UNIT 4 LAND TENURE SYSTEMS AND AGRARIAN STRUCTURE - I1

Contents
4.0 4.1 4.2 Objectives Introduction South India
4.2.1 4.2.2
Re-British Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems during Colonial Period

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

Land Tenure Systems in North India Impact of British Rule in Northern and Central India Initiatives to Change Land Tenure and Agrarian Structure after Independence Let Us Sum Up Key Words Suggested Readings

4.0

OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit you will be able to understand: l a d tenure systems and agrarian structure during pre-British and British period in North, South and Central part of India; the kind of land tenure and agrarian structure existed in North-East region of the country; the need of transformation in agrarian structure by introducing elements .of change in land tenure systems; and the nature of land tenure system and agrarian structure after independence.

4.1

INTRODUCTION

In the previous Units we have read that the systems of land tenure introduced by the British in various parts of India were more or less of the same nature and had identical results. The outcome of the land settlements instituted by the British can be summarized as1) It created a class of parasitic landlords, moneylenders, land speculators and Waders. They dealt mainly with agricultural produce and started playing an ipportant role in the governance of countryside. This class was not interested in any productive investment or agricultural development. It promoted commercialization of agriculture especially in the areas producing for export. It turned land into a private property. It made it possible that land could be alienated from the cultivators, throughout the country. The parasitic elements who were controlled the countryside had dominant hold on surplus produce generated by the cultivators.

2) 3)

In this unit a similar exercise is undertaken to understand the land tenure systems and agrarian structure in the South, Northern and Central part of the country. This unit sketches some important feature of land tenure systems and agrarian structure in remaining parts of India during pre-British and British period. The unit emphasises the need of transformation in agrarian society after independence and the nature of existing land tenure systems and agrarian structure after independence.

4.2

SOUTH INDIA

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian ~tueture-11

4.2.1 Pre-British Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure System

The accounts of villages in South India indicate extensively the existence of villages managed by those other than the state before advent of British rule in India. The most important was the prevalence of villages plaLed under the poligars. Poligars had rented the villages. Some time a village rented at a privileged rate was granted to one of them. In the same way a number of villages were placed under the various categories of people or institutions as well. Thus there were many villages which were not under the direct management of the state but were independently managed by some individuals/institutions. Those poligars who had jurisdiction over hundreds of village used to exert pressure like a king with the help of their military followers. The tiny poligars, though numerically dominant, used to perform the duties like policeman in the small localities. Another striking feature was that some agricultural castes (vellaler) also entered in the poligarship. These Vellaler poligars were either the residents of same village or came from the neighbourhood. These were recorded as the mirasidars. These mirasidars were considered as owners of the village. They were the controllers of the production activities in the village. Mirasi right was known to be stable, mortagageable and inheritable. The significant feature of the 'mirasi' was that even Nawab could not usurp it by force and had to purchase it. The late pre colonial South India had the mirasi system which may be considered like a social grammer through which one can understand one's wealth, status and power in the society. Everyone from village functionaries to the state was expected to perform its role for which some share in the product was assigned. Another concept related to land holding prevalent in South India before the colonial conquest is described by Robert Frykenberg as 'privileged land holding'. 'Privilege' in land holding was viewed as an arrangements that pertained to advantages (rights and immunities) enjoyed by some, usually a minority. It originated from a grant from those in authority in the political community. In South India this grant was known as 'inam' which meant grant of land held rent free, on hereditary and perpetual occupations. Grants by the rulers were called 'sanadi-inams' and grants coming out of village resources were called 'gramu-inam' or 'manyam'. Classified functionally and communally, host of imams were often known by their designated names. For example Muslim imams were known as 'waqf and 'muafi', Hindu inam as 'agraharams', 'shrotiyams' and 'yatra Che-kathis' etc. A descriptive list of imams tenure of Madras presidency was submitted to the Government on 30"' October 1869 and contained some 452 separate categories of imams. Most of these categories were then defined or described as land holdings either wholly or almost wholly free from taxation. On the basis of the records of the East India Company in South India, Frykenberg (1977) has differentiated 'inam' in four main categories according to their functioning. These categories have been broadly classified as i) Socioreligious holdings, ii) Socio-political holdings, iii) Social service holdings, and iv) Socio-economic holdings.

