Agrarian Social Structure – Evolution of Land Tenure System and Land Reforms in India
The agrarian social structure refers to the organization of agricultural society, particularly how land—the primary means of production in rural areas—is owned, controlled, and utilized. In India, where agriculture has been a dominant economic activity for centuries, the social and economic life of rural communities is deeply tied to the distribution and ownership of land. Class divisions, caste hierarchies, gender roles, and regional disparities all intersect within this agrarian framework.
Understanding Agrarian Structure
According to André Béteille, the study of agrarian structure centers on two core dimensions:
Technological Arrangements – This includes factors such as ecological conditions and the adoption of new agricultural technologies like water pumps, threshers, chemical fertilizers, and high-yield seeds.
Social Arrangements – These refer to land control and ownership patterns which determine the rural class hierarchy.
The agrarian class system emerges when the means of production—especially land—is privately owned, enabling a few to accumulate surplus wealth while the majority remain dependent.
Historical Evolution of Land Tenure in India
Ancient India
Land ownership in ancient India was characterized by dual ownership between the king and the tiller. While the king held de jure rights, Dharmashastra texts obliged him to protect tillers, establishing a de facto landlord system.
Nivi Dharma lands (granted to temples and scholars) were revenue-free and permanent, reflecting early social stratification.
The Jajmani system structured rural society along caste lines, where lower castes rendered services to upper caste landholders.
Absence of private property, underdeveloped markets, and communal agricultural practices limited the emergence of distinct agrarian classes.
Medieval India
Agriculture remained largely subsistence-based, with limited market relations.
Land control was caste-determined; dominant castes (e.g., Rajputs, Brahmins) owned land, while lower castes remained landless or tenant cultivators.
The Jajmani system continued to dominate rural social and economic interactions.
Colonial India: Disruption and Transformation
The British introduced cash crops, new revenue systems (like Zamindari, Ryotwari), and absentee landlordism, drastically altering agrarian relations.
These systems led to excessive taxation, frequent evictions, and agrarian distress, while enriching a new class of colonial landlords.
Ranade argued that the colonial state monopolized agricultural control, denying landlords the capacity for technological improvements.
R.C. Dutt attributed rural poverty to the lack of industrialization and prevalence of small landholdings.
Gandhian Perspective emphasized village self-rule (Swaraj), natural resource rights for locals, and mutual village-town interdependence. Gandhi promoted rural upliftment through social, cultural, economic, and human-centered reforms.
Post-Independence Agrarian Reforms and Class Dynamics
Land Reforms
The post-independence state undertook major land reforms under the slogan “Land to the Tiller”, including:
Abolition of Zamindari
Tenancy reforms
Land ceiling acts
These reforms helped create a new middle peasantry, primarily from intermediary castes, transforming them into small landholders.
Caste and Land Ownership
Sociologist M.N. Srinivas, through his study of Rampura village, highlighted how Lingayats and Vokkaligas, once backward peasants, rose to dominant caste status by acquiring land and local political power.
Green Revolution and Class Differentiation
The Community Development Programme and Green Revolution further stratified rural society. As Susanne and Lloyd Rudolph argued in In Pursuit of Lakshmi, this era gave rise to ‘Bullock Capitalists’—prosperous, landowning middle castes who benefited from technological advances and state support.
Theoretical Perspectives on Agrarian Class Structure
Marxist View
Kathleen Gough, in her study of Kumbapetti village, Tamil Nadu, identified five agrarian classes based on their relationship to the means of production:
Big bourgeoisie
Medium bourgeoisie
Petty bourgeoisie
Semi-proletariat
Pure proletariat
Land ownership determines exploitation levels and social power.
Weberian View
André Béteille introduced a nuanced classification:
Owners (landlords): Sub-categorized into entrepreneurial, cultural, absentee, and traditional landlords.
Controllers (tenants): Smallholders or leaseholders.
Users (laborers): Landless workers dependent on wage labor.
He emphasized land as a status symbol, suggesting cultural criteria must supplement economic ones for a complete understanding.
