Nehru and the Agrarian Reforms

33 Pages·2010·1.95 MB·English

NEHRUANDAGRARIAN REFORMS
MohammadGhouse
I Introdaetion
IF,ASPrime MinisterIndiraGandhi!'said in September1979,"land reform
is the most crucial test which our political system must pass in .order to
survive," howdid the politicalsystemshapedandfashioned byPrime Minis
ter Nehrufare in this test? During the freedom struggle Nehru had repea
tedlyadvocated revolutionarychanges in the powerandeconomic structures
built by the British and responsible for the impoverishment of India. He
had pleaded eloquently for the rationalisation oftheagrarian structure and
the land-relations. The stateofthe agrarian structure on the eve ofIndia's
independence, the tremendous popularity ofNehru, the revolution ofrising
expectations ofthe poorandthe powerless andthe dependenceoflegitimacy
ofthe political process on the redemption of Nehru's pledge for rationali
zation ofthe agrarian structure created a social and political climate fairly
favourable to the implementation of agrarian reforms. The obstacles
lying in the way of effective implementation of agrarian reforms should
not however be underestimated. Asland has been the source ofrulership,
thefoundation ofwealth and the symbol ofsocial prestige, there is between
landandpolitics close and inter-dependentrelationship.·Agrarian reform is,
therefore,reckonedas a majorstructuralchange. Galbraith' said rightly :
a landreform isa revolutionarystep, it passes power, property and
status from one group to another.
In fact, agrarian reforms seek to change the economic basis of political
power. The kulaks, who have linkages with the political process and
stakes in the perpetuation of the existing agrarian structure and land
relations, have a negative attitude towards agrarian reforms.! The
1. Chief Minister's Conference on Land Reforms: Summary of Record, New
Delhi, September 26-27 Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Co-operation. By land
reform we mean exactly what the F.A.O. Conference held in 19S1meant. It must in
cludeanumberofmeasures to improve the relationship ofthemanwboworksonthe soil
to the land be works including opportunity for land ownership, asricultural credit at
reasonablerates ofinterest, reform ofexorbitantrentsandtaxes,andfacilitiesfor obtaining
agriculturalsuppliesandmarketingagriculturalproducts.with emphasison co-operatives.
The focus ofthis paperis,however,oo reform ofthe tenurial systems basedon the policy
of land to the tiller.
2. Tai, Hung OuIo, Land JUform andPolitlcl: A ComptII'Qtm A1IIllYsb (1974).
3. Quoted in Tai, /d.at 17.
4. Persons, quoted in Tai, /d.at 14.
78 Nehru andtheConstitution
idea that "We support those who support us" has not caught the imagi
nation of the poor and the powerless. So employmentof full state-force
for the enforcementof agrarian reformsisessential. It is at the sametime
a well recognized political truth that any handicap that obstructs imple
mentation of agrarian reforms is not the cause but the consequence of
political and legislative'attitudes. These facts support the oft-quoted
proposition of Ladejinsky :.5
Politicians,and only politicians.make good or poor reforms, or do
not make them at all....
In these circumstances,an appraisal of Nehru on agrarian reformshas
to findout whetherthe political systemof the Nehru era wasfreefromthe
influence of the interlocking collusive system of power elitesand vested
interests and was committed to transformation ofthe economic basis of
political power.
U AgrarianStruetueinColonIalIndia
In order to bring into focusthe magnitudeof the challenge of agrarian
reform, it is necessary to highlightthe nature of the agrarian structure
bequeathed by the British to independentIndia. Colonialism has had a
crucial impact on India's economy and land relations. The close integ
ration of India into the colonial system impeded the processof evolution
from a pre-industrialeconomyto an industrialeconomyand subordinated
theagrarian structureto therequirements ofBritisheconomy. The growth
of trade in raw materials. the inundation of Indian market with British
goods and the penetration of commodity economy disrupted village
self-sufficiency, destroyed indigenous handicrafts, rendered villageartisans
joblessand increasedthepressureofpopulation on land. Thelandtenures,
received by the East India Company from the Moghuls,were reorganized.