4.2.2 Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems during Colonial Period
East India Company established its rule in Canara in 1800 and claimed its base in Hyderabad, Poona and Mysore. Munro was able to arrange a political settlement with the important leaders and lords of the villages and formed alliances with local/ village leaders. When Munro became governor of Madras in 1820, he established his system of settlement throughout the Presidency wherever zamindari settlements were not in force. This settlement was known as Ryotwari Settlement.

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

Thus, the first half of the nineteenth century was a period of experimentation with methods of collecting the land revenue. As the British extended their rule over South India, they confronted major problems in the identification of persons with whom to settle the land revenue. Whether revenue be taken directly from individual cultivators or contracts be made with intermediaries. Political stability was an importqnt factor which guided policy-for-multation. In general, the policy adopted was that, for the sake of political stability there should be minimum disturbance in the traditional rights. However, the British did not always uphold this principle, and deviated it from time to time. Initially ryotwari settlements were introduced in certain districts. But soon after the introduction of Permanent Settlement in Bengal, similar arrangements were made in certain districts of Madras Presidency. The land revenue was fixed in perpetuity, the zamindaris were made both inheritable and transferable, and uncultivated land were given to the zamindars tax free. The zamindars were a diversified group. While some claimed descent from kings or military chieftains, others from tax officials. Yet others were new men who had bought estates. The zamindaris also varied in size. Some were enormous, sometimes covering almost the whole of a district while others consisted of just a few villages. Though the land revenue and tenure in this part of India was basically ryotwari, by 1830 over a third of the Presidency was under zamindari system. Thereafter, the area under zamindari declined. Whenever zamindars were unable to pay the revenue as demanded, the government confiscated their estates and converted them to ryotwari. But even then around one-fourth of the area remained under zamindari system until the 1940s. The late nineteenth century South India was, thus completely different. Though colonial administration recognized the marasidar's status as village lords, it was of little consequence in terms of economic value. Colonial administration had created the class of 'pattadars' who were given the central role in the village as the land holder, though they had nothing to do with the village people. In this part of India, the division of rights between the peasants and the zamindars remained undefined. It appears that the peasants of the southern zamindaris were in general more secure than those in northern zamindaris. Whefi the Permanent Settlement was introduced, it was assumed that the zamindars would collect half the gross produce and pay two-thirds of that to the government in cash, retaining one third for the expenses of his revenue establishment and his personal income. But the actual collection from the peasants were much higher than this. For sometime the land revenue collection from the villages in most areas was contracted out to middlemen, who may have been the former rent collectors, or the leading cultivators of the village, or in some cases, speculators with little experience of the revenue system. These leases were initially to last for three or five years followed by decennial leases. But by 1822, it was decided that the ryotwari system should be introduced in all the non-zamindari areas, as and when the village leases expired. Under the ryotwari system, in principle, the land revenue was generally fixed at half the gross produce on unirrigated lands and three-fifths on irrigated land. Besides the land revenue and the amounts officially set aside for community purposes and village officials, there was unrecorded plunder by revenue officials. The cultivator was thus often left with very little. During the later half of the nineteenth century, the area under cultivation increased faster than the population. Large irrigation works were completed on the rivers Godavaci and the Krishna. The cultivation of cotton, groundnut and oilseeds increased. The building of roads and railways facilitated trade. Between 1881-82 and 191516, price of grains rose by 100 per cent or even more. The terms of trade moved in favour of agriculture. The burden of land revenue fell. The cultivator was able to invest in land. Progress was rapid in some regions, notably on the Krishna-

'

