discourse, villages were a self-sufficient community, had communal ownership of land that they were fully integrated and cohesive communities sharing common interests. The next phase of interests in study of village communities developed after independence. In 1950’s more than 80% of population lived in villages. Famous remark of Gandhi had influence on Indian planners and readers. Though villages were characterized by poverty, simplicity; it was due to poverty but not by choice. Decadence of village communities in India has been result of colonial rule and poverty. Gandhi’s remark regarding village brought village to central state in policy making. He succeeded in drawing attention of political elite of India on village development. When we embarked on process of nation building, the major concern was on reconstruction of village communities. Concern remained even after death of Gandhi.

The concern for reconstruction of village communities was manifested in governmental programmers like CDP, SFDP, MFDP, Area development programmed, green revolution etc. Throughout 1950’s and 1960’s we were pre occupied with development of villagers. Critics point out that, though we talked of developing villages, we didn’t do far enough for villages. Villages have become pastures of backwardness. Conflict, poverty, inequality, deprivation and persecution were associated with villages. After the 1st FYP, share of agriculture in rural India decreased. Mahalanobis model gave priority to capital intensive goods and heavy industries. Our approach to rural development was like a bargaining sector. We believed that agriculture follows the law of diminishing returns. After initial development, we neglected villages.

In 1950’s we tried to engineer social change in India through CDP. It was a massive

exercise. We had more than 5 Lakhs villages in 1950. To bring change at such a massive scale, aroused curiosity of economists, political sciences etc. Even sociologists were drawn to think about this. Sociologists believed that their attempt to study village communities would be better than economists. 1950’s and 1960’s was dominated by functionalists like Parsons, Merton etc.

Also by 1960’s tribes were vanishing, social anthropology was in search of subject matter. Village communities and peasants offered a new way of life and alternative. Malinowski method of participant observation was adopted in context of Indian villages. And for this sociologists claimed superiority over economics. How? While economists were preoccupied by quantitative techniques and confined to issues like production, their approach was narrow and incomplete. Sociologists had a holistic approach particularly studying entire community in its interlocking and interdependent nature. Sociologists approach was more concrete, qualitative and highlighted the distinctive features of village communities. Rajni Kothari was the only sociologist in Indian economic planning system.

Mandelbaum, S.C. Dubey, M.N. Srinivas etc studied village communities in India. These all professors also wanted to document for posterity as traditional Indian would be gone due to engineering of social change. For all these reasons, we find in 1950’s 1960’s and in early 1970’s witnessed great interest in village communities in India. These scholars adopted a field study approach, often choosing a middle sized village where intensive research has to be carried out through participant observation method.

The focus was on following:

1. Structure of social relationships

2. Institution at patterns

3. Value systems and beliefs of rural people

As a result there were many works published.

S.C. Dube: - Indian Village (Samirpet, A.P)

D.N. Majumdar:- Rural Profiles

M.N. Srinivas:- India Village (Rampura, Mysore)

Andre Beteille: - Caste, Class and Power (Thanjavur district)

Mackim Majriot – Village India (Kishangarhi, U.P.)

Village represented India in microcosm. Villages were basis of people’s identity that

governed and shaped people livelihood and they were seen as symbols of continuity of Indian civilization.

The following are the important consequences of these findings:-

(1) Colonial myth of village communities as little republic isolated autarchy was

broken. (Autarchy means total self-sufficiency.)

(2) All these studies discovered “As far back in time, as living memory went, there was no reason to believe that this village was ever sufficient in economic sphere”. This comment was made by Andre Beteille after studying Shripuram village in Thanjavur district. Not only economically, even socially they were not selfsufficient. There was a great deal of exchange including personnel. M.N. Srinivas challenges the colonial view saying that village was always a part of wider society linked and connected to larger society. It was a part of that regional community and not an isolated land of island in ocean.

But in the process a new myth was generated. It probably began in late 1930’s. William Wiser who studied Karimpur village in Eastern Uttar Pradesh pointed out that village was characterized by interdependence among Jatis and Castes giving rise to organic solidarity in a village, creating cohesion and unity in village and basis of this cohesion happened to be not only distinct culture but also economic.