The zamindari and the ryotwari tenures, modelled on British landlordism
and Frenchproprietorship,werecreated. Thezamindar wasatax-collecting
but non-cultivating intermediarybetween the state and the tiller ofthe soil.
Creation of zamindari estates and conferment of property-rights on the
zamlndars reduced millions of proprietors as well as cultivators of land
to the status of tenants-at-will on their own lands. The ryotwari system,
however, recognised no intermediariesand conferred hereditary property
rights on cultivators. But the colonial regime retained supreme power
overlandanddeterminedassessmentonlandpayableto thestateunder both
these systems. Although zamindar! estates were auctioned to the highest
Pay
bidder. a failure to the oppressive andextortionaterevenuedemands
s.
Ladcjlnaky.Wolf, quoted in Tai. ilL at 9. For an analysis ofhuman problems of
economic development andformulating thegoalsofchan&e.seeDubeS.C., a",remporary
llIdiaII1IdMotWnlmtltm10-39(1974).
79
ledto re-auetioningofthe estates. Defaults in payment ofrevenue assess
mentsand resultant compulsory transfer of land on a vast scale resulted
in the replacement of traditional nobility by rapacious money-lendersas
zamindars. In the ryotwartestatesthe heavypressure ofoppressiverevenue
demandspauperizedthe ryotand his eventual inability to meet the demand
forpaymentofrevenueresulted inthetransfer ofhislandto amoneylender.
Thus in boththe systemsthere were intermediaries claiming a share in the
grossproduce and leaving the cultivators with bare sustenance. All this
drovethecultivator into the clutches ofperpetual debt.
During the colonial era, the proprietors of land were mostly non
cultivatingrentiers, The actual units of cultivation were small piecesof
land. They were cultivated for subsistence by poor tenants. The land
lords,who werefree tocollectwhateverrent they possiblycould, leasedout
their lands to tenants and extracted from them maximum surplus in cash
or in kind. But they did not invest the surplus in improvingsoil fertility.
The widespreadalienation ofthe peasants from land and the destruction of
village handicrafts rendering the village artisans jobless resulted in the
pauperization of the masses in the countryside. The imperial policy of
de-industrializationpreventedtheproletarianization ofthesemassesthrough
absorption in industries. Consequently, the impoverished masses worked
as tenants-at-will, sharecroppers and farm-servants on exploitative terms.
As land was concentrated in a fewhands of rentier landlords, the growing
pressureon land and the resulting possibilities of ever increasing rental
incomes kept themawayfrom productive activitiesinagriculture. Because
of absence of other avenuesofemployment, the poormasseshad to submit
to exploitativeterms and conditions dictated by the landlords. The tradi
tional casteformations reinforced the exploitation ofthe landless labourers
bythe kulak sincethelatter belonged to the upper castes while the former
came from the lower castes and the untouchables.
tI
According to Daniel Thorner," this agrarian structure had been a
'built-in-depressor' responsible for the stagnation of the rural economy.
It is pointed out that between 1900 and 1945 population increased by
37.9per cent, the acreageunder cultivation increased by 18.4per cent, food
output remained stationary and the output of commercial crops went up
by 59.3per cent resulting in an an increase of 12.6per cent in agricultural
output," According to Manilal Nanavati's assessment,' while there was a
surplus of foodstuffs to the extent of 5 million tons in 1880,there was a
deficit of 10million tons in 1945. By 1945nearly 30per cent of India's
population was suffering from chronic malnutrition.w In 1872.56per cent
6. JoshJ ,"Land ReformsinIndia", in Desai,A.R. (00.),RuralSoC'i%gy in IIldio 447
(1978).
7.Quoted in Joshi, id. at 447.
8.Ibid.
9.IbId.
10. IbitJ.
80 NehrutmtItheC01l8(itutlon
of the population depended on agriculture. In 1945 thisproportion rose
to 73per cent. The industriesabsorbed in ]880, 12.3 per cent and in 1945
only 9 per cent ofthe population.
The response ofthe British to this situation in agriculturewascurious.
