Frithjof Kuhnen (1996):
Synthesis of Current State of and Trends in Land Tenure and Land Policy in Asia

1.2.1 India

While the situation and development of the man-land relations in India are, to quite an extent, those mentioned above, there are some peculiarities that are specific to the country:

Ceiling legislation definitely progressed: each new law, using salami tactics, reduced the uppermost size that was allowed and, today, there are hardly any really large holdings in individuals' hands but rather in the hands of families. These laws were circumvented to a large extent, and much of the land which was given up was unfit for cultivation and distribution (temple land, graveyards, etc.). Thus, the surplus land equals less than 2 % of the cultivated area, i.e., it is hardly significant. Inheritance laws had a greater effect than land reforms. An exception is the land reform of Kerala.

The focus of discussions has changed considerably. While Vinoba Bhave in his land donation movement (BHOODAN, GRANDAN) requested, in the 60s and 70s, to give at least 1 acre to every family, and Dandekar in his 'Poverty in India' studied the possibilities and consequences of such a radical redistribution and caused broad discussions, today, not much is left of the former enthusiasm. It is widely realized that mere distribution may not lead to improvements for the poor and that the poverty of the smallholder usually results in his being unable to cultivate intensively. The average size of holdings in India has changed from 2.3 ha, in 1970, to 1.7 ha, in 1980, and is still decreasing.

The "progressive farmers'" productivity and affluence, especially in such states as Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, have surpassed smallholders to such an extent that even massive support services provided by the government could not bridge the gap. Anyhow, programmes to introduce smallholder support services have more or less failed so far, either because the government could not afford long enough the high subsidies that were required or because corruption circumvented the programmes planned for specific strata. By and large, today's policy is geared to support economic holdings having a sound production potential (thus leaving aside the dry highland areas).

This is partly a consequence of the political power situation. More and more progressive farmers are members of state parliaments and vote for an agricultural policy to their advantage and against the taxation of at least the income increase brought about by the new technologies, which are not a consequence of their entrepreneurship, but of public investments in irrigation, fertilizer factories, seed-breeding stations, etc.

One of the most important consequences of the regional differences is an increase in the rural population's internal migration. Only 18 % move from rural to urban areas, while 65 % move from one rural area to another, i.e., the people search for regions that have a higher potential allowing them to make a living.

The situation is influenced by the limited capacity of industry to absorb labour. The fact that the rural (and urban) masses lacked purchasing power hindered, despite the large potential, the development of labour-intensive small-scale rural industries beyond those which represent an old tradition in the country. The surplus rural labour spilled over to the service sector and took up marginal employment, often 'escape jobs.' In contrast to East Asia, this employment increase in the service sector and not in industry is, to quite an extent, a manifestation of the poverty problem and not a sign of economic growth.

The workload of the agricultural population has changed according to gender as a result of the land reform as well as of technological development. The distribution of land to the landless and to smallholders means additional work for the people already employed, especially for women and children who try to use this potential to raise their standard of living. The commercialization of agriculture led to men being replaced while women are still retained. Men's - not women's - work has been mechanized.

In recent years, there have been attempts at democratization at the local level, for instance, by reviving panchayats. It is too early to assess the success. Until now, it was usually the more powerful large farmers who assumed decision-making, and this spoils the idea. The same happened again and again in the case of agricultural cooperatives. Usually, their development 'from above' has already been the first step towards failure.