SPECIAL ARTICLE
Sheikh Abdullah and Land Reforms in Jammu and Kashmir Aniru dh Kuma r Pras ad
One of the reasons attributed to the poor agricultural situation in post-Independence India was its unequal land relationship. relationship. The Congress Party opted for land reforms as that would transform India into a progressive progressive nation. As the 1949 Constitution decided in its favour, the responsibility responsibility of implementation implementation was left to the states. One state which emerged as the leader in agrarian reforms was Jammu and Kashmir, led by Sheikh Abdullah. Abdullah. This article ar ticle reviews the land relations and agrarian reforms in Jammu and Kashmir and suggests implications implications this had for the politics of the state. s tate.
Anirudh Kumar Prasad (
[email protected] ) is with the Department of Political Science, Hindu College, Delhi University.
130
J
ammu and Kashmir (J&K) is the only state of the Indian Union which enjoys two special “statuses”. Of the two, the first has been conferred upon it by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and the second, the radical land reforms, i e, abolition of landlordism, land to tiller and cooperative association has been earned by the state. J&K has achieved a unique distinction among all the states of India by introducing land reforms of considerable magnitude, including the remission of land revenue on smallholdings (Aslam 1977), 1977), and went on to become the most publicised land refor ms of the country. Prime Minister of J&K1 Sheikh Abdullah, soon after coming to power,2 started the agrarian reform program me in the state in 1948, with the abolition of sinecure payments such as jagirs, muafis and mukarraries. Earlier, the beneficiaries of jagirs and muafis3 had a number of privileges at the cost of the citizens within the territoria l limits of such jagirs, approximating the rights of the erstwhile maharaja of J&K in matters of fiscal nature. In one stroke, the new state government abolished 396 jagirs/muafis involving an annual land revenue assignment of Rs 5,56,313.4 The government also abolished fixed cash grants known as mukarraries (2,347) to the tune of Today, nd). Rs 1,77,921 per annum (J&K Today, These changes were viewed as very revolutionary because they took away the privileges of the erstwhile maharaja and feudal vassals over most of the cultivated areas in the state without payment of any compensation. Land reforms in the state were also seen as correcting a historical wrong against the peasantry and were one of the most important promises of the National Conference’s New Kashmir Manifesto (1944). The state government’s next step in 1948 was to protect the rights of the tenants through amendment of the State Tenancy Act of 1924. Safeguards were provided to the tenants-at-will (tenants-at-will were those peasants who could be ejected from the land at the landlord’s pleasure). Rights of protected tenants were given to the bulk of tenants-at-will; their tenure was secured by making their ejectment illegal. The change in the tenancy law was followed by the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950, J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972, and J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (Verma 1994). The most important feature of the reforms introduced as a result of the enforcement of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950 was that ownership of land in the state was subjected to a maximum ceiling of 22.75 acres. augu st 2, 2014
vol xl ix no 3 1
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
All holdings above this ceiling were distributed among the tillers. Passing of this Act led to the expropriation of 9,000 land owners (both in Jammu and Kashmir) who owned among themselves 8 lakh acres, without payment of compensation for the surplus land. Thus, 2.3 lakh acres were transferred to about 2 lakh tillers out of 4.5 lakh acres of land taken away fr om land owners ( Dhar 1989: 235).
Historical Background
It is a well-known fact that the relation between ownership and cultivation of land, and rights and status of the actual cu ltivators determine the conditions under which agricultural production is conducted. From the early Hindu period down to the twelfth century, ownership of land in Jammu and Kashmir had remained vested in the community. Between the 12th a nd the 18th centuries ownership of land was vested in kings. Peasants could occupy the la nd for cultivation subject to payment of an arbitrarily fixed rent or at the pleasure of the kings or thei r agents. Some land was earmarked as khalsa (state) land and re served for the royal household to meet their expenses. In e xchange for certain privileges, chosen agents called kardars managed this land on behalf of the royal households. Rest of the land was divided into military circles and granted to army chiefs, subedars and taluqadars. They in turn divided these land grants into khalsa and jagir lands and granted these to their favorites and dependents on the same terms and conditions on which the y had received them (Bhat 2000: 143).
This system of land management led to the emergence of a hierarchy of landed aristocracy which not only misappropriated land revenue, but also showed no interest in the management of land. Another class of intermediaries called farmers was created through the process of leasing out villages to contractors who were free to make their own contract with the occupants, i e, people who were forced to cultivate a particular piece of land (Bhat 2000: 143). Thus, ‘people became landlords and tenants by a process different than that obtained during earlier period’. During the period between 18th and 19th centuries, rulers attempted to marginalise the landed aristocracy and dealt directly with the cultivators. However, their efforts were thwarted by the powerful landed interest groups such as the chieftains (called sirdars). These groups were accommodated by assigning them the r uler’s share. This gave birt h to yet another class of assignees of land revenue with no proprietary rights in land. These were called jagirdar s, maufidars and mukarndars.