When the Royal Commission'! on agriculture wasappointed in 1926,it was
directed not to make recommendations regarding the existing systems of
land ownership and tenancy or ofassessmentoflandrevenueand irrigation
charges. They wanted the commission to concentrate on "improvement
of agriculture and (promotion) of the welfare and prosperity of the rural
population." Thus, as pointed out by Joshi,!· the accent of the British
agrarian policy was on technological improvement, not on institutional
change or radical restructuring of the semifeudal agrarian structure.
The zomindori and the ryotwari systems degenerated into caricatures
of British land-Iordism and French peasant proprietorship, respectively.
The concentrationof land in a few kulaks, the increasinglyheavypressure
ofpopulation on land becauseof the disruption of villagehandicrafts and
de-industrialization of India, thestrangle hold ofusury, the low capital
formations, the diversion of surplus from agriculture into non-productive
channels, the ancient caste-formations and the traditional habits condemn
ed agriculture into a state ofstagnation. Aspointedout bythe National
Commissionon Agriculture,umost ofthe tenants in the ryotwarias well as
the zamindari areas were"tenants-atwillor share croppers whose rents in
cashor kind varied from 50per cent to 70per cent of the gross produce."
The commissionw said :
Besides rents, many illegal levies imposed on tenants and share
croppers reinforced their conditions of servitude. Then there was
labour rent or Begari which was the hall mark of semi-feudal
domination.
The Report on D.P, Zamindari Abolition16 summed up the state of the
agrarian structure :
When the British withdrewfrom India in 1947,theyleft the country
with perhaps the world's most refractory land problem.
m IdeoJoaicalOrIeatatio...ofdteCooaressLeaders
The Initial response of Indian nationalism to the crisis ill the agrarian
society was neither progressivenor realistic. Impressed by the attainment
u.
11. at 449.
12. [d. at 448.
13.Report of tire NationolCJmmluion onAgrlCll1t"re10(1976)(hereinaftercited as
Report).
14.Id. at 12.
15.Quoled in loW.8IIJ1'anote 6 at 447.
81
ofagriculturalprogressthrough expropriation ofthe land ofsmall peasants
in the West, Ranade said~18
In all countries, property, whether in land or other goods, must
gravitate towards that class which has more intelligence and greater
foresight and practises abstinence, and must slip from the hands of
those who areignorant, improvident and hopeless to stand on their
ownresources. This is a law ofprovidence and can never bewisely
orsafelyignored by practical statesmen for any fancied political or
sentimental consideration.
Although there was no dearth ofradicals in the Indian National Congress,
there was a powerful section of very eminent Congressmen subscribing to
varying degrees ofpropertyconsciousness. Aspointedout by AR. Desai.17
the Congress Party laid more stress on the needs of Indian industrialists
than on the problems of Indian peasants during 1905-19. They avoided
referenceto the mass oftenantslivingunderthe zamlndari. Desai brou~ht18
into view the sad state ofaffairs when he said that Lord Curzon's challenge
to Romesh Chandra Dutt, an ex-President of Congress that it was the
government which had done more to protect tenants from the rapacity of
zamindars "remained unanswered." Commenting on Mahatma Gandhi's
leadership of the struggle of the peasants of Champaran in Bihar
N.G. Ranga said :11
Just as the earlier Congress agitation led by Romesh Chandra Dutt
against temporary settlements did not embrace the exploitation
of our peasants by Zamindars, so also this agitation led by the
Mahatma in Champaran lead upto any fight against the main causes
for the terrible poverty and sufferings of Champaran peasants,
namely the excessive rents and exorbitant incidence of debts.... It
does strike us rather significant that both he (Gandhi) and
Rajendra Prasad should have been scrupulously silent upon the
ravages of the Zamindari system...
Ranga again criticised Gandhi for including in the eleven points he sub
mitted on behalf of the Congress to the British Government in 1930 the
16.SecICSSR, A Survey01ks«uch In Economic.r(Vol.IV,Agriculture,Part II lJ.ll)
(1975) (heccinafter referred to as SIIIWY).