Social and economic interdependence in which every Jati contributed its share in which it is best suited for. In return each Jati will receive their rewards which they best deserved. It gave rise to ‘Jajmani’ relations which created vertical solidarity in villages. This was an important factor of overcoming the tendencies of regimentation in villages due to caste tendencies there by giving a sense of unity to village communities. Castes were mutually exclusive groups. But Caste hierarch created a societal hierarchy which gave rise to Jajmani relations, giving rise to a sense of relatedness vertically also.

Most of scholars were functionalists. They were biased to see village communities as

cohesive and close knit, characterized by mutual dependence. But this view was only partly true. Undoubtedly, interdependence does create some degree of unity. Villages do act at times as cohesive groups. But the dimension of unity is over exaggerated by scholars. They predicted on the assumption that members of village have common interests.

They thought that, if programmes addressing to village communities are launched, it would work for advance of all. They thought that all people would participate and contribute. CDP was launched on the same assumption. But studies point that, this was not so. Class divisions did divide the communities. Cleavages did exist within communities. This made functionalists definition false. Scholars of conflict tradition like Oscar Lewis, F.G. Bailey etc. challenged the unity model of Indian villages.

According to Oscar Lewis villages are characterized by politico-economic dominance and dependence relations. Subjugated were not in a position to challenge the dominance of well to do. So, this is how there is interdependence and reciprocity. According to F.G. Bailey, equality between castes was supposed by those who were having good taste of caste. There are not reciprocal ties, but dominant castes used coercive sanctions.

This is how violence was built in caste relations. Villages were not romantic life. Semblance of harmony is created by coercion of dominant caste. There is only apparent harmony as the oppressed are not given a choice to raise to voice. Gender relations were explored. Here also, there is an institutionalized inequality. Rural communities are bastions of patriarchy. Women are exploited, given and compulsory of domestically. There is no reciprocity between husband and wife. Woman of lower caste had no dignity and self-respect as they could at any time be exploited by upper caste. This is how conflict theorists tried to highlight injustice in village communities.

Today village communities are subjected to drastic changes. Most of traditional hierarchical structure Jajmani relations are on passé, but the secular basis of hierarchy is still present. Conflict is mounting because of the fact that social relations are purely contractual. Also, due to competitive political mobilization out of grass root level elections, even factionalism is on rise. Today village communities look to be communities without much of a future. They are fast growing to be consumed in urban agglomerates. Agriculture is only becoming parking lot of poor.

(b) Agrarian social structure - evolution of land tenure system, Land reforms

Evolution of Land Tenure system in India

Traditionally India was characterized by different forms of organization of agrarian

societies. Unlike Europe, we didn’t had institution of private property in land. There was no clear cut class division between landowner, nobility and peasants working on land.

In pre-British times, land was supposed to be owned by kings/rulers. Agrarian communities/ villages consisted of peasants and artisans existing in relations of interdependence where peasants have a hereditary right to work on that land. But they had no ability to buy and sell the land.

In lieu of ownership, the ownership right was vested in rulers and peasants were obliged to give 1/6th to 1/4th of produce to king in pre Mughal times. This share of produce was handed over to the intermediaries called revenue farmers appointed by the king. 9/10th was given to king and 1/10th was left to revenue farmer.

During Mughal period the system underwent a change. In Mughal period, rate of tax

increased, but control and ownership remained same. Peasants were known as ‘khood khasteh’ and were to pay between 1/4th to 1/3rd and during Aurangzeb time it was half (½) to intermediaries known as Zamindars, Talkurdars, Lambaddars or Inamdars.

They had a duty to collect the revenue in an estate devoted to them as a reward to their services, where the profit of company could be shared. Only when peasant dies without heirs, land would be transferred to his closet kin. Otherwise there was no provision of transfer of land.

According to Dandekar, the agrarian structure of pre-colonial India was characterized by self-possessing, self-working and self-sufficient village communities with agriculture relations and rooted in centuries old customs and traditions in which the king, zamindars and all other men at the top were concerned with development of agriculture and reclamation of waste land and this served the interest of all.

