UNIT 2 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TENURE SYSTEMS IN INDIA

Contents
2.0 2.1 2.2 Objectives Introduction Land Tenure System: Historical Context
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 Land Tenure Systems in Ancient India Land Tenure Systems in Medieval India Impact of Colonialism on Land Tenure System Problems in Land Revenue System in Pre Independent India Initiatives for Mitigating the Problem of Exploitative System

2.3

Land Reforms in Independent India

2.3.1 2.3.2

2.4 2.5 2.6

Let Us Sum up Key Words Suggested Readings

2.0

OBJECTIVES.
explain the historical context of land tenure system in India; understand the system of land tenure in Ancient and Medieval India; study the impact of colonialism on land tenure system in India; identify the problems related to h d tenure system in pre independent India; and realize the initiatives taken for removal of exploitative system.

After reading this unit you will be able to:

2.1

INTRODUCTION

Land tenure system explains the traditional or legal rights individual or groups of individuals have on land and the social relationships among the rural population that emerges from such land rights. It has two constituents namely, the system of land ownership and secondly, the system of labour organization in rural regions. Thus depending on the local circumstances and prevailing conditions, many land tenure systems have developed in different countries in varying socio-economic milieu. These systems have been influenced by local factors such as socio-cultural values, political ideologies, level of technological advancements, population trend etc. on the one hand and natural conditions as for instance climate, soil conditions, topography that have evolved over the period of time, on the other. Hence, there has been periodical and continual process of change that has given rise to a different land tenute system. Thus a specific land tenure system is an institutional framework within which agricultural production takes place and people live in a defined lifestyle adapting to the gradual changes and demands of the prevailing social, cultural, econlomical, natural and political conditions. Land tenure system in India has not been any different from those of the other countries, they too have been influenced by the surrounding environment, changing with the times and evolving gradually. Change in political setup from one era to another has been accompanied by differing political thoughts ahd ideologies that have influenced the system of land ownership and also the existing labour organizations. What follows here, is a systematic study of the various land tenure

18

systems in ancient and medieval India. Besides, we will try to learn the system as it existed in colonial period and implications of this period on land tenure system.

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

2.2

LAND TENURE SYSTEM; HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Here we will try to study the history of land tenure system in ancient and medieval India and also analyze influence of British Rele on the system.

2.2.1 Land Tenure Systems in Ancient India

Land tenure system in ancient India is marked by gradual changes that has evolved from common ownership to individual ownership. Since human beings used to move as tribal groups from place to place. Land was considered to be the gift of nature and no person in particular owned it. It was commonly used by all the members of the tribal groups. At later stages, when man started practicing settled agriculture, the concept of individual ownership developed. Agriculture in this period was in the transitory stage of nomadic cultivation and settled agriculture. What follows in the coming paragraphs is a study of the gradual development of land tenure system in ancient India.

1)

Vedic Period

At the settled agriculture stage it is believed that land was considered to belong to the person who first cleared it. At times of peace, this system of establishing the title to landed property would have seemed a rational one. But in the transitory stage between nomadic, hunting and gathering and the establishment of settled agriculture, shifting (nomadic) agriculture must have existed. Under the nomadic lifestyle the only items owned by a tribe would have been the weapons used for hunting. As hunting had to be done in groups, the weapons would also have been owned collectively. In the next stage of nomadic agriculture, the pieces of land that were cleared for cultivation would also have been held under the common ownership of the hibe. Only when settled agriculture became the mode, the practice of individual ownership of land could have come into existence. It can be learnt from the Vedic literature that the Vedas prohibited land grants, and all property was under common ownership and the idea of gifting land to anyone would have appeared unlikely. The tradition referred to in the Vedic text - Shatapathu Brahmana and in the Mahabharata suggests that land must not be given away even on the plea of a sacrificial fee. The fact that land grants were being scoffed at, shows that up to the Mahabharata period (dated around 900 B.C.E.) the idea that land could be an object of sale and purchase had not yet been established. This attitude is in direct contrast to the regular practice of making land grants to Brahmins and noblemen, apart from land becoming an object of regular purchase and sale which was the characteristic feature of later times. In the post Vedic period, land was no longer the common property and private ownership of land was gradually being established. Though the practice of land grant had started, it was not readily accepted by all and looked upon with an attitude of indecisiveness. The Shatapatha Brahmana and the Mahabharata are chronologically placed in the Post-Vedic period before the lire of the big monarchical states of Koshala and Magadha. In those days the sale, purchase and grants of land was frowned at, as land had been held as common property. When individual ownership finally come to be established, it had been linked with the labour responsible for making it cultivable, as can be understood from the statement in the. Manusmriti
'

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

Secondly, in those days social stratification and the caste system of the later days of Magadhan imperialism (i.e. after 500 B.C.E.) had yet not been established. In the tribal setup of the days of the Rig Veda (i.e. before 1500 B.C.E.) every male member of a tribe had to hunt collectively. However, in the beginning, when agriculture was taken up as prime occupation by the disintegrating tribal society of hunters, land was collectively owned. Thus, every member of the tribe seems to have had an equal right to whatever the tribe produced collectively. Even the tribal chief did not exert his powers, which was a common phenomenon of the monarchs of later ages. The Vedic king's authority was limited, that was evidence from the fact that in the Atharva Veda, Indra was invoked to give the king's share (Bhaga) in the village. But in later times the king himself was stated to be the collector of his share as mentioned by the Panchavimsa Brahmana.

2)

Land Ownership Rights as per Manusmriti

According to Manusmriti "Land belong to him who first cleared the timber and a deer to him who first wounded it." This couplet provides a clue to the understanding of a very important doctrine of ancient Indian economics. It is evident from this statement that to begin with the title to property of land was allied to the labour who made it cultivable. Thus it can be stated that in a society where the title to property in land was linked to the labour who cleared it, practice of giving land grants as well as sale and purchase of land would be considered strange as there existed vast stretch of freely available land which could be cleared and claimed by any person. With the settling of Aryans society in the Gangetic plains, the population gradually increased and the shortage of cultivable land began to be felt and frequent transfer in the ownership of land was often resorted to. Transfer of land besides signifying settled agriculture, also shows that there was shortage of land. Change in ownership of land from common to individual also affected the language. Meaning of words such as Bhratru and Bhratrivya, meaning brother and brotherhood in Atharva Veda, also changed to rival and rivalry. Thus it is evident that hostility was becoming common within Vedic Kulas (families) due to the ownership of land. The system of landholding also gradually underwent fundamental changes. In the beginning, the whole tribe (Gana)held the land that it cultivated. Then the ownership gradually narrowed down to the Vamshas or blood relations which further branched into the Kulas or families. This narrowing down of ownership must have also affected the size of the individual holdings. Tribal holding, which the entire tribe usad to work, must have been much bigger in size. Its fragmentation into separate family holdings must have naturally limited its size. It must have been further limited in the subsequent period with the rise of the individual proprietary rights on land. Individual land ownership was also accompanied by the people's urge for possessing large tracts of land even it is was grabbed from others. In this way, the landed estates must have come into existence as a result of war between one kingdom by another and the grabbing of land. The martial caste of the Kshatriyas would have been the main beneficiaries in this process. Yet another method of extending land ownership was the Ashva-Medha Yagna performed by a king in order to expand his territory and bring other lung under his sway. Such accumulation of land in the hands of a few landlords created a class of landlords and cultivators.
3)