Godavari delta. This led to tremendous increase in prices of land. In one village, Peddapadu in east Godavari, N.G. Ranga calculated in 1926 that the price of fertile land had risen from Rs. 40 to Rs. 1500 per'acre in sixty years. The real income of the village had increased by 250 per cent during the same period. The rich peasants widened the sphere of their activities and invested in rice mills, mica and other industries. They extended their moneylending business and went into banking. Rut the depression of the 1930s hit both the rich as well as the poor. Agricultural prices and employment fell sharply. Payment of fixed revenue became difficult. Farmers were not able to pay back their loans. Grain looting and attacks on rich moneylenders and landlords were symptoms of the widespread agrarian distress. The rural economy as a whole grew much poorer in the 1938. Moreover, during the 20th century, population was growing faster than agricultural output. Until 1916 or so, the increase in agricultural output probably managed to match the increase in population, after that the gap between them became wider. Indebtedness of rural population increased during the 19th century. The same trend continued during the early 20th century and during the Great Depression. The burden of debt became so pressing that the government was forced to take action. The debt conciliation boards set up by the government during the Depression scaled down debts in some cases, but over the 1930s the volume of debt rose further. It was only during Second World War, when agricultural prices rose sharply that there was a fall in the real burden of debt. According to Dharma Kumar, there is little evidence regarding the growth of tenancy during the British rule. The most common arrangement was share-cropping and the tenant commonly got half the crop on dry land, but his share could be less on fertile, irrigated land ranging from one-third to one-fourth of the crop. The tenants' share also depended on input sharing arrangements. Generally, the landlord paid the land revenue and made substantial repairs to wells, and water channels. The tenant provided the manure. The quantities of manure per acre and the number of manuring was occasionally prescribed. Usually the leases were oral but were continued for long periods. Tenants in ryotwari areas had no legal standing. Since they were considered as a weak party, tenancy disputes were rare. Whether because of the relative infrequency of tenancy disputes or because of an implicit assumption that tenancy could not be a problem under a system of 'peasant proprietorship' like ryotwari, hardly any measures were taken in Madras Presidency to protect the tenants.

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Stucture-I1

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i)
ii)
1)

Space is given below each question for your answers. Check your answers with the text.

Mention major land tenure systems in South India during pre-colonial period.

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

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

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

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

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

2)

Which settlement is known as Munro settlement?

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

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

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

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

4.3

THE LAND TENURE SYSTEMS IN THE NORTH INDIA

The major land tenure systems prevalent in North India were Zamindari, Mahalwari and Ryotwari. In the previous units we have already discussed about the nature of land tenure systems. British rulers had established these land tenure systems to r~organizeIndian agrarian structure to serve their interests. Under the zamindari system the native tax gatherers who had never taken any part in actual cultivation were conferred proprietary rights. The consequence of this policy was that millions of persons who were proprietors of their land they cultivated from time immemorial, were reduced to the position of mere tenants at will. Mahalwari system was being implemented in 30 percent part of the British India. It was prevalent in some districts of Jeeut province Agra, Avadh, Middle province and some parts of Punjab and North-Westem provinces. In Mahalwari system iddividual members were not responsible for the collection of revenue and its payment to British, but all the owners of land in the territory of a village collectivity made an agreement on behalf of the village representatives or village mukhiyd ptadhan, for the fixed or certain amount for a fixed term or time period. After that villagers divided their respective shares and fixed their amount of land cess. In this system every individual farmer did farming for which he was paying land revenue. He was also responsible in the collectivity for the share of his friends and viceversa. They were all endowed with joint responsibility. Some scholars view it as favourable to the domestic tradition of India. In Mahalwari system of land tenure individual f m e r was both a zarnindar and a rent payer. In Ryotwari every registered individual farmer was considered as owned of that land. He was responsible for paying land revenue to the British govemment. He was permitted to sell, lease and sublet his land any time. In Mahalwari system the unit of land revenue was the village or the mohalla (a part of zagir). The owner of land was not the individual farmer, but it was owned collectively by village sabhdgram sabha, others were called co-sharers. Ih Mahalwari system farmers were responsible for the payment of land revenue both individually and collectively. Any individual was free to leave the land and in such cases gram sabha was responsible for handling of that land. In Mahalwari system, which was prevalent in North-Westem provinces and Awadh, the land revenue was fixed. And it could not be reduced even in time of natural calamity, while during the time of Nawab land revenue arrangements could be reduced in case natural calamity occurred. In regulations of 1822 the Board of Commissioners also suggested to extract fixed revenue from the village that was to be collected by lambandar or gram pradhan. The major shortcoming of this system were high rhte of tadcess and also the rigidity of the government in extracting tax in the c'alamity like famine, draught etc. The British govemment had made various regulations and reorientation from time to time and changed the fixed land revenue. This system was subject of modification on various occasions becacse the farmers