Daniel Thorner’s Classification
In The Agrarian Prospect in India (1956), Thorner proposed a tripartite classification based on income, rights, and fieldwork:
Malik (upper caste landlords)
Kisan (middle peasant proprietors)
Mazdoor (landless laborers)
Empirical Studies and Regional Variations
Anand Chakravarti (Purnia, Bihar)
Found that Bhumihars controlled land and social mobility, while Dalits and tribals remained underclass, working leased lands under exploitative conditions.
D.N. Dhanagare
In Peasant Movements in India, he emphasized the complexity of land-based class relations and proposed a flexible, multi-class framework to reflect local realities.
Bina Majumdar’s Feminist Perspective
She highlighted gendered inequalities in land control. Though 73% of rural women are engaged in farming (10th Agricultural Census), only 13% hold land rights, pointing to deep-rooted patriarchal exclusion in agrarian structures.
Joan Mencher and Regional Differences
Agrarian classes differ across regions and languages:
Bengal: Zamindars, Jotedars, Bargadars, Khet Mazdoors
Bihar: Ahraf, Bakal, Pawania, Jotiya
Tamil Nadu: Mirsadas, Payakari, Padiyals
Jan Breman (Surat District, Gujarat)
He classified agrarian households into:
Large farmers (>15 acres)
Middle farmers (5–15 acres)
Small/Marginal farmers (<5 acres)
He documented labor migration from Bihar to Punjab during agricultural seasons, driven by labor-intensive crops like paddy.
Agrarian Power Structure in India
The agrarian power structure in India is a manifestation of unequal access to land, caste-based hierarchies, and entrenched social norms that shape rural class relations. From landlord-tenant arrangements to the traditional jajmani system, power in the Indian countryside has historically flowed through land control, caste dominance, and labor dependency.
Landlord-Tenant Relations
Sociologist André Béteille, in his ethnographic study of Sripuram village, highlighted the dynamics between absentee landlords and lower-caste tenants. Most of the landlords in Sripuram were educated Brahmins, who had migrated to urban centers for professional employment. Despite their physical absence, they retained ownership of large tracts of land and leased them out to lower-caste tenants.
Béteille observed that the bargaining power in this relationship heavily favored the landlords. Even when tenants exhibited entrepreneurial zeal, their lack of operating capital and institutional support prevented them from fully benefiting from agricultural productivity. The surplus generated from the land typically accrued to the landlord, reinforcing existing inequalities in rural India.
Landlord-Agricultural Laborer Relations
In the same study, Béteille noted that the landlords, primarily from the Brahmin and Rajput castes, traditionally abstained from using the plough, which was deemed impure for upper castes. Instead, agricultural labor was performed by lower-caste laborers, creating a sharp social and occupational divide. This relationship was not just economic but deeply embedded in caste-based prohibitions, ensuring the continuation of power asymmetries in everyday life.
Tenant–Agricultural Laborer Relations
Although both tenants and agricultural laborers are landless, Béteille emphasized that their class interests do not align completely. Tenants, though without ownership, often have secure leaseholds or some degree of control over production. In contrast, agricultural laborers are wage-dependent, with no command over land or output. Thus, while both groups are subordinate, a hierarchy even among the landless persists, complicating class solidarity in rural settings.
Land Ownership and Inequality
The centrality of land in defining rural power is echoed by Gunnar Myrdal in his seminal work Asian Drama. Myrdal contended that inequality in rural Asia is primarily a question of land ownership. Where land is concentrated in the hands of a few, power remains undemocratically distributed, making agrarian reform a prerequisite for any genuine attempt at social equality and rural development.
Migration and Agrarian Labor Market
Agricultural migration in India has often been explained through pull factors such as labor-intensive cropping patterns, urban employment opportunities, and labor shortages in certain regions. However, Jan Breman, in his study of Gujarat, brings attention to the power dynamics engineered by dominant agrarian classes. He argues that elites fragment labor markets by deliberately lowering wage levels and weakening the bargaining position of local laborers. By encouraging migrant labor, they undermine the collective power of local agricultural workers, thereby ensuring a pliable and cheap labor force.