Rise of the Big Monarchical States in the Ganges Valley

With the formation of monarchical states and their capital cities which were the hub of mercantile activities, there emerged a class of absentee landlords who largely lived in the cities but had vast landed properties in rural areas. Such absentee landlords are mentioned in the Pali text of Buddha's time. These absentee landlords had landholdings relatively near the monarchical states of the Ganges valley, e.g.

of Koshala and Magadha their landholdings came to be integrated with the prospering mercantile economy of these kingdoms. In the Pali texts we find mention of landlordmerchants like Anathapindaka and Kossiyagotta. The state in whose territory these landlord-merchants lived also gained in the form of increasing collection of taxes and the general prosperity. In these monarchical states, the landlord-merchants played the role of intermediaries between the state and the actual tillers of the soil. Thus a nexus was established between the state and the landed aristocracy. But in the foothills of the Himalayan ranges, which were outside the Gangetic monarchical states of Magadha and Koshala, the landed aristocracy was not under the sovereignty of any outside king. The landlords were their own rulers and had conglomerates of oligarchies. Such oligarchies of the Mallas, Lichavis, Koliyas, etc. are mentioned in the Pali texts. These landholding oligarchs were different from the absentee landlords of the plains as was the case in the Gangetic valley, in the sense that they were based on their landholdings, did not have any significant mercantile contacts with the outside world and were not loyal to any King. These landlords were bound to one another in a tribal oligarchy, which neither gave taxes to the monarchies of the Ganges valley nor did they acknowledge any sort of sovereignty of any outside monarch. Thus began the struggle between the tribal oligarchies and the monarchical states. Right from Ajatashatru who ruled Magadha in the 6th Century B.C.E. during Buddha's time up to the Nandas of the 4th century B.C.E. there were continuous struggles among the tribal oligarchies of the Himalayan foothills comprising the Mallas, Lichavis, Koliyas and some other tribes with the monarchical states of Koshala and Magadha.

Origin and Development d Land Tenure Systems in India

This struggle was the main cause for destruction of the independent tribal oligarchies. The victory of the monarchies over the tribal oligarchies was also the victory of a more advanced and organised economy over the closed tribal economy. Land came under state supervision and the state adopted measures which siphoned off a large segment of the produce as revenue to be collected in the royal treasury. This further increased the strength of the monarchical states. While the nexus between the state and the large landholders was firmly established, the regions to the south of the Ganges valley viz., Madhya-desha and Dakshina-patha i.e. Central and Southern India, were still outside the pale of Magadhan imperialism.
4)

Aryan Migration to Southern India

In the post Vedic period, some Aryan tribes had started migrating down into Central and Southern India. This can be understood from recollection of the sage Agastya leading the Aryans across the Vindhyas and that of Parshurama retrieving the land of Kerala from the sea. These immigrants had established pockets of settled agriculture and had mushroofiled into small kingdoms. The earlier non-Aryan settlers already had their own kingdoms located in pockets of agriculture, throughout the country. But these kingdoms were relatively small and were separated from each other by dense un-reclaimed forests. Along with this population pressure was being felt in the Ganges valley by the 4th century B.C.E. This was the general situation when Chandragupta Maurya established the country's first pan-Indian empire.

5)

The Raid of Alexander the Great

It was in this situation wherein the tribal oligarchies were battling the rising Monarchical States in the Ganges valley that Alexander and his Macedonian (Greek) phalanxes crossed the Hindukush into the Punjab region after overcoming' the Persian Achameanian Empire. The kingdoms that Alexander faced in the Punjab were similar in organization to the tribal oligarchies of the Hills of Mithila, north of Magadha, rather than to the proper monarchies of Magadha and Koshala. The two main tribal oligarch kingdoms in the Punjab were that of Taxila and Arratta ruled respectively by Arnbastha, popularly known as Ambhi and king Pururava or Porus. While Ambhi decided that discretion was the better part of valour and made an

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

"honourable" compromise with Alexander by joining forces with the invader against his compatriot Raja Pururava-who ruled the land between the Vipasha (Beas) and the Vitasta (Jhelum). Pururava fought a devastating battle with Alexander on the banks of the Jhelum. Pururava was defeated, but he had so dernoralised the Macedonian army that it refused to advance forward into India. Alexander retraced his steps after making Pururava his vassal but his campaign reduced substantially the might of these oligarchies of Punjab, which could have posed a hurdle to the growing Mauryan empire.

6)

The Rise of Magadha

Three hundred years preceding Alexander's whirlwind campaign witness phenomenal growth of Magadha. The literary evidences show that it was one of the 16 mahajanpadas, which marked the growth of polity of Ancient India during the life of Lord Budha 6thcentury B.C.E. Koshal was yet another rnahajanapada, which was ruled by kingSPrasenjit during the same period. These two mahajanapadas were related to each other by matrimonial alliances. However, Magadh under Ajatshatru coveted the kingdom of Koshal. Meanwhile, a sudden flood washed the army of Koshal away while it was camping on a riverbank. This disaster not only devoured the army but also king Presenjit's son prince Bimbsar who was commander of that ill-fated m y . Prasenjit could not bear this inordinate loss and died of grief. This episode presented Ajatshatru a much-awaited chance to bring Koshal under his sway Soon, Ajatshzltru proclaimed his suzerainty over Koshal. This event proved the importance of Magadha's eventful growth of an empire and Magadhan power continued to grow till it became the unchallenged power in the Ganges valley.
7)

The Nandas

Around the 4th century B.C.E., the throne of Magadha was taken over by an ambitious general named Mahapadma Nanda who was a Shudra by caste. However, the Nandas were powerful and just kings. Mahapadma Nanda's grandson was Dhana Nanda, and he was ruling from Pataliputra when Alexander the Great invaded the Punjab. At that time, Dhana Nanda's kingdom stretched up to the Ganga but did not include today's Western UP and Punjab. Hence, the kingdom of Magadha has been referred h in the Greek chronicles of Alexander as that of the Gangaridans. The Greeks, however, never reached Magadha. Among the Greeks who came with Alexander, there was a rumour that the Gangaridans were fiercer than the soldiers of Porus (Pururava) whom the Greeks had fought in the Punjab. The Greeks had won a very costly victory against Porus and since the Gangaridans were even fiercer, the homesick Greek soldiers revolted against Alexander and refused to advance beyond Punjab and Alexander had to retrace his steps from the Punjab itself. 8)

The Mauryas

The Maurya empire was established by Chandragupta Maurya soon after Alexander's departure. Chandragupta, guided by his mentor, Chanakya, overthrew Dhana Nanda, the last Nanda king and crowned himself the king of Magadha. Thus the first known political unification of India started when his army conquered virtually the whole of India. The Maurya Empire, under him stretched from Karnataka to Afghanistan and from the river Indus to Bengal. He even attacked the Greek Governor of the Punjab, Seleucus Nikator and defeated him. Subsequently a treaty was signed between Chandragupta and Seleucus whereby, Seleucus ceded the Punjab and Sindh to Chandragupta and also gave his daughter in marriage to Chandragupta.