were very unhappy due to its rigid and exploitative nature. In 1822 William Bentik made an assessment of-~ahalwarisystem and in 1833 passed a regulation that tried to simplify system of assessment of yield and revenue. Different average were made for different kind of lands. For the first time land maps and registers ,were prepared after the assessment. Martin Bind was responsible for introducing new land revenue system in Northern India. He was known as the father of land settlement in the northern regions. Land revenue was fixed in Mahalwari on the ,basis of village to village and estate by estate. An estate was called as Mahal. The registered farmer in the British Government used to give his land revenue to the government directly. Land keeping farmers were directly responsible for providing revenue to the government. They had the right on land to sublet, sell, keep it for lease or lease it. They could not be deprived from his land, if they regularly paid the land revenue.The British assumed that permanency of settlement or zamindari system would bring order, and permanency and zarnindars would be grateful to the government. But it did not happened. British government wanted to introduce a system that gave them right and scope of escalating land revenue from time to time in other areas. Ryotwari system was not related to big zamindars or landlords but linked to those small landlordlzamindars who were doing their fanning with the help of small farmers or poor landless tenants. Ryotwari system was in accordance to Indian tradition because in this system land tenure was given by those tenants/ farmers who did farming themselves. The basic assumption behind Ryotwari system was that the state would be the sole land owner which will grant patta or title to ryoyats. The ryoyat could retain the land so far as he paid the land revenue assessed by the state. However, under any system of land tenure introduced by the British Government proprietary rights were not absolute. Being supreme the British government had every right to determine the amount of revenue that was payable to the state. After default in payment British administration had right to auction all types of land. In short, revenue demands were oppressive and extortionist in all the systems.

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Stucture-11

4.4

,IMPACT OF BRITISH RLTLE IN NORTHERN AND CENTRAL INDIA

In Northern India various kinds of land tenure systems were inter mixed as both Zamindari and Mahalwari systems were introduced in this region. Initially, Bengal type permanent settlement was favoured, but after 1811, considerations of enhancement of revenue led to the abandonment of fixed revenue system, and even in the case of zamindari areas only a small proportion of land was under permanent settlement, the rest were settled temporarily. In Punjab and parts of United Provinces, Mahalwari system was introduced where the unit of assessment was the village. In this system payment of revenue became the joint responsibility of the village propsietary body. Each individual cultivator contributed his share in the revenue. Initially the burden of revenue was very heavy. The British laid claim to about 85 per cent of the rental. In principle it was reduced to twothirds after 1833 and to one-half after 1855, but in actual practice this principle was not adhered to. From the very-beginning British government wanted to extract maximum revenue from the central parts of India and for this region heavy assessment was imposed by the British. High assessment land and an impossible revenue, impoverished the people. The mistake was realized at a later date and was condemned in the strongest terms. It was only in 1834 that a long settlement for twenty years was concluded in these territories, which was allowed to continue till the early 1860s. Under the new settlement of 1864, that was introduced in the Central Provinces, malaguzars or revenue-payers were recognized as the proprietors of the soil with

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

a right to sell or mortgage their property. Tenancy rights were conferred on the cultivators. In principle it was decided that the land revenue would be limited to one-half of the rental of estates, but the principle was not adhered at the time of assessment. Settlement officers did not accept the actual rental of esgites. They estimated what the rental should be from their own calculations, and based the land. ravenue demand on the estimated rentals. Thus, the rental considered as &e basis of assessment was higher than the actual rents received by the land owners. As a result, land revenue demand was higher than 50 per cent of actual rental.