The Jajmani System: Traditional Agrarian Hierarchy
Structure and Organization
The Jajmani system was a traditional mode of service-based social exchange in Indian villages, structuring rural society along caste lines. Caste groups were divided into:
Jajmans: The landowning and patron castes who controlled productive resources.
Kamins: The service-providing castes who performed tasks like weaving, pottery, blacksmithing, and manual labor.
Reciprocal Yet Unequal Exchange
The relationship was one of reciprocal exchange, where kamins provided lifelong hereditary services to the jajmans, and in return, received a share of the produce or in-kind payment. However, this exchange was inherently unequal, as jajmans belonged to dominant castes, while kamins were usually from lower, often Dalit, castes. The system institutionalized caste hierarchy and denied economic mobility to the lower strata.
Changes in Agrarian Structure in India
The agrarian structure of India has undergone significant transformations from the colonial era to the post-independence period. These changes have been shaped by the political economy of land, class and caste dynamics, technological interventions, and globalization. This essay explores the evolution of agrarian relations and social structures in British India and independent India, highlighting the emerging patterns and implications.
1. Agrarian Changes during British India
a) Introduction of Land Tenure Systems
The British colonial administration introduced three primary systems of land revenue: Zamindari, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari. These systems restructured land ownership and control, often in ways that were alien to traditional practices. The cultivators were frequently reduced to the status of tenants or sharecroppers under powerful landlords.
b) Transformation of Agrarian Class Structure
The colonial system fostered a new agrarian class hierarchy. The dominant classes now included absentee landlords and moneylenders, while actual cultivators became marginalized. The transformation of society from a ‘peasant society’ to a class society became evident. The upper class included absentee landlords; the middle class, sub-landlords; and the bottom strata comprised marginalized peasants and sharecroppers.
c) Demand for Cash Revenue
British revenue policies demanded fixed cash payments instead of a share in the produce. This shift increased rural indebtedness, forcing many peasants to borrow from moneylenders or sell off their land.
d) Commercialization of Agriculture
Under colonial rule, agriculture shifted from subsistence-based production to market-oriented production. This led to:
Land acquiring commodity status.
Shift in cropping patterns toward cash crops.
Example: In Rayalaseema (Andhra Pradesh), food crop cultivation declined from 78% (1901) to 58% (1945).
e) Land Alienation
Many rich landlords entered the credit market not for interest income but to usurp land from smallholders. This exacerbated rural inequality.
f) Conservation-Dissolution Dialectic
According to Utsa Patnaik, colonial rule preserved pre-capitalist structures while simultaneously introducing bourgeois land relations. However, this transformation was incomplete as capitalist relations of production failed to develop fully, leading to a distorted agrarian system.
2. Agrarian Changes in Post-Independence India
a) Industrialization and Decline of Agriculture's Role
In independent India, agriculture began losing its centrality. Its contribution to national income dropped from ~60% (1950s) to <30% by the early 1990s. However, it still employed a significant portion of the population, reflecting a contradiction in development.
b) Disintegration of Traditional Social Forms
Earlier agrarian modes like feudalism and peasant societies gave way to differentiated structures under capitalist influence. Tenants and sharecroppers were often evicted and became wage laborers, while large landholders adopted mechanized farming.
Example: Maliks became enterprising capitalist farmers.
Landless laborers continued to be marginalized.
c) Class Differentiation in Agriculture
Drawing on Lenin, the spread of capitalism in agriculture led to class differentiation among the peasantry. In India, the peasantry evolved into:
Landlords
Rich peasants
Middle peasants
Poor peasants
Landless laborers
Notably, India’s middle farmer stratum has grown instead of a strict class polarization.
d) Changing Attitudes toward Agriculture
Peasants began to treat agriculture as an enterprise rather than subsistence activity. Use of machines, focus on cash crops, and hiring of labor became common.
3. Agrarian Power and Political Changes
a) Democratization of Agrarian Power Structure
The advent of the Panchayati Raj system enabled lower castes to assert political agency. However, such changes were often met with violent backlash from dominant caste groups, showing the persistence of feudal-patriarchal power structures.
b) Uneven Effects of Green Revolution
The Green Revolution improved the conditions of large farmers but led to eviction of tenants and widened the inequality gap. Marginal and landless farmers were left behind.