Revenue collection was now a different task than what it had been under the small pre-Mauryan kingdoms of the Ganges valley. This task was difficult as there was dense forest separating the .isolated pockets of settled agriculture and surplus population in the Ganges valley. Besides, there were also the aboriginal tribes that roamed in the forests practicing shifting agriculture. Thus to bring the vast empire under a dependable revenue collection system, the state had to undertake more fundamental efforts beyond simple revenue collection to ensure proper and systematic collection of revenue. Arthashastra a Sanskrit classic on the principles of politico-economic organization authored by Chanakya, the principal adviser to the first Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta, is the authoritative source that gives an idea of the Mauryan state administrative system. The Mauryan state became the central land clearing agency with the objective of extending settled agriculture and breaking up the disintegrating remnants of the frontier hill tribes, whose members could serve as a useful source of providing labour-cultivators on these newly cleared forest lands. Mauryan agriculture had two types of landholdings. The first, the Rashtra type of holding was the direct descendant of the holding of the former tribal oligarchies who had been subjugated in pre-Mauryan times. The Rashtra landholding was to a large extent independent of the state machinery in their internal functioning and administration. Their only obligation was the regular payment of the Rashtra taxes to the state. The second type of landholding was of the Sita type was formed by clearing forestland with the help of the tribesmen, whose tribal way of life had been systematically destroyed by the Mauryan statecraft. The Sita holding was a result of clearing up of forest land mainly with the labour of displaced tribesmen. This clearing up of forests opened contacts with tribes in areas still farther away who faced in the process of disintegration the Mauryan state. This was the beginning of the margin of the monarchical revenue system and of settled agriculture. The state maintained a close control over the state owned Sita land which could not be sold or transferred without special permission. This land was not made the property of the cultivator. It was leased to him for his lifetime and he could hold the lease on condition that he cultivated the land and paid taxes. The penalty for noncultivation was confiscation of the leased land. The insistence of the Mauryan state insisted on intensive cultivation with maximum results suggests that taxes in Mauryan times bore a close proportionate relationship with the size of the crop. Hence insistence on maximum results was in the interest of augmenting the state's revenue collection. Work that could give rise to common tribal solidarity was not allowed. Even religious associations were restricted. Thus by prohibiting the establishment of any public platform the Mauryan state totally eliminated all possibilities of any popular resistance from the peasant masses. The Mauryan state's reluctance to take any responsibility of unproductive citizens, is evidenced by-the barring the entry of Buddhist and Jaina Bhikshus on these Sita lands before Ashoka, which was also aimed at preventing the conversion of peasants to unproductive monks. According to the Arthashastra, there shall be no buildings, in villages, which could be used for sports and recreational activities, nor shall actors, dancers, singers, drummers, buffoons (Vagjivana) and bards (Kushilava) make any disturbance in the work of the villagers. These extremely strict measures were enforced by establishing guarded frontiers for each of the isolated and disjointed agricultural villages called Janapadas. These internal frontiers served the purpose of toll and tax collection and for yercising control over the movements of peasants. This controlled regimen helped the Mauryas to have a highly centralized character of the empire. This can be termed as the Mauryan socialism meaning state ownership of the me Ins of production. Besides the agricultural land holdings, it also owned

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

warehouses, shipyards and mines. In short, the Mauryan economy functioned not only without intermediary revenue collectors but also largely without individual owners of means of production in the heavy and basic industries of those days. The state was by far the biggest owner of the means of production and organiser of the normal economic functioning. New settlements were established and declining ones were reinforced by drafting surplus settlers from the overpopulated area of the Ganges valley. Generally the lower castes were encouraged to move out of the Ganges valley and settle in the new agricultural settlements. Land was leased out to them. In order to make the virgin land cultivable, the state allowed remission of taxes for a few initial years and other concessions by way of supplies of cattle, seeds and agricultural instruments, which they were required to repay later. But these cultivators could sell off no land, they were supposed to cultivate it and give the revenue to the state. Unlike Jagirdars of the medieval ages the Mauryan revenue collectors were paid employees of the state. Hence there were two kind of people, one the upper citizenry and the other the proletariat who worked on the Sita state owned farms but did not have a claim on the land they cultivated. These cultivators of the Sita land were termed the ardha-sitikas or half share-croppers as they were entitled to only a portion of the crop they reaped, with the rest going to the state as revenue. These relations were basically feudal in nature and were preserved by the various dynasties that followed the Mauryas.

9)

Pre Gupta Period

In this period, unlike the Maurya period, the state farms were not heard of and instead land seems to have been mainly in possession of individual farmers. Both Gautama and Manu approve of separate households for brothers stating that it has some religious merits; which in turn promoted individual possession of land. The Divyavadana refers 'to individual farmers in large numbers, working hard in agricultural cultivation. Thus state efforts seem to have been replaced by individual efforts. The Milinda Panho refers to these individuals who cleared the forests and took steps for making the land cultivable and since they brought the land under use, they were recognized as owner of the land. Though the practice of making grants of cultivated land had already come into vogue, the underlying idea of making grants of uncultivated land to the Brahmins was to make it arable.
However Milinda Panho recognizes the king's ownership over all the towns, seaports, mines, etc. which are situated on the earth, indicating general temtorial sovereignty. Hence state ownership was not entirely absent and on account of this authority, the king could appoint overlords of villages and janapadas. This can also be shown from the inscriptions of Satavahana rulers.

i)

Land Tenure System of Satavahanas: In the ~atavahanakingdom, the subjects possessed land individually because they could give away plots of land of varying size to Buddhist monks. But it is not clear whether they could sell and purchase land for secular purposes. In spite of flourishing economy, there are no instances of the purchase of land by merchants for increasing their land holding and property. This seems to have limited the scope of individual ownership. The merchants and lay worshippers could freely dispose of their land only for religious purposes.
In India, the earliest epigraphic evidence of land grant belongs to the first century BC, when a village was granted by the Satavahanas in Maharashtra to the priests as a gift on the occasion of the asvamedha sacrifice. Such grants were free from taxes but strangely enough, administrative rights were abandoned by the Satavahana ruler Gautamiputra Satakarni in second century AD in the grant he made to the Buddhist monks in western Deccan. The land

officials or interfered with by the district police. Grants were intended for fulfilling religious obligations. However, there are evidence which show that some grants were meant to get the land cultivated. An inscription from 130 AD states that if the land is not cultivated the village is not settled.