Impact of Land Revenue System

We noticed that land revenue was to be paid in cash, not in kind. Secondly, the amount of revenue was kept fixed for a period of twenty or thirty years, under the permanent settlement. Consequently, the revenue of the state did not increase. On the other hand, the payment of revenue in cash generated a pressure on the cultivators. They were forced to produce cash crops like indigo, sugarcane and wheat, and had to borrow money for payment of tax or took advance from the village moneylenders of the local grain dealer-cum-moneylender, who was in some cases also the village accountant (patwari), was the position strengthened. The cultivator was concerned more by his immediate cash requirements to meet revenue and rent installments and other expenses like marriage in the family rather than by prospects of higher profits from valuable crops especially when the profits tended to make their way to the middleman's pocket. In Shahjahanpur district the fatal effects of accepting the inducement of urban Khandsaris or sugar factories became so notorious that the Chandel Rajputs inhabiting the Ramganga tract in the Khundur pargana refused to grow sugarcane bearing loss of their independence and proprietary. title to alien creditors.

Land Transfers
With the introduction of private ownership and transferable proprietary rights in land, the land sales increased. The Board of Revenue on revenue administration of North West Province commented in 1854. The transfer of ownership of land was massive and fast. Probably in no other country in the world the land tenures had changed hands so certainly, constantly and extensively. These mutations were effecting a rapid and complete revolution in the position of the ancient proprietors of the soil. Behind this alienation and mortgage of land, there emerged a serious and much larger problem of indebtedness. It was estimated that 10 percent of agricultural land had already passed into the hands of, what district officers termed, as 'the wily mahajan' and 'sleek, impassive bania'. Yet official opinion remained opposed to any tampering with free trade in land because of the fear that legislative inference might seriously upset the provision of rural credit and jeopardize the security of the land revenue. Similarly by the time of the 1864 Settlement in the districts of Central Provinces, almost the whole of the profits was taken away by the moneylenders. While mortgage was growing rapidly, decrees were being carried out through 'the civil courts in the 1870s. Continuous transfer of land from cultivators to moneylenders prompted legislation in the shape of Bundelkhand Alienation Act of 1903. But despite the Alienation Act the professional moneylenders in Bundelkhand remained a permanent part of the rural scene and kept their hold over the peasants. m e s e moneylenders-cum-traders were more interested in receiving rent or in controlling the disposal of cash crops grown by the peasants than directly engaging in agricultu~. Thus the introduction of legal private property right in land tended to enhanci the claim of intermediaries above the actual cultivator and left the peasant based small scale traditional cultivation intact. The expectation of the British of the emergence of capitalist agriculture, which would benefits from the economies of scale, did not materialise.

4.5
'

INITITAIVES TO CHANGE LAND TENURE AND AGRARIAN STRUCTURE AFTER INDEPENDENCE

and Tenure Systems and

Agrarian ~tucture-II

The pre-independence agrarian structure that was marked with great inequality in the ownership of land had received serious attention after Independence. The agrarian structure which was marked, on the one hand, by the concentration of land ownership in the hands of 4 parasitic class who played no positive role in the production and, on the other, had divorced the landownership from the vast mass of peasantry who were the actual cultivators. Therefore, a radical measure in the form of land reforms was required to bring fundamental changes in rural social structure and economy. In India, land reforms were initiated as an attempt to alter the pattern of distribution of land holding through radical measures by the state. Several factors were responsible for these acts. The measures of land reforms policy have been prominently laid down in the Five Year Plan documents. The main objective of the reforms policy may be summed up as:

i)
ii)

To remove mdvational and other impediments to increase agricultu;al production, To eliminate all elements of exploitation and ensure social-injustice within agrarian system.