4. Migration and Labor Transformation
a) Rise of Footloose Labor
The breakdown of traditional land relations and rise of capitalist agriculture gave birth to migrant laborers. These ‘footloose’ laborers engage in seasonal, insecure work.
Example: Bihar and Eastern UP laborers migrate to Punjab and Haryana during harvest seasons.
b) Decline in Land Consciousness
Rural-to-urban migration and local industrialization reduced emotional and economic attachment to land, especially among the younger generation.
5. Emergence of New Rural Elite
a) Education and Political Empowerment
Modern education and reservation policies led to the rise of a new rural elite from backward castes like Jaats, Yadavs, and Pattidars.
b) Investment Diversification
These groups diversified their income by investing in urban businesses, shifting from pure land-based income to entrepreneurship.
Example: In Farms and Factories (1995), Mario Rutten documents how these rural elites evolved into a rural-urban capitalist class in Punjab, Haryana, and Western UP.
6. Globalization and Agrarian Crisis
a) Globalization of Indian Farmers
From colonial times (railways, Suez Canal) to present-day globalization, Indian farmers became integrated into global markets. Exposure to:
Contract farming
GM crops
Global pricing shocks
This led to financial risk and farmer suicides.
Example: In Kerala, Gulf remittances and global linkages have reshaped rural society uniquely.
7. Feminization of Agriculture
a) Female Participation Increases
Male migration to cities has led to increased female participation in farming.
Census 2015–16: 73.2% of rural women engaged in agriculture.
b) Limited Empowerment
Deere & Gunewardena: Feminization has not improved women's decision-making power.
Itishree Patnaik: Linked to poverty, not empowerment.
8. The Question of Social Sustainability
a) New Mode of Surplus Extraction
According to Utsa Patnaik, India is shifting from traditional surplus extraction to profit-based hiring of labor. However, India's vast regional and class diversity demands that agriculture must remain socially sustainable, not just economically viable.
Characteristics of Peasant Societies and the Nature of Feudalism
The peasant society occupies a unique space in the historical trajectory of agrarian civilizations. It evolved between tribal subsistence communities and capitalist farming systems. As an essential feature of pre-industrial society, peasant economies were based on land cultivation, deeply embedded in familial and social structures. The peasant mode of life has been a subject of significant sociological attention, especially through the works of thinkers like Theodor Shanin and Eric Wolf.
I. Emergence of Peasant Societies
Peasant societies emerged with the disintegration of tribal economies, when humans transitioned from nomadic, hunting-gathering modes of subsistence to settled agriculture. This marked a fundamental shift in social and economic life, introducing property, surplus production, and more complex social hierarchies.
As the industrial revolution unfolded, the peasant way of life gradually began to erode. Industrialization introduced mechanized agriculture, market dependency, and urban lifestyles, displacing traditional self-sufficient village life.
II. Economic Organization of Peasant Societies
Peasants typically cultivated their own land using family labor, producing largely for self-consumption rather than for the market. According to Theodor Shanin, peasant agriculture is characterized by:
Low technological input
Small-scale production
Land husbandry as the principal livelihood
This form of economic organization reflects a subsistence-oriented ethos rather than profit-maximization.
III. Social Organization of Peasantry
Peasant societies often appear internally homogeneous, lacking significant class stratification within the peasantry itself. However, Shanin notes that while peasant life may be uniform internally, these societies were externally dominated by urban elites or ruling classes who extracted surplus.
The family in peasant society, as emphasized by Shanin, is both a productive and consumptive unit. Moreover, social structures were often patriarchal, with male authority dominating household and community life.
In India, rural society was internally differentiated along caste lines. Not all rural dwellers were cultivators. Upper castes had rights to land, while lower castes were obligated to perform services or labor for landholding groups. Thus, the Indian peasantry was socially fragmented, unlike the ideal-typical homogeneous model.
IV. Political Organization and Surplus Appropriation
As per Eric Wolf, a defining feature of peasant societies is the production of surplus beyond subsistence. This surplus was typically extracted by external ruling classes—kings, zamindars, or colonial authorities—through taxation or rent.