Origin and Development of Land 'fenure Systems in India

ii)

Land Tenure System of Sakas: Very little information is available about the land tenure system of Sakas. The most famous Saka ruler Rudradaman I in 150 AD claims to have repaired the famous Sudarsana lake without having burdened his subjects with forced labour, benevolences and taxes on their fruits and flowers, implying thereby that the peasants were relieved of these oppressive taxes for the time being. Land Tenure System of Kushanas: Information about the land tenure system of Kushanas who ruled from the Oxus to Banaras is practically negligible. However it is learnt from the inscriptions that the Brahmins officiating in the sacrifice were given a village, probably in the Allahabad region. Kanishka and his several successors were enthusiastic champions of Buddhism but there are no records, which tell that they granted land to Buddhist monks. This credit goes first to the Satavahanas though they were Brahmins and champions of Brahmanisms. May be the Kushanas introduced the aksayanivi system of land tenure, which implied perpetual endowment of land revenues. It appears that grant of land according to this system that became popular during the Gupta period, had already begun under the Kushanas in the first two centuries of the Christian era.

iii)

10) Gupta Period In this period it is argued by many that the state was the exclusive owner of land. This is supported by the Paharpur copper plate inscription of Buddhagupta where it is stated that the emperor representing the state acquired the wealth as well as spiritual merit, when he made land grants. This obviously means that he was the owner of the land. There are also indirect evidence that elaborate official procedure had to be undergone while obtaining land grants which also indicates that the king had the supreme ownership on land, otherwise he could not have transferred comprehensive rights to the recipient. However even after the donation of land, the king had certain prerogative over the land. Thus, it appears that though the land belong to the peasants but the king claimed its theoretical ownership. There were different land tenures in the Gupta period which is evident from Gupta land grant inscriptions. These are: i)
ii)

Nivi dhamzas: Land endowment in perpetuity. Nivi dhamza aksayana: A perpetual endowment which a recipient could not alienate but could make use of the income accruing from it eternally.

iii) Aprada dhamza: It means that a recipient had all rights to enjoy such a property but no right to make a further gift of the same and could only enjoy the interest and income from the endowed land, but had no administrative rights. iv) Bhumichchhidranyaya: This meant rights of ownership as were acquired by a while making barren land cultivable for the first time and was free from liability to pay rent for it. I

The first kind of trusteeship was prevalent in many parts of north and central India, but other kinds of trusteeship were probably followed mainly in the eastern part of the Gupta empire. There are a number of references in copper plates to land sale. During purchase of land, certain procedures were followed which are again evidence of land transactions during this period. There were also certain grants which were given to spicific groups of people in a specific community or due to specific causes, these .were agrahara grants, devagrahara grants arid secular grants.

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

Gupta period also marks the beginning of subinfeudation. The Gupta grants from Bengal and eastern India do not authorize the beneficiary to alienate or grant his rents or land to others. But the Indore grant of Skandagupta in central India authorizes the grantee to enjoy the land, cultivate it and get it cultivated, so long as he observes the conditions of the grant. This shows that there were enough scope for creating tenants on the donated land and this provides epigraphic evidence of subinfeudation which continued in fifth century AD and also in sixth and seventh century AD. There are many references to agriculture in this period. Apart from the state cultivators and individual cultivators, Brahmins, Buddhist, and Jaina Sanghas brought waste land under cultivation when these were donated to them as religious endowments. There are also references to small agricultural land holdings which were cultivated by the owner himself with the help of family members. But there were also some land holdings where the owner hired labour for its cultivation or let out the land to sharecroppers. Certain rules were also laid out that governed the relation, between the land owner and kred labour or the sharecropper. These rules were essentially to safeguard the interests of both the parties. 11) Post Gupta Period This periad is characterized by the emergence of a new agrarian economy, which is attributed to the growing practice of land grants. This practice had its origin in the pre-Gwpta period that grew in the Gupta era and became quite frequent in the post-Gupta period. Though religious merit was thought to be the reason for making these land grants, the real reason was a serious crisis that affected the ancient social order. Land was granted to priests and officials in lieu of salaries and remuneration. This method had the advantage of putting the burden of collecting taxes and maintaining law and order in the granted lands on the recipients i.e. the priests and other officials. It also brought new land under cultivation. However, the land recipients could neither cultivate themselves nor collect revenues. Hence, the work of cultivation was given to peasants or sharecroppers, who were attached to the land but did not legally own it. So these groups of people continued to work in these lands and could not move from one village to another. Thus a new agrarian economy emerged with a new agrarian structure, which was characterized by: Grant of barren as well as cultivable land; Transfer of to the grantees;

Imposition of forced labour; Restriction on the movement of the peasants; Delegation of fiscal and criminal administrative power to the religious beneficiaries; Remuneration in the form of land grants t o the officials; Growth of the rights of the grantees; Multiplicity of taxes; Growth of a complex revenue system; and Wide regional variation in agrarian structure. This also harked the origin and development of feudalism. Land grants given to Brahmins from first century AD onwards made their number considerably large in northern India in the Gupta period and went on increasing afterwards. This in turn created a olass of landlords unevenly all over the country. The practice that first appeared id Maharashtra in fifth and sixth century AD, land grants covered a large part of Madhya Pradesh and became prominent in the Bengal region in the sixth and seventh century in Assam, in the eighth century in Tamil Nadu and in the ninth

and tenth in Kerala. This adversely affected certain segments of the society and gave rise to migrations of peasants. But migrations could not liberate the peasants from the oppression of the princes and beneficiaries because of similar political and economic organizations everywhere.

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

Check Your Progress P Note: i)

ii) 1)
Space is given below for each question for your answer. Compare your answer(s) with the text.

What was the difference in land tenure approaches in pre-Gupta period? Illustrate your answer with approaches followed by Satavahanas, Sakas and Kushans.

............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
2)
Describe different land tenure systems followed in Gupta period.

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
2.2.2. Land Tenure Systems in Medieval India
After the collapse of the Mauryan Empire, no such strong empire existed, which could have sustained a strong official set up to look after the matters concerning revenue administration, resulting in the emergence of intermediaries in the revenue system, which was a strong element of the feudal system. The land tenure system in the medieval India can be mainly studied under three heads: 1)

Land Tenure System in the period 800 - I200 AD: The significant contribution in the history of land tenure system in medieval begins from Rashtrakutas. They originally belonged to LattaEura, the modem Eatur of Maharashtra. In the Deccan charters of 7thand 8" centuries AD, Rashtrakutas were exhorted not to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of land grants. In most part of the north India, the rural economy was termed as feudal because a major section of the surplus production from the land was appropriated by a particular section of people who claimed it as a hereditary right even though they did not participate in the production process in any way.
However, in southern p a r t of India, the Chola administration had an elaborate system of land tenure system. A well-organized department of land revenue existed, which was known as puravu-varitinaik-kalam. All the land was carefully surveyed and classified into tax paying and non-taxable land. The taxable land was further classified into different grades according to its natural fertility and the crops raised on it. In Chalukya administration, the major

'