We also find that Indian agriculture in pre-colonial period, though not progressive in

nature, didn’t reach the worse shape which became its hallmark during British rule. No improvement of land was done in British rule. There were famines in India, but the quantum of famine was no devastating, as it was in British rule.

When British acquired Diwani rights in 1765 after battle of Buxar, they started collecting revenue. Initially they collected in the Mughal way. They saw revenue as a source of income which they wanted to maximize. They tried various methods like quinquennial system where estate was auctioned to the highest bidder for some stipulated time.

In 1793, under Cornwallis, British introduced permanent settlement system. East India Company needed a clear idea of their likely income to facilitate budgeting and to avoid instability and uncertainty. In permanent settlement system, amount of revenue to be charged by company was fixed prematurely. Land was given through auction and people were conferred ownership right of land. This was a significant innovation by British in agriculture in India. Never ever was land in India till them.

They calculated rental value of land 90% of annual rental value was calculated as

revenue. Zamindars were made owners of lands and were asked to pay a fixed amount annually as revenue. But the tax that zamindar would collect from peasants were not fixed.

Zamindars were expected to change rent from peasant as per pargana rate which was never defined. Powers of zamindars were used for rack sentry etc.

When zamindars complained about problem in collecting revenue from peasant, British is 1799 passed a regulation, where by sweeping power, including police powers were conferred on zamindars to collect revenue from peasant, so much so that they found it quite profitable to go for subinfeudation of land.

According to Simon commission, in Bengal, in some cases, there were 15 intermediaries between British and cultivators. This was called absentee land lords.

The share of peasant progressively declined. In the same permanent settlement areas 4/5th of produce was taken away. It was worst than the tax that was paid during reign of Aurangzeb which was only half of produce.

The share of peasant in British rule declined from 1/2 to 1/5th. It was barely enough for the peasant to keep his family alive. Permanent settlement system became a means of progressive backwardness in India’s agriculture and led to chronic poverty of peasant, as peasant was left with no means of surplus to improve production and quality of land.

Even the British didn’t benefit much from this as their share was fixed. Zamindars fettered. So, British realized their mistake that in permanent settlement system, only thing that was permanent was their share and everything else was charging. In Britain private ownership of land proved to bring capitalistic transformation of agriculture, but in India, it worked reversely and created a semi-feudal order which led to stagnation of Indian agriculture.

About 57% of all privately owned land was under permanent settlement system. This is how the land tenure system and land relation existing in northern India especially with British rule.

In Central and Southern India, they introduced system which was called to by Ryotwari system; it was tried in Madras presidency by captain, Read and Thomas Munro. By 1850’s, it was extended throughout southern India including Bombay presidency and central provinces.

This region already faced heavy tax collection under Maratha administration. Even

Marathas were as ruthless as British in tax collection. They fixed the revenue at ½ of

produce after deducting cost of cultivation in irrigated areas. There were no intermediaries between peasant and state and the ownership was vested with peasant itself.

Like permanent settlement system, they made a demand that payment should be done in cash. This had an important implication:-

(1) Every peasant was forced to grow some cash crop to sell it in market to generate

revenue.

(2) If there is a failure of crop, peasant, would go to money lender to get money and

pay tax who lends money at an exorbitant rate. If the peasant is indebted family, then the land would be transferred to Zamindars. This led to massive land alienation. Land was now concentrated in a few hands who were the big farmers.

The problem in Ryotwari system was that, there was no sustained irrigation mechanism. Also revenue was very high. Produce depended on vagaries of monsoon. Even in dry lands, where there was no irrigation, peasants were asked to pay 33% of their produce as revenue, which made peasant vulnerable. 38% of the land was under Ryotwari System.

So, Dandekar says that all this led to massive land alienation. Hence:

(1) Absentee landlordism

(2) Shared tenancy.

(3) Usury

(4) Arbitrary eviction.

Mahalwari system was introduced in parts of Punjab, Western U.P, Agra and parts of

Awadh. In this system, the whole village was treated as one entity and revenue was

treated accordingly. But the consequences for peasants were more or less same.