Peasants were, therefore, not politically autonomous. Their political subordination was expressed through institutionalized land revenue systems, military control, or religious legitimation of elites.
V. Emotional Attachment and Non-Entrepreneurial Ethos
Peasant agriculture is not purely economic. Peasants demonstrate sentimental attachment to land, seeing it as a way of life rather than a commercial enterprise. The peasant’s identity is embedded in his land, and this rootedness fosters resistance to capitalist notions of land as a mere commodity.
Hence, peasant life is non-entrepreneurial, motivated more by livelihood security and tradition than by innovation or expansion.
VI. Feudalism and Semi-Feudalism
Feudal and semi-feudal agrarian systems represent a specific configuration of agrarian class relations, typically marked by land control without ownership by cultivators.
a) Cultivator Status in Feudalism
Cultivators were not landowners. They only had the right to cultivate, often with limited or no security of tenure. Their lives were governed by customary laws and traditions.
b) The Feudal Lord
Land legally belonged to the overlord or feudal lord, who exercised economic, judicial, and even military control over the cultivators. These lords were typically part of the ruling elite.
c) Relationship of Patronage and Dependency
The feudal relationship was based on hierarchical loyalty and obligation, not legal contracts. Cultivators had to:
Pay a share of the produce to the landlord
Provide unpaid labor (e.g., begar system in India)
Perform feudal duties without guaranteed compensation
This system was marked by a personalized power structure, where the feudal lord was both protector and exploiter.
VII. Semi-Feudalism in India
Post-independence Indian agrarian society retained semi-feudal features in many regions:
Landlords continued to extract rent
Tenancy reforms were poorly implemented
Bonded labor and caste-based oppression persisted
This persistence of feudal elements delayed the emergence of capitalist agriculture and deepened agrarian inequality.
Land Reforms in India: Towards Agrarian Justice and Modernization
Land reforms in India were introduced with the twin objectives of dismantling feudal socio-economic structures and modernizing agriculture. Recognizing the exploitative character of the agrarian hierarchy inherited from the colonial period, land reforms were seen as crucial for ensuring social justice, enhancing agricultural productivity, and strengthening the rural economy.
I. Objectives of Land Reforms
Egalitarian Distribution of Land: Redistributing land from the few to the many to reduce rural inequality.
Agricultural Modernization: Encouraging scientific farming, investment, and rational land use.
Eliminating Exploitation: Abolition of intermediaries and exploitative tenurial arrangements.
Enhancing Productivity: Promoting ownership-based farming to increase productivity.
Legal Recognition: Providing ownership and tenancy rights to actual cultivators.
II. Approaches to Land Reforms
1. Institutionalists’ View (Daniel Thorner, Ronald Herring)
Argued for radical reorganization of landownership to democratize village life and revive the peasant economy.
Slogan: "Land to the Tiller"
Believed in the Farm Size-Productivity Hypothesis — smaller holdings are more productive due to intensive use of land and family labor.
Promoted redistributive land reforms as a way to address agrarian crisis and rural poverty.
2. Anti-Redistribution View (Oscar Lewis, Bauer, Yamey)
Opposed redistribution arguing it leads to fragmented and uneconomical landholdings, obstructing mechanization.
Favored motivating landlords to adopt modern methods and invest capital, suggesting that modernization should occur within existing structures.
3. Marxist Perspective
Criticized the Chayanovian model adopted by institutionalists, viewing small-farm romanticism as historically inaccurate.
Argued for class struggle and collective mobilization, not just institutional tinkering, to achieve land reform.
Supported peasant movements as agents of revolutionary change.
III. Major Features and Measures of Land Reforms
1. Abolition of Intermediaries (Zamindari Abolition)
Based on the recommendation of the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee (1949), led by J.C. Kumarappa.
Aimed to establish a direct relationship between the state and the tiller.
Over 200 lakh tenants came into direct contact with the state, eliminating layers of feudal control.
2. Tenancy Reforms
Consisted of three major components:
Fixity of Tenure – Protecting tenants from eviction.