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

source of revenue was land and the different land taxes to be paid were siddhaya, dasavanda, niruni-sunka and melivana. Siddhaya was a fixed tax levied not only on land but also on houses and shops. Dasavanda referred to one-tenth portion of tax payable to authority out of the yield from the land. Niruni-sanka was the water cess to be paid by the fanner and Melivana was tax levied on ploughs. During the rule of Kakatiyas of Warangal land was divided into the three categories of dry, wet and garden areas for the purpose of assessment. The tax was generally collected both in kind and cash but tax on dry and garden land was always paid on cash. The tax collected from wet land was called para i.e, one-eighth of the rent, and that from dry land known as pangamu which was one-fourth of the rent. Sunkamu was a kind of tax levied on garden land. 2)

Land Tenure System in Delhi Sultanate: Notable contribution in this period towards land management and development starts with the Ala-ud-din Khalji's regime (1296- 1316) wherein some financial reforms were introduced to increase land revenue upto 50% of gross production. He initiated several types of land grants such as inum and w a y . Similarly Muhammad Tughluq (1325-135 1) introduced some agricultural reforms to improve farming. He established an agriculture ministry called as diwan-i-kohi to bring barren land under cultivation. The principal achievement of the Delhi Sultanate was systematization of agrarian exploitation and enhancement in land revenue. The Delhi Sultanate classified the land into three categories- iqta land i.e. land assigned to officials as iqtas, khalisa land i.e. crown land which is the land under the control of the Sultan and whose revenues were meant for maintenance of royal household, and finally inam land (madad-i-maash) or waqf land which were land assigned or granted to religious leaders. Land Tenure System during Mughal Period: During the Mughal rule revenue farming was prevalent where the highest bidder was posted as the revenue collector giving him undue power over the tiller of the land. The Mughals who conquered India in the 16th century left the land to the cultivators at first in exchange for the usual taxes. Often, former small rulers were employed as tax collectors and were given 10% of the collected amount as remuneration for this work. They were even allowed to keep the land they had held before and were exempted from paying taxes. They were strictly control 'to prevent from collecting more taxes than their lawful share.
Emperor Akbar (1556-1605) implemented radical reforms. During his rule, there were four main systems of revenue assessment: a)

3)

'

Zabti or Dahsala System: Land was classified in Akbar's reign in four categories for the purpose of assessment, namely, polaj (land which was cultivated every year and never left fallow), parati or yarauti (land which had to be left fallow for a time to enable it to recover fertility), chachar (land which had to be left fallow for two or three years) and finally, banjar (land which remained uncultivated for five or more years). Polaj and parauti were further classified into three categories, good, middle and bad and the average produce per bigha of these three categories was taken as normal produce of a bigha. Parauti land when cultivated had the same revenue as polaj land. Chachar and banjar land were charged at a concessional rate. Batai, Ghallabakshi or Bhaoli: In this method of crop sharing, produce was arranged into heaps and divided into three shares, one of which was taken by the states. Kankut: It was a rough estimate of produce on the basis of past experience. Nasaq: In this system, a rough calculation was made on the basis of past revenue receipts of the peasants.

b)

c)

dl

During the Mughal period, large portion of the empire land was assigned to certain class of people as a part of land grants, which was known as jagirs. Though this was a temporary assignment, some permanent land grants were also given such as madad-i-ma'ash i.e. grant for subsistence. Jahangir introduced a system of altamgha grant, which could be annulled only by the order of the emperor. There was another kind of land grant known as aimma which was to be made to the Muslim religious leaders. Being more or less permanently installed, the grantees often sought to acquire zarnindari rights within their grants and else where. After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the power of the central government decreased rapidly, and the control over the tax revenues was lost. In order to obtain revenues, tax collectors' posts were leased to the highest bidders in exchange for fixed sums. On the basis of their knowledge of the local conditions, the tax collectors were free to extort as much as possible from the rural population and keep for themselves the difference between the collected taxes and the amount to be remitted. These "assignees" were the first intermediary step in the direct tax relations between the government and cultivators. The transfer of tax collection rights, known already in pre-Mughal period, for specific regions as remuneration for services rendered, became so common that, under Aurangzeb's reign, 90 % of all tax revenues fell to such privileged parties, and only 10 % to the ruler. These grants of land with the right to collect taxes from it were also conferred on favourites. The conferment of such jagir transferred all the rights the government held, i.e., taxes, claims to uncultivated land, police power, etc., but no claims to the cultivators' land. Whenever tax collectors became landlords in the course of time, this was dud to their reclaiming wasteland or their confiscating the land of people who owed taxes. Towards the end of the Mughal era, a type of "right" to land developed which was in the hands of some parasitical rent collectors who did not perform any work. But this refers to the government's tax rights, not to a direct claim to landed property, or land utilization, on peasants' land. Their old saying 'Taxes are the king's wealth, the land belongs to me' was still valid.

(higin a d DevdoplRoet of Land Tenure S y s k m iR

Indip

Check Your Progress 2 Note: i) Space is given below each question for your answer.
answer(s) with the text. ii) Compare v70ur
1)

What was the significant contribution of Delhi sultanates towards land tenure and revenue administration?

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
2)
What were the four classifications of land during Akbar's reign in Mughal period?

.................. ..........................................................................................

.............................................................. ..............................................

............................................ .................................

...............................

...................................................

.........................................................

Land Tenwe Systems and Agrarian Structure

2.2.3 Impact of Colonialism on Land Tenure System

India's invasion by the British and their rule (1757 AD to 1947 AD) brought about a complete transformation in the country's land tenure system in the course of time. The East India Company experienced difficulty in its trading because the scale of British goods in India was insignificant. On the other hand, the exportation of gold and silver from England to pay for Indian goods was soon prohibited. The Company found a solution by securing money from Inda to pay for Indian goods. It collected taxes from the Indian rulers which, in the beginning. brought revenues of only 10% of the levied taxes, but, since the control over the amount of levied taxes became lax at the end of the Mughal period, its revenues increased. Lord Cornwallis is known as the brain behind revenue and land tenure system during the British period. He introduced 'Permanent Settlement' in 1793 in Bengal and Bihar. The main objectives behind establishment of Permanent Settlement were: a) b) Conversion of ~arnindars and revenue collectors into landlords. Reducing the status of cultivators to mere tenants and deprivation of their rights. Creation of political allies for the British. Sufficient financial security for the British administration. Minimum expen&ture for revenue administration. Suppression of the peasantry by the zamindars.

c)
d)
e)
f)