Among all, permanent system was the worst as it throttled and squeezed peasant out of existence and thus was the most worst. 75% of the cultivated area was under tenants. All land was owned by only 25% of owners. This was consequence of British rule.

Food production declined, pressure on land increased. At the same time, number of

people dependent on agriculture was also increased, in early 19th century, 60% of population depended on agriculture. By early 20th century, 80% of population became

dependent on agriculture. Also there was vulnerability to droughts and famines.

As British rule developed famines became more devastating and to worsen things

partition transferred most of fertile land to Pakistan (wheat-Bowl) and Bangladeshi (Jute Bowl).

With the advent of Independence a number of measures were taken in tenancy reform. In fact, Indian National Congress, spearheading the freedom movement, was committed to eliminate the intermediaries, parasites and absentee landlords. Though the aspirations of the tiller of the soil could never be fulfilled totally, yet the agrarian structure underwent important changes. Various measures of land reforms unleashed numerous forces of change.

Land Reforms

While recognizing the need to bring about land reforms in the country, the Constitution

of India provided under Article 39 that:

(1) the ownership and control of the material resources of the country should be so distributed as best to serve the common good; and

(2) the operation of the economic system should not result in a concentration of wealth or a means of production to the common detriment.

The Constitution of India also made land a state (provincial) subject. So, only state

(provincial) legislatures have the power to enact and implement land-reform laws.

However, the central government played a significant advisory and financial role in land policy based on its constitutional role in social and economic planning (a role held concurrently with the states). The Government of India established a National Planning Commission immediately after Independence to fulfill this role of social and economic planning. Land reform policy was spelt out in the First Five-Year Plan. The plan aimed to reduce disparities in income and wealth, to eliminate exploitation and to provide security to tenants, as well as to achieve social transformation through equality of status and an opportunity for different sections of the population to participate in development initiatives.

Raj Krishna (1961) grouped land-reform measures into four groups: liberative,

distributive, organizational and developmental. These groups help to clarify the role of land policy as a process of overall development.

(a). The liberative measures aimed at the emancipation of the actual tillers of the land from the yoke of the landlord. This was to be achieved by conferring the land title or occupancy rights of the tenant. Fixing of rent was undertaken in a few states, e.g. West Bengal's "Operation Barga", where tenancy was recorded.

(b). The distributive measures were meant to achieve this by delivering material resources to the poor as promised by the Constitution of India, especially those who required land as a productive resource. This was to be achieved by redistributing landownership from large landholders to the landless, specifically from socially weaker sections. The tenancy reforms and ceiling on land holding represented liberative and distributive measures according to Raj Krishna's categorization.

(c) Organizational reforms aimed at selecting and implementing a particular form of

agricultural production practice, with the help of technological change, were introduced in the mid-1960s. (Ceiling)

(d) These three policies operating together put pressure on land resources, prompting a need for developmental reform. Developmental reforms encompassed other issues interconnected with land policy, which impacted the overall development of the agricultural sector. (Green Revolution) All four components taken together form a part of the overall distributive and development initiatives that were taken immediately after Independence. Even though Raj Krishna wrote this chapter almost at the beginning of the first phase of land reforms, the description aptly gives a clear theoretical view of the reforms that followed in the next coming decades.

Immediately after Independence four important components of land reform were thought of as major policy interventions in building the land policy. These included: (1) the abolition of intermediaries (Zamindari in 1951);

(2) tenancy reforms;

(3) fixing ceilings on land holdings; and

(4) consolidation of landholdings.

These were taken in phases because of the need to establish a political will for their wider acceptance.

(1) Abolition of intermediaries: That, almost 60% of land was under permanent settlement system and under this system a class of intermediaries came to existence who extracted a considerable part of production leaving little to tiller. Peasant had neither the ability nor the inclination to reinvest. Capital investment in agriculture conspicuously lacked and continues to be lacking. Absentee landlordism developed as poor peasants migrated to cities.

Due to lack of capital investment in agricultural, agricultural production was decreasing, while dependence, on agriculture was increasing. If only we confer ownership rights on tillers, then only would he have real incentive to produce surplus and reinvest.