Fair Rent – Regulating rent to prevent exploitation.
Ownership Rights – Conferring ownership after continuous cultivation.
3. Land Ceiling Acts
Imposed a legal cap on landholding size, allowing state governments to redistribute surplus land.
Despite political resistance, 60 lakh hectares of fallow land were distributed to the landless and marginal farmers.
4. Consolidation of Holdings
Aimed at combining small, fragmented plots into viable, consolidated farms for better productivity and mechanization.
Success varied across states; more effective in Punjab, Haryana, and parts of Uttar Pradesh.
5. Cooperative Farming
Introduced on socialist lines, it aimed to harness economies of scale through collective cultivation.
However, this largely failed due to lack of trust, poor execution, and the strong attachment of peasants to individual land ownership.
6. Computerization and Land Records Management
The 1999 MoRD Vision Document initiated a digital Land Information System, aiming for greater transparency.
By 2014, most states had implemented computerization projects for up-to-date, accessible land records.
IV. Positive Consequences of Land Reforms
Legal Empowerment: Strengthened rights of over 77 lakh tenants owning 56 lakh hectares of land.
Redistribution: Benefited landless laborers with access to cultivable land.
Class Restructuring: Disempowered absentee landlords and created a new class of small and medium peasant proprietors.
Example: In Rajasthan, the abolition of Jagirdari reduced the dominance of Rajput landlords.
Increased State Role: The reforms brought peasants into the fold of the state, reducing the power of traditional intermediaries.
V. Limitations and Challenges
Evasion by Landlords: Benami transactions and land fragmentation were used to bypass ceilings.
Ineffective Implementation: Due to administrative lethargy and political pressure from landed elites.
Regional Disparities: Uneven implementation across states, with southern states showing more success.
Failure of Cooperative Farming: Collective farming ideas failed to take root due to poor ground-level coordination and lack of motivation.
VI. Approaches to Land Reforms (P.C. Joshi)
1. Gandhian Approach
Emphasized moral persuasion and voluntary donation of land.
Example: Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan and Gramdan Movements, where landlords were urged to donate surplus land to the poor.
2. Radical Nationalist Approach
State-led legislative reforms forming the backbone of post-independence land reforms.
Focused on abolishing intermediaries and legally transferring rights to cultivators.
3. Marxist Approach
Supported grassroots mobilization, peasant revolts, and extra-legal action.
Viewed land reforms as part of a larger class struggle for agrarian transformation.
Present Issues in India's Land Reforms
Land reforms were introduced in India to break the traditional, feudal socio-economic structure of rural society, aiming to foster agricultural modernization, enhance productivity, and create an egalitarian society by eliminating exploitation. However, the implementation of these reforms has faced significant challenges that continue to affect their success.
Socio-Cultural Constraints
One of the main barriers to the successful implementation of land reforms in India has been the entrenched traditional consciousness and caste solidarity. Traditional attachment to land and ignorance of the potential benefits of reform hindered both land consolidation and redistribution. Caste hierarchies, especially in rural areas, obstructed the equitable distribution of land. The majority of the benefits from land reforms were appropriated by middle-level castes, leaving landless laborers—particularly from untouchable castes—with little to no improvement in their socio-economic position.
Sociologist Jan Breman noted that there was a shift from the "patronage" system to the "exploitation" of the lower peasantry, which meant that despite reforms, inequality persisted. This unequal distribution led to dissatisfaction among the landless, as they continued to face exploitation in various forms.
Moreover, the regional variation in agrarian structures across India contributed to the uneven progress of reforms. For instance, in West Bengal, where Zamindari abolition was successful and Operation Barga empowered sharecroppers, reforms achieved significant success. Haryana and Punjab also made notable progress in land consolidation, facilitated by the Green Revolution, which required larger and more consolidated holdings to adopt new agricultural technologies. However, in other states, the persistence of intermediaries and inefficient implementation of policies stunted the success of these reforms.