17. Desai. "Indian Kisan and Their Principal Movements Before Independence,"
supra note 6 at 391. See also Sitaramayya. P. History 01Indian National Co1llfress,
(1947), Abha Pandya. "Gandhi and Agrarian Causes" xm EPW 1077 (July 26, 1978);
Report 01 the Co1llfrus Economic Commilt. (1948); MalaviyaH.D., Lond Sitwtion in
India andthe Koreon Examp/6 (J970)and R.P. Dutt, India Today (1947). Abba Pandya
has pointed out that Congress under Gandhi "compromised continuously in favour of
Indian vested intereats."
18. Desai, ill. at 391.
19. Ibid.
82 Nehruand the Constltutlo"
grievances of the industrialists but not of the workingclassand peasantry.
He said;1O
But he would not do it consistently with his class collaboration
convictions and his anxiety not to divide our people into two
politicalgroups basing their differences on economic interests.
In his Autobiographyn Nehru drew attention to Gandhiji's interview to
Madras Mail and said ;-
...but what upset me much more was Gandhiji's defence... of the
big Zamindari system. He seemed to think. that this was a very
desirable part of rural and national economy.
What was the approach ofNehru to these problems during the colonial
era? His ideological orientation and his approach to problems ofpoverty
were then strikingly radical. In his Autobiographytit' he speaks of his
ideological differences with Gandhi and other Congress leaders. About
his own ideology he says :11
I have long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia
had appealed to me... (The) Communist philosophy of life gave me
comfort and hope. (But in the Congress Party) a clear and definite
ideology waslacking. Nationalismwas still the dominantthought....
(Being)socialisticallyinclined I wasnotconsidered a very safeperson
to advise on economic and social matters.
He had, however, no illusions aboutthe Congress Partyever turningradical.
He said that ifthe partywas asked to adopt radical policies "theresultwas
boundto be to split it into two ormoreparts orat leastto drive away large
sections from it." He said ;u
Congress at present meant Gandhiji. Ideologically, he was
amazingly backward....
Although he was convinced that the Congress would not embrace his
radicalism,'she did not want to leave that party. He did not want to force
a split in the Congress though he did not consider it undesirable. He did
not, however, explain how in these circumstances, he would enforce his
ideological programmes. Was he prepared to subordinate his ideology
_t
20.Id. 392.
21. Nehru, Jawahar1al, Autobiography, 477.
22. Ibid.
220. /d. at 361, 364, 365.
23.Id. at 361.
24.Id. at 365.
2'. ibid.
NIIuvtIIft1Agrarl6n Reforms 83
to hisassociation with Congress? His description ofdesertion ofCongress
as "waste of energy in ineffective adventurism"" answers this question.
In his Discovery of Indjarl Nehru has spelled out his approach to the
problems of poverty, periodically taking the form of famines. The heavy
toll of human lives taken by the Bengal famine and the British thesis that
the Indians were themselves responsible for these famines had shocked
him:. In response to this colonial theory Nehruformulated whatthe social
scientistscall the nationalist theory, He described the Bengal famine as
"an extreme example of what was happening in many parts of India" and
pointed out that "it brought some realization of the terrible urgency of
India's problems,ofthe overwhelmingdisasterthathung overthe country."IS
When, in the wake of the Bengal famine, the British mooted the idea of
planning, Nehru pointed out that "an attempt to preserve old, established
privileges and vested interests cuts at the very rootofplanning"ltandthat
theCongress governments inthe states were hampered by the basic assump
tion ofthe parliamentary statute that most ofthe vested interestsmust not
be touched. He said that "thespirit ofthe age is in favour of equality"80
and that this spirit demands an economic system which fits in with it and
encourages it. He said further :11
The problems ofIndia... areessentially due to an attempt to advance
while preserving political andeconomic structuremoreor less intact.
Political advance is made subject to the preservation ofthis structure
and existing vested interests. The two are incompatible.... A
revolutionary change, both political and economic.... is needed
in India.
Although Nehru was drawn to socialism and communism, his approach
to agrarian reforms was "more intuitive than theoretical, more impression
istic than empirical."Ill Despite his intellectual depth and his firm commit
ment to scientifictemper, his "habitsofthinkingaloud and lack ofmethod...
did not make any major contributions to theory or to methods ofstudy..."aa
Nehru and other radical nationalists viewed the agrarian class structure
"in terms of a two-class model of landlords, money-lenders and traders
on the one hand and the peasants on the other," and "tended to overlook
the class distinctions within the broadpeasantcategory."34 The Marxists,
26. Ibid.
27. Nehru, Jawahar LaJ, Discoveryoflndia ''13, 512, (J9S6).
u.