The British assumed that all the land belonged to the state and was thus at their dispo~al. They registered the local tax collectors, who were called zamindars, as owners of the land in their district. These zamindars had to collect and deliver the taxes; the amount was fixed at the beginning and remained the same permanently. To give the zamindars an incentive, they were given freedom to decide how much to demand from the cultivators. On the other hand, the fixed lump sum of tax was an incentive to put more land under cultivation and, thus, have more taxpayers in the region under their control. The right to the land conferred on the zamindars was alienable, rentable and heritable. This arrangement was a complete novelty in India. The privilege of utilizing land had become a saleable good. Those who had been cultivators until then were reduced to the status of 'occupancy tenants.' These occupancy rights were heritable and transferrable and were not tampered with as long as the holders paid their taxes. In contrast to this, the tenants who cultivated land owned by the tax collectors were tenants-at-will, i.e., they could be evicted. In the beginning, the arrangement hardly faced any problems. The small number of cultivators prevented the zamindars from demanding too high taxes. They were interested in attracting people to cultivate the land and, thus, increase the number of tax-payers so that the difference between the revenues and the fixed amount that had to be remitted was larger. The detrimental consequences of recognizing the tax collectors as landlords and of introducing the legal institution of saleable private landed property soon became evident and considerable changes occurred in the demographic and economic situation. The industrial revolution in England brought about a change in the British policy towards India. The objective was no longer to import from India, but to sell English products in India. Since the textile industry played an important role at the beginning of industrialization in England, large amounts of cheap products manufactured by mechanical looms wqe exported to India and this soon led to a collapse in the

indigenous textile home industry, leading to a situation where a large number of weavers became unemployed. In order to secure a subsistence, they migrated to the rural areas and tried to secure land on lease so that they could farm. The scope of this migration e.g. Dacca's inhabitants alone decreased from 150,000 to 20,000 between 1824 and 1837 - caused pressure on the rural areas and brought about a complete change in the relationships between zamindars and tenants. The monopoly of controlling the means to secure livelihood shifted power unilaterally into the hands of the zamindars who were able to extoit more and more taxes as the demand for land increased. This led to indebtedness and often to the loss of occupancy rights and relegation to tenants-at-will. The great discrepancy between the fixed amount of taxes to be remitted and the increasing revenues made the zamindars wealthy. Soon they no longer took the trouble of collecting taxes themselves but sub-leased this office to others while they themselves lived on the remainder of the amount claimed as taxes after paying to the "sub-assignees7' their due. The difference between the revenues and the amounts to be remitted was so big that even the "sub-assignees" tried to sub-lease. After some time, it became quite common to have 10 to 20 intermediaries, more or less without any specific function, between the government 'and the farmers, and they all had a share in the cultivation yield. In addition, abwabs as supplements and fees for the most curious reasons were introduced; for example, for using an umbrella, for permission to sit down in the zarnindar's office, for being allowed to stand up again, etc. Moreover, the "begar", unpaid work which the tenants were forced to perform on the zamindar's land, took larger proportions. On the average, it amounted to 20-25 % of the. lease. These developments may be regarded as consequences of the changes in the land tenure brought about by the "Permanent Settlement," as more and more cultivators became indebted, lost their occupancy rights, and experiences a decline in their status to tenants-at-will or agricultural labourers. On the other hand, the wealth of the zamindars kept increasing on account of the income they earned from appropriating the difference between the amount of taxes and the rentals, the increase in cultivated areas, money-lending, and expropriation of debtors. In course of time, the zamindari region was characterized by the marked difference between.wealth, power, and prospects in life. Changes in the monetary value, prices, and the amount of cultivated areas turned the fixed tax into nothing but a token sum after 150 years, and considerable tax losses ensued. The zamindari system was not extended to the whole of India. Because of the experience, with the system, better knowledge of the local conditions, and liberal influences on the colonial policy, the provinces which came under British control later were assigned other taxation systems. Another land tenure system prevalent during British period was Ryotwari settlement, prevalent in Madras and Bombay presidencies where zamindars with large estates did not exist. Hence a need was felt to make a settlement directly with actual cultivators. There was a growing income from land because of periodic revision of revenue under this system. Another significant objective behind establishment of this system was to protect cultivators from oppression of zamindars which was rampant in the permanent settlement areas. However, there were some drawbacks the Ryotwari system as exorbitant land revenue fixation, government's right to enhance land revenue at its own will, payment of revenue even when the produce was partially or totally destroyed and finally, replacement of large number of zamindars by one giant zamindar i.e. the state. A third land settlement system which was practiced in some of the areas under the British such as Gangetic valley, north-west provinces, parts of central India and Punjab, was modified version of zamindari settlement wherein revenue settlement

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

Land Tenure Systems 4 Agrarian Structurr

was made village by village or estate by estate with village chiefs or head of the families. In North India and in the Punjab where villages with joint land rights were c o r n o n , an attempt was made to utilize this structure in the Mahalwari system. Taxadion was imposed on the village community as theoretical landlord, since it had the land rights. The village community had to distribute these taxes among the cultivators who owed taxes individually and jointly. Everyone was thus liable for the others' arrears. A village inhabitant, the lambardars collected the amounts and remitted the collected amount. Here, too, tax assessment was revised at intervals. Despite this different system, the conditions of cultivators constantly deteriorated in these regions as well. The high taxes fixed by the government - half to two-thirds of the net yield was the usual amount - made investments impossible. Because of fragmentation resulting from inheritance, the farms became smaller and smaller. The fact that land could be used as collateral made it possible to borrow money to pay taxes in the ease of crop failures. As a result, more and more farms passed into the hands of moneylenders who were, often more others than the better-off cultivators in the village. In the course of time, they ceased to cultivate their land themselves and resorted to sub-leasing it instead. Finally, the ryotwari region was no longer a region of self-cultivator. More than one-third of the land was leased and in many districts the leased land was more than two thirds. The great demand for land owing to the population growth made it possible to let others work for oneself. In the Mahalwari region as well, sub-leasing and indebtedness became more and more common. Indeed, it was not possible to transfer the land to people who were not from the locality, but the landed property certainly became concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people, whereas the others lost their rights. A constantly increasing number of people became landless. While in the middle of the 19th century there were still no landless, in 1931 and 1945, 33 and 70 million landless labourets respectively were registered. Others succeeded in renting some land, but on less favourable terms. Share-tenancy, in particular, increased greatly. This kind of land and revenue settlement undesirable effects on Indian agriculture and economy, such as rural indebtedness, rise of money-lenders, growth of agricultural labourers, destruction of handicraft industries and finally stagnation and deterioration of agricplture. The British land policy, which lasted for 150 years, as well as the consequences of economic changes and the drastic population growth, led to a complete change in the land tenure system in India. Whereas formerly, the cultivators possessed the right of use the land and the government had the right to impose taxes, now the rights in land were split into many parts. In this process, not only did a large number of cultivators lost their valid land rights and felt a ball in their status to unprotected tenants and labourers. At the same time, the tax collectors became landlords and large landowners. A stratum of intermediaries who did not have any specific productive function developed, and the land passed into the hands of moneylenders. This caused an enormous deterioration in financial conditions, whereby, the mass of farmers lived in abject poverty. To explain the further development following India's independence, it is important to note that, admittedly, the economic situation of the different groups of the rural populatiob had experiences changes and also development but a large part of the population remained poor. Also in its terms of dominant characteristics the social system remained inchanged. There existed complicated relationship pattern between landlords, cultivators, and its landless without the earlier social order that accepted mutual rights and obligations and which provided everyone even the poor a place within the rural society.