Legal and Structural Challenges
Legally, land reforms in India have been hindered by a top-down approach, with most policies formulated at the state and national levels without sufficient grassroots involvement. Tenancy laws, which were designed to protect tenants' rights, were not effective in practice. The burden of proof lay on tenants, and only wealthier tenants who could afford to compensate landlords were able to secure ownership rights.
The system of Benami transfers (fraudulent transfers of property) also undermined the effectiveness of land reforms. Wealthy landowners exploited loopholes in the system by redistributing land to relatives or third parties, thereby maintaining control over vast landholdings despite legal reforms aimed at reducing their power.
Additionally, India follows a presumptive land titling system, where land records are maintained based on possession rather than actual ownership. This system has resulted in several issues:
Ambiguity in land ownership, leading to disputes that are difficult to resolve.
Difficulty in accessing agricultural credit and participating in land markets due to the lack of clear ownership records.
Inaccurate property tax assessments because of the undervaluation of land.
Despite the abolition of Zamindari (landlordism), the reforms largely removed only the top layer of landlords, leaving a multilayered agrarian structure in place, which continued to benefit wealthy landowners.
Political and Administrative Factors
Politically, the implementation of land reforms in India has been heavily influenced by a political nexus between dominant castes and landowners, which often led to ineffective reform execution. PC Joshi criticized these reforms as "sectional reforms" because of the political compromises made to appease powerful landowning classes.
Sociologist Daniel Thorner pointed out that village panchayats—the bodies responsible for land administration at the grassroots level—were either too weak or often influenced by local landowners. This undermined the potential of land reforms to bring about meaningful change. Furthermore, the overburdened bureaucracy in India, where officials like District Magistrates (DMs) and Tehsildars are tasked with resolving land disputes, led to delays and inefficiencies in the implementation of reforms.
The poor state of land records has also played a major role in hindering land reforms. Data poverty—where land records are outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate—has led to widespread litigation, with two-thirds of court cases related to land disputes. These issues have been exacerbated by delays in resolving legal disputes, with some cases taking up to 20 years to settle, as noted by studies from Niti Aayog.
Environmental and Economic Challenges
From an environmental perspective, the fragmentation of land holdings has resulted in inefficiencies in farming. The reduction in average landholding size from 2.28 hectares in 1970 to 1.08 hectares in 2015, as reported in the Agricultural Census, has made farming unviable for many smallholders. Small plots are unsuitable for modern agricultural practices, leading to inefficient use of resources like soil, capital, and labor.
Economically, land fragmentation has created additional challenges. Small farms are not conducive to mechanized farming, which is increasingly necessary to meet the demands of modern agriculture. The inefficient use of resources, combined with a lack of financial resources for small farmers, has made it difficult for many to benefit from technological advancements, such as the Green Revolution. Gail Omvedt argued that the Green Revolution, while increasing production in some areas, also intensified inequality and class tensions in rural society, as wealthier farmers were better able to access the benefits of new technologies.
Land Tenure System in India: A Historical and Sociological Perspective
The land tenure system in India has evolved through several stages, from the pre-British period to British colonial rule, and into the post-independence era. Each phase brought about significant changes in the social, economic, and political landscape, affecting not only the structure of rural society but also shaping the future of agricultural productivity and rural inequality.
Pre-British Land Tenure System
Before British rule, the land tenure system in India was characterized by a dual ownership arrangement. According to Ananda Coomaraswamy, land in India was not considered private property, but was rather held as a traditional right by the village community. Majumdar notes that while land was technically under the control of the king, it was the village community that enjoyed the right to use and cultivate the land. The agricultural system was organized around land grants. For Hindus, nishkar (tax-free) lands were provided to royals or religious institutions. Similarly, during the Muslim rule, land was donated for religious purposes in the form of waqf and lakhiraj lands.
Zamindars, Taluqdars, and Majumdars acted as tax collectors, but they did not have ownership over the land. They were agents of the state, tasked with revenue collection but not granted the right to alter land ownership. During the Mughal period, traditional rights over land were acknowledged but in exchange for a monetary tax. The country was divided into administrative units like Parganas and Taluks, which facilitated the management of land and tax collection.