28. at S12.
29. ld. at 514.
30. Id. at 534, 535.
31.Ibid.
32. ICSSR Survey, supra note 16at IS.
u.
33. at IS.
34.Ibid.
84 NM1'u IIlId theCou"IIItion
however, showedawareness of the emergingclass stratification within the
peasantry. They pointed out how commercialization ofagricultureand
IS
poor agrarian reforms facilitated the gradual conversion of semi-feudal
landlordism into capitalist landlordism and in certain cases the establish
ment ofa narrow stratumof kulakpeasants. This Marxist perception of
the upper peasant's ·potentiality of growing into an exploiting class
foresaw the potentialitiesofconflicts betweenthem and the poor peasants
and the landlesslabourers.
Joshi says that though both the Marxists and the radical nationalists
in the Congress pleaded for "peasant-oriented land reforms," the latter
"gavegreaterweightintheiranalysistotheinterestsofthe rich and middle
peasants." The Marxists, however, paid greater attention to "the poor
peasants' and the landless classes." While the MarxistsM concentrated
only on the questionsrelatingto "economic basis:' the radical nationalists
did not ignore the superstructure. They gave adequate importance to
caste, religion, untouchability and the like.
What wasthe policyof the Congressparty on agrarian reforms? Was
it limitedto persuadingthe rentier landlords to undertake direct cultivation
and to organisetheir leased units of cultivation into scientifically managed
forms? Or, was it able and willing to confer proprietary rights on the
tenants and sharecroppers in the lands under their cultivation without
allowingtheir eviction? The former would necessitate eviction of tenants
while the latter would eliminate rentier landlords and introduce peasant
farming. A brief survey of the reforms prop.osed by the Congress may
help us find answers to these questions.
Before the independence of India, the Congress party made several
programmatic declarations concerning agrarian reforms. The Karachi
Resolution 1931,the CongressWorking Committee's Resoltion 1932, the
Faizpur Fiftieth Session of the Congress in 1936, the Congress Election
Manifestoes of 1936 and 1946 and the National Planning Committee, in
1946, grappled with formulation of an agrarian reforms programme.
Although the Congressparty advocated abolition of zamindari, reform of
tenancy and fixation of maximumsizeof agricultural holding, none of the
agrarian programmeshadraisedthequestionofradicallyalteringthe system
ofland tenure or landownership. BeforeWode:' WarII the Congressparty
was keen "to secure the neutrality of the semi-feudallandlord class in the
freedom struggle."87 The Congress Working Committee's Resolution of
1936assuredthezamindarsthatitsnorent proposals"were innowayaimed
atthem" andappealed"toalllandedormoneyedclassesto helptheCongress
to the bestoftheirabilityinitsfightfor thefreedomofthecountry."88 The
35. Ibid.
36. &port, SIIIJ'Q note13at20. SeeDoreen Warriner, LandReformin PrlndpleMIl
Procti~141 (1969). Warrinersaysthattheagrarian structureisneitheralaJ'ICestatenor
a peasant system but a system of caste.
37.Ibid.
38.Id. at 18.
8S
Contress Election Manifestoes of 1946 promised that the rights of the
intermediaIies"should...beacquiredonpaymentofequitablecompensation".
It was, however,a specialcommitee appointedin 1947with Nehruas Chair
man that committed the Congress party to the imposition ofceilings on
agricultural property. Later, the Kumarappa Committee submitted its
report in 1949 after a detailed survey ofland relations in differentparts of
the country. Its comprehensive recommendations exerted considerable
inAuence on the evolution of the Congress policy onagrarianreforms in
subsequent years. It considered the various forms of agrarian economy,
rejectedcapitalistorestatefarmingandfavoured individualpeasantfarming.