The land reforms have been considered as the number one priority area in the whole range of rClral development activities and have been on the national agenda of rural construction has been constantly recognized in the successive Five Year Plans. Government of India has been continuing play its advisory role in the field as the subject is in the state list of the constitution and is in exclusive legislative and administrative jurisdiction of the States. The Land Reforms Division of the Ministry of Rural Development has been playing a crucial role for evolving a national consensus at various stages for taking up major steps towards effective land reforms which included the abolition of Zamindari and of all the intermediaries since the beginning of fifties. Important landmarks in the policy has been the introduction of family ceiling on agricultural holdings from mid fifties and monitoring the progress of distribution of ceiling surplus land as part of the 20 Point Programme of the Government since ' seventies. The Centre and State government have, as a result, adopted important strategies for rural development by effecting major reorganization of socio-economic structure through land reforms. The land reforms programme strive to fulfill all the principles ' of National Land Reforms policy which consists of the following measures. 1) 2) 3)
4)
5)

Abolition of intermediaries and bringing the tenants in direct contact with the government, Tenancy reforms with a view to provide security of tenure to actual cultivators of land against eviction and regulation of rents, Redistribution of land by imposing ceiling on agricultural holding, Consolidation of holdings, Prevention of alienation/restoration of alienated tribal land, and Updating and computerization of land records.

6)

Though the Centre and State governments have initiated several meaningful measures related to land reforms, there is still a wide gap between the proclaimed objectives and the actual outcome. After the 731d Constitutional Amendment Act 1992, Panchayati Raj institutions have become very important. Several subjects related to

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Structure

land reforms have been put under the jurisdiction of Panchayati Raj institutions and these institutions have to play a vital role in the successful implementation of various land reform programmes. The nature of the land problem varies from state to state and even from region to region, and in introducing the Land Reforms a flexible approach has been adopted to suit and respond to the differing local requirements. In actual practice the land reforms have faced problems and issues have varied from one point of time to another. The ideological and political factors and the way the ownership and the use of land is interlocked with the power structures have been matters of great importance and significance. The land reforms in India, therefore have to be viewed from socio-economic and political perspectives. The tenancy reforms failed to yield much positive impact, as a large number of tenants-at-will were evicted from land. Also the benefits of consolidation of holdings remained confined to Punjab, Harayana, and western Uttar Pradesh. The first phase of post independence land reforms in 1950s and 1960s yielded mixed results. It could be termed successful in the sense that the intermediaries were abolished, which provided the basis for improvement in agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, the unequal agrarian structure remained in place. In 1953-54 nearly 8 percent of ownership holding accounted for 54 percent of the total land. However, at the all India level there was tendency towards unequal power structure in terms of land ownership. Although the average size of holding declined from 2.39 hectares in 1993-54 to 2.21 hectares in 1971 in several states, the average size of large farms increased.

Pattern of Ownership Holdings: With regard to the pattern of ownership holdings,

it may be noticed that nearly 310 million acres of land were estimated to be owned by rural households in 1953-54. This was nearly 38.4 per cent of the total geographical area and 61 per cent of the topographically usable land. A certain proportion of land in the rural areas, no doubt, was owned by urban households. The owned area of 310 million acres was held by 66 million households. The average size of ownership holdings in the rural areas was around 4.72 acres. But when we look at the size of distribution of holdings, the situation is far worse. Nearly 22 per cent of the households in the rural areas did not hold any land. These households constituted the cultivating small tenants. The next 24.9 per cent of the households together held only 1.4 per cent of the land and each of these held an area less than 1 acre in size. Thus, nearly 47 per cent of the households either held no land or held land with an area of less than one acre. The disparity in the distribution of ownership holdings seems to have been the highest in South India, where the concentration ratio was 0.74 and the lowest in North India and West. India, where the concentration ratios were 0.64. The average size of holding was the lowest in South India (about 3.42 acres), while it was the highest in Central India (about 8.29 acres). How far does such extreme inequalities in the distribution of ownership holdings affect the agricultural economy is a question that follows naturally. It may be pointed out that, the efficiency of cultivation which depends on appropriate combination of different factors of production.