British Land Tenure System and its Economic and Social Impact
Under British rule, the land tenure system in India underwent a dramatic transformation, with significant economic and social consequences. The British established a commercialized land market, linking land with market forces for the first time in Indian history. This change led to the promotion of cash crops at the expense of traditional crops, and good land was often diverted to more profitable crops like indigo, cotton, and opium. This shift resulted in the proletarianization of the peasantry, especially in the Zamindari areas, where landlords enjoyed significant power while peasants were pushed into debt.
The Indebtedness of peasants was another issue aggravated by the British tenure system. High taxes under systems like the Permanent Settlement in Bengal and the Ryotwari system placed a heavy burden on the rural population, forcing many peasants into a perpetual cycle of debt. The British system discouraged agricultural investment and capitalization, resulting in stagnation in the sector and preventing India from making advancements in agriculture.
Daniel Thorner, in his book Agrarian Prospects in India, noted the persistence of landlordism and benami transactions, which perpetuated inequality. He argued that the village panchayats, the primary units for land administration, were weak or subjugated by local landholders, which meant that reforms were unlikely to be effective at the grassroots level.
Social and Economic Polarization
The British tenure system also had profound social consequences. The agrarian social structure was altered as new social classes emerged. The feudal structure gave way to a semi-capitalist agricultural economy in some areas, while regions like Punjab witnessed the rise of a wealthy landed elite who controlled both the land and the agrarian labor. This shift resulted in the perpetuation of caste inequalities, as the higher castes maintained control over land while lower castes were relegated to agricultural labor.
Furthermore, land reforms did not lead to socialism, as some had hoped. Instead, they resulted in a system where semi-feudal and capitalist forms of agriculture coexisted. GS Bhalla and GK Chadda studied the impact of the Green Revolution and land reforms in Punjab and found that benefits were disproportionately captured by rich farmers who controlled critical resources like irrigation, credit, and seeds, exacerbating rural disparities.
Impact on Rural Women
The social implications of land tenure also extended to women, particularly in rural areas. While the shift to agricultural labor offered women greater involvement in the public sphere, it did not lead to improvements in land ownership. Bina Agarwal points out that while women increasingly participated in agricultural work, they were largely excluded from land rights. According to the 10th Agricultural Census, while 73% of women were involved in farming, only 13% had formal landholdings, with 83% of land inherited by men.
Moreover, the command over ownership remained a key issue. Even when women theoretically had ownership rights, they lacked control over the land, which meant that they had limited economic agency. Violence was also prevalent, with 49% of property-less women facing domestic violence, while only 7% of land-owning women reported similar experiences.
Changes in Agrarian Structure and Social Conflicts
The social structure of rural India was dramatically altered as the traditional landlord class was replaced by rich farmers, many of whom were from the middle peasant castes. This transformation was evident in regions like Bihar, where the Bhoomihars became the dominant landholding class, and in Haryana and Punjab, where the Jats emerged as powerful agrarian elites. Sociologists Rudolph & Rudolph argued that these middle peasant castes, or bullock capitalists, became politically active, further exacerbating social inequalities and tensions.
The impact of land reforms was also visible in the migration patterns of rural populations. Due to poorly implemented reforms, large numbers of tenant farmers were evicted from their lands, forcing them to migrate to wealthier states in search of work. The breakdown of traditional social ties and the increasing urban-rural migration marked another consequence of failed land reforms.
Way Forward
Several perspectives exist regarding the way forward in land reforms in India. Mahatma Gandhi advocated for the trusteeship model, in which landlords would voluntarily give land to landless peasants. Gandhi believed this approach could lead to a harmonious society where both peasants and landlords would coexist peacefully. In contrast, Marxist thinkers believed that the solution lay in peasants self-mobilizing and revolutionizing the agrarian system, as seen in the Naxalite movement in West Bengal and Kerala.
Nationalist leaders argued for state intervention to modernize agriculture by providing cheap loans, credit, and education to farmers, helping them improve productivity and reduce inequalities. However, as Dandekar and Thorner have argued, land reforms in India did not lead to the desired outcome of egalitarian agricultural development. Instead, they created semi-feudal structures and led to polarized agrarian growth.