The system aimed at satisfying the needs of everyone in the economic and social sector, and was based on the fact that all members were dependent upon one another. Thus, which the landlords owned land, they were dependent upon h e landless tenants, agricultural labourers, and village craftsmen to cultivate it. Inversely, the landless could not utilize their labour in an agrarian society if the landlords did not give them an opportunity of working on the field. This made it necessary for the landlords to maintain the landless economic situation at least at a level which was not detrimental to their capacity to work discouraged them to migrate. This not only forced the existence of a minimum wage, although very low, but also induced financial aid in emergencies, crop failures, etc. In addition, the landlords preferred to meet the obligations resulting from their labour relationships. Such mutual relationships existed even in the social sector. The landlord assured the protection to their workers, whereas the landless labourers adopted a loyal attitude towards their employers. This secured him power and influence and put him in a position to represent their interests well. In the war time these behavioural patterns became so ingrained that the obligations of the strong towards the weak became a social norm, and paternalistic behaviour was a prerequisite for being recognized as a leading personality. This norm, which is typical for rural societies, sets obvious limits to exploitation. It is true that the level of these limits was very low, but they guaranteed a subsistence. It is also important to observe that the rights had been unilaterally shifted to the benefit of the landlords, but the landless labourers did not consider themselves to be exploited. Here, religion may have played an important role, but the existence of mutual relationships - even if they were unequal - granted security against threat to existence, which was of important in many situations.
Table 2.1: The Land Tenure System in British Period Province
Bengal Presidency

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

Dates of Conquest
1757,1765

Formation of Land Tenure System

Revenue auctiorls in early 1770s; old landlords dispossessed, several defaults, famine; old landlords reinstated in 1784; Lord Cornwallis announces Permanent Settlement in 1793: landlords' rents fixed in perpetuity, stiff penalties for default.

Madras Presidency

1765,1790-1801

1765-territories came under Permanent Settlement. Mumo and Read tried individual system in some districts from 1796-1805; in 1807 all districts put under landlords for 3 years, leases renewed for 10 years in 1810-11; Munro went to England and convinced the Directors of the East India Company to order an individual settlement in the whole of Madras; order implemented after 1820 when leases expired; all future defaulting landlord estates also converted to individual system.

Bombay Presidency

1803,1817-18

Individual system tried in Poona in 1820's, but failed; Wingate and Goldsmid start Bombay Survey System in 1835 for individual settlement system; a few long-standing landlords left in place in certain areas. Permanent Settlement in 1775. 3 and 4-year landlord leases in 1802-1819. Question of Permanent Settlement widely

North-West Provinces

1775, 1801-03

............................

Land Tenure 'Systems and Agrarian Structure

............................
debated: revenue secretary Holt Mackenzie's 1819 Minute recognized the existence of village bodies and asked for their rights to be protected in any settlement; regulation passed in 1822. Oudh 1856 Lord Dalhousie announced settlement with village bodies wherever possible; Mutiny in 1857 before this could be done; Lord Canning reverses policy in 1858 and brings back landlords (talukdars) with full proprietary rights. Former ruler left in charge of certain areas (but taken over in 1856), no fixed policy in remaining area for some time. Landlord ("malguzari") settlement announced in 1853, implemented in 1850s. Sambhalpur district however put under individual cultivator system. Was under Nizam till 1856; first landlord system was tried but it failed; then Bombay Survey System (individual cultivator) was applied. Some areas transferred from Bengal had Permanent Settlement; others got individualcultivator systems. Village-based system put into place everywhere; practically no big landlords.

Central Provinces

1818

Berar

1856

Assam

1765,1824-26

Panjab

1846,1849

Source: Banerjee, A. and Iyer, Lakshrni (2001), The Imperial Legacy: Colonial Land Tenure System in Independent India. (www.bu.edu/ecan/ied/neudc/papers/iyer-final2.pd~

2.3

LAND REFORMS IN INDEPENDENT INDIA

2.3.1 Problems in Land Revenue System in Pre Independent India

In this section we will discuss the problems ailing the land revenue system prevalent in India du; to exploitative policy of British in pre independent India: a)

Intermediaries for Collection of Tax

The imposition of Colonial Rule in India led to a drastic break with the past, in the sense that not only did the scale and intensity of the exploitation of the village communities increase greatly, it.also led to the introduction of new, and almost entirely parasitic intermediaries between the state and the tax paying masses. These intermediaries who were typically induced (or pressurized) to abandon traditional restraint, and discard the old formulae that helped mediate the burden on the typical village peasant or artisan. In addition, the British obliged these intermediaries to collect the taxes not in kind, but in cash. Since the peasant had little experience, or understanding, of a cash economy, this put a further burden on the peasant, who now also had to face the unscrupulous grain traders and usurious money-lenders, who took full advantage of the highly diminished status of the Indian peasant in the colonial dispensation. The Indian peasant was reduced to a state of utter degradation. Social relations within the village also became highly distorted. The traditional solidarity that had existed between villagers was now subject to the divisive and ruinous tactics of the parasitic intermediaries who had the protection and support of the colonial state.

b)

Intensification of Traditional Feudal Form of Exploitation

As colonial rule progressed, the typical Indian peasant (and village artisan) faced a dual burden. Not only did the traditional feudal form of exploitation greatly intensify, the typical Indian villager was now also subject to the forces of mercantile capitalism, which had its eyes on any savings or assets that any villager might possess. Eventually, the typical Indian villager was stripped of all savings, and driven to mortgaging a considerable portion of any assets - whether personal jewelry, land and livestock, or tools and equipment. c)

Origin and Development of Land Tenure Systems in India

Emergence of Socially Conservative Intermediary Class

These petty mercantile intermediaries were the biggest obstacle to any radical or revolutionary developments in the Indian countryside.

d)

Destruction of Rural Small Scale Industries

Prior to colonization, India was steadily becoming more urbanized, with a significant portion of the Indian population living in large or small towns. In addition, even in the villages, a considerable proportion of the population comprised skilled artisans like weavers, potters, carpenters, metal-workers, painters etc. The.proportion of the population that was exclusively engaged in agricultural production was steadily decreasing. But in the colonial regime, several laws were passed that led to a catastrophic de-urbanization and de-industrialization of India. Trade tariffs and excise duties were set so as to destroy Indian industries, and squeeze domestic trade. 1 ; states like Bihar and Bengal, severe restrictions were placed on the use of inland water-ways - causing fishing and inland shipping and transportation to suffer. This led to even greater pressures on agriculture since large categories of highly skilled artisans and non-agricultural workers were thrown out of work. When the British left, India had become a village-based agricultural economy. India had inherited one of the most depressing scenarios in Asia - a fairly densely populated nation with a pitiful urban base, a rural infrastructure in wrecks, a huge mass of population forced to survive exclusively on. agricultural production and exploitation by feudal intermediaries. However, the increasing sub-division of land was a constant source of problems and tensions in the countryside.