Pattern of Operational Holdings

Now in this section, we will discuss the concept of "operational" or "cultivation" holdings which refers to the operational holdings that is more appropriate to the efficiency of agricultural operation. Theoretically, even with a very adverse distribution of ownership, through a process of leasing in and leasing out, it is possible to have a pattern of operational holdings, less inconsistent with the dictates

of efficient technology, or with the requirements of the laws of returns, or of returns to scale. As a matter of fact, if there was a very little of leasing out of land by large owners and very little leasing in by small owners, the pattern of operational holdings would look much the same as that of ownership; and if that were the pattern of operational holdngs, there would be too many tiny f m s ' (operational holdings) and some f m s too large for efficient cultivation. Although a small decline in concentration of land took place after the land reform legislation, land distribution remained highly skewed. In 1953-54, the bottom 60 per cent of holdings operated 15.5 per cent of area while in 1960-61 the bottom 62 per cent of holdings operated 19 per cent of area. At the other end, in 1953-54 the top 5.8 per cent of holdings operated 36.6 per cent of area while in 1960-61 the top 4.5 per cent operated 29 per cent of area.

Land Tenure Systems and Agrarian Stucture-II

4.6

LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we have attempted an understanding of the evolution of land tenure systems in South India, Northern and Central India from pre colonial period to ~nde~endence. We have observed that the development in agriculture sector was not natural but forced one. It was the British policy which forced Indian economy to serve the interest of British economy. Peasantry was forced to sell their products in order to meet there revenue payment obligation in cash. In the process of evolution of land relations a non agriculturist community emerged which strengthened its grip on rural land and agricultural produce. Thus, the process of exploitation of poor peasant began. British agrarian policy in northern and central India stratified Indian peasantry into a rich landlord, peasant and landless labourers and the gap between these classes were widened day by day. In these units attempts have been made to acquaint you of various p;oblems that emerged in the agrarian structure due to changes in land relations, which were not conductive for economic and social development. We have also discussed about various measures initiated by the Government of India and state governments to overcome the problems of rural people that emerged due to land relations during British period. A brief effort has been made to acquaint the readers about post independent scenario also.

4.7

KEY WORDS
:

Mirasi right

The ownership right of farming community over village land. It was mortgageable, stable and inheritable. The significant feature of this right was that even Nawab could not usurp it by force, he has to purchase it. Known as Ryotwari Settlement.

Munro Settlement

4.8

SUGGESTED READINGS
- - - -

Desai, A.R. (1948), Social Background of Zndian Nationalism, Popular Publication, Bombay. Frykenberg,, R.E. ed. (1977), Land Tenure and Peasant in South Asia, Manohar, New Delhi. Frykenberg, R.E. ed. (1979), Land Control and Social Structure in Zndian History, Manohar, New Delhi.

Land Tenure Systems and

Agrarian Structure

Grover, B.L. (1985), Indian History, Manohar Publication, Delhi. Roinesh, Dutta (1990), The Economic History of India, Vol-1 and Vol-2, Low Prise Publications, Delhi. Roy, Satya (1990), Bharat Me Upniveshvad, Manohar Publishing House, Delhi. . Sharma, R.S. (1971), Land Revenue in India: Historical Studies, Motomahal Banarsidas, Delhi. Singh, R.P. (1987), Sociology of Development in India, Discovery Publishing House, Delhi.