Itsaidthatcapitalistfarming would deprive the agriculturists oftheir rights
in land, turn them into mere wage earners, subject the society to capitalist
control on such a vital matter as supply offood and create the problem of
displacedpersonnel. Itfavoured fixation ofceiling on agriculture property
as the supply ofland in relation to the number ofpeople seeking it is so
limitedthat not to put a ceiling on individual holding would be irrational
and unjust. It suggested that the optimum size of a holding should be
three times the size of an economic holding. It defined an economic
holding as a holding whichafforded a reasonable standard oflivingto the
cultivatorand providedfull employment to a family ofnormal size and at
least a pair ofbullocks. It recommended that there should be no inter
mediary between the state and the cultivator.
It may be obvious from the preceding analysis that Nehru subscribed
to socialism, advocated structural changes in the power and economic
processes,looked upon equalityasthe spiritoftheageand favoured planning
for development to meet the challenge of pervasive poverty tormenting
India. But the Congress party and Nehru had profound ideological
differences. The Congress partywas, ofcourse, committed to abolition of
intermediaries despite Gandhi's support for the zamindari system. This
commitmenthas, however,to beviewedinthelight ofthe emerging contlict
betweenfeudalism and capitalism in the agrarian society and the increasing
in11uence of the latter on the Congress party. The party's failure to
advocate reform oftenancy and fixation ofceiling on agricultural property
along with abolition of intermediaries explain clearly the ideological pre
ferences of its agrarian policy: substitution of capitalism for feudalism
in the agrarian society.
IV AInrIuReformsanddle CoastitadOD
Andre BeteilleSl says that as major economic changes involve changes
in social organization, they cannot adequately be understood in isolation
from the social framework within which they take place. Similarly, such
economic changescannot be understood in isolation from the constitutional
39. Andre BcteilIe, Stlldia In Agrtlrilm SockllStructure 56, 57 (1974).
Nehru andthe COlUtitution
groundwork within which they can be implemented. An economic reform
has to be transformed into law. And the law has to pass through the
constitutional framework. It has to conform to and run subsidiary to the
challenge to itsconstitutionalvalidity in a courtoflaw. This isparticularly
true about agrarian reforms in India where "ownership and control ofland
constitute the immediate sources of economic power."·o And lawhas in
the past been the resource of the rich. The courts have been distant
abstractions to the poor. Socialism has been the betenolrofthe judicial
process. And in the legal profession talent has followed wealth. These
factors make it necessaryfor usto understand the constitutionalframe work
and its ideology and political economy.
As mass poverty is said to be a result of total malfunctioning of the
economy and as the constitution-makerswere committed to poverty-eradi
cation, the basic question before them was which economic system,socia
lism or capitalism, does poverty-eradication demand? As development is
basically a political problem, the Constituent Assembly stood at the inter
section of conflicting economic theories radiating divergent ideologies.
The Congress leaders were divided deeply on ideological lines. It is
necessary, therefore, to analyse the conflicting economic theories to see
which of these theories and which growth model the Consitution has
endorsed.
Myrdalu has broughtintoclearviewtheconflictintheeconomic theories
on the relation between equality and economic growth. He has pointed
out that some western economists "assume a conflict between growth
and egalitarian reforms" and claim that "inequalities ofincome contribute
to the growth ofthe economy."·· Kenneth Bouldingt' says:
In a poor society economic growth may require sharp inequalities,
.and too great equality may condemn the society to stagnation.
Myrdal" rejects this theory. He says that the idea ofa conflict between
equality and economic growth was supported by an analogy from the now
developed western countries which had experienced rising inequalities in
the early stages of industrialization :
The Clude exploitation of the poor is...assumed to have been the
condition that made possible the rise in savings and aggressive en
trepreneurship that gave momentum to the industrialrevolution.w
40. Id.at65.
41. Myrdal, Gunnar, Chaknge 0/ World Poverty 64.
42. [d.at66.
43. Kenneth Doulding. Economic AftIllYlis 724(1941). See alsoKenneth Boulding,
''TwelveFriendlyQuestionswithlohnGaltuog," XIVJOIII'nalo/PeaceRelearch75(1977).
44.SIIfJI'Q note41, ibid.
45./d. at 366.