2.3.2 Initiatives for Mitigating the Problem of Exploitative System

As is evident from the previous section, there was a wide scale exploitation of agriculture labourers and peasants due to revenue intermediaries and accumulation of land with very few individuals. So the government in independent India had to initiate appropriate steps towards reducing these problems. These measures towards land reform could be studied under three categories. a)

Ceiling on Land Holdings: The land distribution in India has been widely iniquitous with 314" of fertile land under the ownership of 7% of rural population while remaining 114" of the land highly subdivided and fragmented under ownership of 48% of rural population.. The remaining 45% of rural population were landless or tenant labour, of which approximately 25% were working as daily wagers on the land owned by others. It was therefore natural to expect that independent India would endeavour to correct inequity in the land ownership by ceiling the land holdings. Rationalization of Land Tenure System: The antiquated land tenure system enforced by British provided little or no encouragement to the stabilization or improvement of agriculture. Hence it was only natural that the political leadership thought of improvement in land tenure system through constitutional provisions. Youewould read about these constitutional provisions in the units of next block.

b)

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

c)

Reform of Tenancy System: These were required from the view points of economic optimization of agriculture and equitable distribution of land ownership. As Aurthur Young writes, "Give a man a secure possession of bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden; Give him a nine year lease of a garden and he will convert it into a desert7'.

These three-pronged strategies have been the building blocks of land reform in independent India. Land reform has been recognized and accepted as an important instrument of economic and social change. The First Five-Year Plan has clearly mentioned the land policy and the specific land reform measures to be undertaken. Most of the states passed the legislations for abolition of zamindari and similar exploitative land tenure systems. Now land Inam, etc. are abolished in all tenure systems like Zamindari, Mahalwari, J a g i ~ the states. As a result of abolition of Zamindari and intermediaries, about 26 lakh intennediaries and 20 lakh tenants got proprietary rights of lands i.e. they became the land owners. This has resulted in improving their economic and social conditions. The land revenue income of the states has also increased. Tenancy reforms were made for the removal of intermediaries between the state and the landholder. These reforms aimed to get "Land to the tiller". After Independence considerable importance was given to collection and maintenance of land records so that they could form the basis of land development of the country. These situations helped in development of the present day land records system. A number of land records are prescribed to be maintained at the village, tehsil and district levels and statements of land holdings, land revenue and rental cropped areas, land use pattern are maintained. There are more than 20 registers that are being maintained by revenue department.The principal records being maintained are: 1) 2)

Village Map: A pictorial form showing the village and field boundaries; Field Books or 'Khasra': It is an index to the map, in which changes in the field boundaries, their area, particulars of tenure-holders, methods of irrigation, cropped area, other uses of land etc. are shown; and Records of Right or 'Khatouni' : The names and classes of tenure of all occupants of land are recorded in it.
+

3)

Check Your Progress 3 Note: i)

ii)
1) Space is given below each question for your answer. Compare your answer(s) with the text.

What were the three kinds of land settlement during British rule in India?

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
2)
What were the initiatives taken by independent India towards land reform?

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
t

2.4

LET US SUM UP

Origin and Development of' Land Tenure Systems in India

Land tenure system in ancient India is marked by gradual changes and it has evolved from common ownership to individual ownership. Since human beings used to move as tribal groups from one place to another, land was considered to be gift of nature and no person in particular owned it, it was commonly used by all the members of the tribal group. At later stages, when man started practicing settled agriculture, the concept of individual ownership developed. Agriculture in this period was in the transitory stage of nomadic cultivation and settled agriculture. It is clear from the Vedic literature that Vedas prohibited land grants. Since in this period, all property was under common ownership, the idea of gifting land to anyone was unlikely. In the post Vedic period land was no longer the common property of the tribe and private ownership of land was gradually being established. Though land grant had started, the practice was not readily accepted by all and was looked upon with an attitude of indecisiveness. But with the settling of Aryans society in the Gangetic plains, with the population gradually increasing the shortage of cultivable land began to be felt and frequent transfer of land became more common. Mauryan agriculture had two types of landholdings: the Rashtra landholding was to a large extent independent of the state machinery in their internal functioning and administration and the Sita type, which was formed by clearing forestlands with the help of the tribesmen. There were different land tenure systems in the Gupta period, which is evident from land grant inscriptions. These are (a) Nivi d h a m s i.e. land endowment in perpetuity, (b) Nivi dharma aksayana i.e. perpetual endowment which a recipient could not alienate but could make use of the income accruing from it eternally, (c) Aprada dharma which means that a recipient has all rights to enjoy such a property but no right to make a further gift of the same and can only enjoy the interest and income from the endowed.land, but had no administrative rights and finally (d) Bhumichchhidranyaya i.e. rights of ownership as are acquired by a man making barren land cultivable for the first time and is free from liability to pay rent for it. In medieval period principal achievement of the Dclhi Sultans was systematization of agrarian exploitation and enhancement in land revenue. The Delhi Sultans classified the land into three categories: (a) iqta land i.e. land assigned to offjcials as iqtas, (b) khalisa land i.e. crown land which is the land under the control of Sultan and whose revenues were meant for maintenance of royal household, and finally (c) inam land (madad-i-maash) or w a d land i.e. land assigned or granted to religious leaders. During Mughal rule land was classified in Akbar's reign in four categories, for the purpose of assessment namely: (a) polaj (land which was cultivated every year and never left fallow), (b) parati or parauti (land which had to be left fallow for a time to enable it to recover fertility), (c) chuchar (land which had to be left fallow for two or three years) and finally, (d) banjar (land which remained uncultivated for five or more years). The British used three kind of system for the purpose of revenue settlement better known as zamindari system, ryotwari system and mahalwari system. After independence, the Indian Government initiated measures in three directions namely ceilingLof land holdings, rationalization of land tenure system, reform of tenancy system so as to have land reform with social objective.

Land Tenure Systems and

Agrarian ~tructure

2.5

KEY WORDS
:

Land Tenure System

The traditional or legal rights individual persons or groups of persons have on land and the social relationships among the rural population that emerges from such land rights. Revenue settlement made village by village or estate by estate with village chiefs or head of the families. Removal of the intermediaries between the state and the landholder.

Mahalwari System

Tenancy Reforms

2.6

SUGGESTED READINGS

Singh, R. P. (1987), Sociology of Rural Development in India, Discovery Publishing House, Delhi. Ray, S.K. (1986), Indian Economy, Prentice Hall India, New Delhi. Reddy, K. Knshna (1999), Indian History, Tata McGrawHill, New Delhi. Agnihotri, V.K. (1999), Indian History, Allied Publishers, New Delhi. Banerjee, A. and Iyer, Lakshmi (2001), The Imperial Legacy: Colonial Land -Tenure System in Independent India. (www.bu.edu~ecan/ied~neudc/papers/ i yer-final2.pdQ

http:/members.tripod.co~DIA~RESOURCE/indianagricu1tureehtml South Asian

Voice October, 2003