Intermediaries were acting as a hindrance to progressive development. Agricultural production can only be achieved only if mode of agricultural production is transformed into a capitalist’s mode. One of the most important agenda of land reforms was abolition of intermediaries.

(2) Tenancy Reforms: Yet another important ingredient of land reforms was to prevent exploitation of tenants against rack-renting. Generally tenants are subjected to high rents. Also when the tenant is not in a position to pay due to flood or poor monsoon etc. he is asked to evict land. So, government wanted to provide him security. So, government brought a rule where rent would be less than 1/5th of produce and in special circumstances it could be 1/4th of production for which special permission from government is required.

(3) Fixing ceilings on land holdings: There were efforts by government to create an egalitarian society by preventing concentration of economic power. Government thought to put a ceiling on size of land holdings. Surplus land was identified and redistributed amongst the landless, share croppers etc. But this step came into conflict with issue of redistribution of land. While tenants now became owners and new a class of land proprietor emerged. Now this class who became the land owners were predominately from middle class who were actually superior tenants. Chaudhary Charan Singh was the leader of this new emergent group. Ceiling was demanded 30 acres for a famity of five. Many states like Karnataka did declare ceiling to be around 27 acres. But congress in order to woo the Dalit and lower castes didn’t subscribe to Charan Singh demands, they reduced land ceiling limits to 18 acres for irrigated doubly cropped land and 36 acres for dry land singly cropped land. This also led to emergence of parties like BKD let by C.C.Singh and B.C.D by Mahendra Singh Tikait.

(4) Consolidation of land holdings: This is what government resorts to ever 60 years. In Punjab the small farmer couldn’t afford to install an electric pump to draw water from well as his entire annual income was Rs.5000 there is no incentive if land is fragmented. There would be more incentives if land is held together to a certain limit. The government tried to consolidate land holdings through land reforms and tried to do justice for small farmers.

The overriding concern in India was to increase agricultural production. So, abolition of intermediaries was successful in all states except in Bihar. Ownership was mainly given to superior tenants because there was documentary evidence, so, the land that can’t be taken over for cultivation, was taken over by government. Land reforms were placed under 9th schedule of constitutions. A compensation scheme was decided and nearly 20mn households were conferred ownership rights. Nearly 100 million people benefitted. Peasants became owners/ proprietor of land now.

As far as the redistributive side is concerned, it turned out to be a conspicuous failure. According to Bandyopadhyay the Land reforms commissioner of India, as per the new ceiling limits, about 12% of land could be declared surplus. According to Dandekar, on June 16, 1986, not even 2% of the net operated land could be declared surplus. And the surplus actually distributed as a proposition of net operated area was just 1%. There are only 5 states in India, where redistributive areas were greater than 1% viz. West Bengal, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab. If these 5 states are excluded the 1% falls down to 0-7%. This was responsible for subsequent crisis in rural India in 1960’s and 1970’s.

In west Bengal-7%, Bihar-0.9%, Gujarat-0.5%, Madhya Pradesh-0-3%, Karnataka- 0.4%. These statistics show that there was hardly any redistribution. Although lot of radical rhetoric was used on redistributive aspect, yet land reform only continued to be an agenda till 1990 without implementation.

After 1990’s land reform lost all its rationale, 80% of land holders in India are either

small or marginal farmers. 1.6% were large holders. Now by 1990, there was hardly

land to be redistributed. Population increased, no employment was generated, land got fragmented and villages got occupied and became over crowded. Also there were no alternative employments. Agriculture in India became a parking lot of poor.

Also, with increasing input cost, small holdings are unviable. So, there were farmer’s suicides. Even ideologically, we can’t justify land reforms. After LPG, there is no limit on industrialists to have wealth. When there is no limit on owners of service, how can

there be limit on agricultural owners of large holdings. No ideological legitimization.

Land reforms have not been very effective due to following reasons:

- Population growth rate was very high after independence but land was limited.

- Nexus among bureaucrats, landlords and politicians

- The laws regarding the Land reforms were ambiguous which led to legal battles

between the old and new occupants in which finally poors left the land against

some paltry compensation.

- The land should have been put in IX schedule of constitution so that unnecessary

legal battle could have been avoided.