From mid-19th century, a new type of land tenure came into existence on account of the Treaty of Amritsar signed in 1846. According to this treaty: (a) the British government transferred and made over, for ever, in independent possession to Maharaja Golab Singh of Jammu, and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous country, with its dependencies, situated to the eastward of the river Indus, and westward of river Ravee, including Chamba and excluding Lahool; and (b) in consideration of the transfer made to him, Maharaja Golab Singh paid to the British Government the sum of Rs 75 lakh (Nanak Shahi) of which 50 lakh were paid on ratification of the treaty and 25 lakh subsequently by the end of September 1846 AD (Beg 1995: 406). Thus, the Kashmir Valley was “purchased” by Maharaja Gulab Singh from the British rulers, and so the ownership of the land in Kashmir Valley from this time onwards was vested with the maharaja of Jammu. The occupants of the land in Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 2, 2014
vol xlix no 31
Kashmir Valley were called assamis who had to pay, besides land revenue, malikana in recognition of his being the owner of the land (Bhat 2000). The assamis had no right to transfer land on the ground that they were entitled only to its possession as long as they paid land revenue and malikana. “The assami may be defined as a man recogni sed by the State as the lawful occupant of land in Kashmir, and in the Mughal times and thereafter, from the point of view of the State, the status of assami in theory meant nothing more than a tenant-at-will” (Lawrence 1967: 428). Such assamis existed in the districts of Ladakh and Gilgit as well, the source of t he maharaja’s ownership of land in this case being conquest and not purchase as in the case of Kashmir Valley.5 In Jammu also, considerable areas of land were held by him in ownership prior to the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846, and the occupants of such land were also called assamis /malguzars. In the case of acquisition of land, for public purposes, the assamis/malguzars were entitled to compensation at only one-third of the prevailing market value. Original occupants of the land held proprietary rights granted by the state deeds. This included big landholders who cultivated their own land. A powerful class of grantees and intermediaries was a distinct feature of the land tenure system prevalent since the 12th century. In spite of the change of rulers, cultivators suffered impoverishment and t yranny (Bhat 2000). The rulers in J&K changed many a time, but for tillers, nothing but the means of exploitation changed (Bhat 2000). While this misery and oppression sapped any interest left in the cultivator to improve the land, he continued to cultivate only due to the pressure of the state and the landlord. The state appointed kardars (land agents), giving them enormous powers and made them in charge of circles of villages, which were formed in 1859. The distribution of land among the cultivators, the choice of crop, and the allotment of area were decided by the land agents. The famine of 1877-79 that devastated the Valley of Kashmir provided the impetus for the British government demanding an overhauling of agrarian rights and relations in Kashmir a nd prompted serious reconsideration of their policy of noninterference in this princely state (Rai 2004). According to Lawrence (1967), the death toll from the famine of 1877-79 had been overwhelming by any standards. Famines in Kashmir were caused by either early snows or heav y rain occurring at the time when the autumn harvest was ripening. Of the 19 great famines which took place in Kashmir, there were t wo terrible famines in the 19th century in the valley, one known by the name Sher Singh, which was caused by the early, heavy autumn snow of 1831 and the other which was sim ilarly caused by continuous rains which fell from October 1877 till January 1878. Sher Singh famine reduced the population of Kashmir from eight lakh to two lakh (Lawrence 1967). According to Lawrence, in the fami ne of 1877-79 there was an enormous loss of life. “One authority has stated that the population of Srinagar was reduced from 1,27,400 to 60,000, and others say that of the total population of the valley only two-fifths survived” (Lawrence 1967: 213). 131
SPECIAL ARTICLE
The famine had brought to light the inadequacy of the protec- At the time when Hari Singh sig ned the instrument of accestion afforded to Kashmiri cultivators by the agrarian arrange- sion with India in 1947, the state was like the rest of ments of the Dogra st ate. It was pointed out to the authorities the subcontinent of India – an agricultural state. The large that substantial quantities of rice could have been saved and the majority of the people subsisted in one way or another on the staggering loss of life averted if cultivators had been permitted land. The peasants were still living as though in medieval to cut their crop before the start of the rain s that destroyed the times as serfs. The major portion of the produce of the agriautumn harvest of 1877. But the rigid adherence to the old cultural land was being taken away by the absentee proprierevenue system, in which assessments were made on the stand- tor of the land, leaving very little for the actual tiller to live ing crop, delayed the reaping operations (Lawrence 1967: 213). on. The result was that these agricultural labourers who When Pratap Singh became the new ruler of J&K after the formed the majority of the community had always been living death of his father maharaja Ra nbir Singh in 1885, he was not at a subsistence level. only forced to accept the British interference in the state by Sheikh Abdullah, after becoming the prime minister of the stationing a Resident in Kashmi r, but also the implementation state in 1948,8 decided to destroy the power of the landed arisof wide-ranging reforms in t he Dogra state that included regu- tocracy, and to take the 1931 movement to its logical conclusion lar settlements, which was carried out initially by A Wingate by fulfilling the promises made to the peasants of land reforms and then by Walter Lawrence. Both these British offici als were in his New Kashmir Manifesto (1944). The document had promcivil serva nts of the colonial government. ised radical restructuring of the society and economy of the Sheikh Abdullah, in 1931, launched a movement against the state. The introduction to the New Kashmir Manifesto says, maharaja of J&K and among other things, he demanded grant Throughout the lean centuries of history, the poor exploited sons of Jammu and Kashmir have been pala nquin bearers of Hindu monarchs, of normal rights to a citi zen to hold land as owner. As a result Buddhist rulers and Moghal emperors. The peasant sons of the valleys of this agitation, the ma haraja was forced to set a commission and mountains have scattere d only nine inches of top soil a nd eked out of inquiry called the Glancy Commission, headed by Bertrand a bare exis tence. Now the time has come when they must dig deep into J Glancy, to find out the legitimate grievances of the people the bowels of the earth and yoke the technique of modern science to and make appropriate recommendations.6 On the recommenthe task of getting for themselves a bigger and better morsel of daily bread (M alaviya 1955: 415-16). dations of the Glancy Commi ssion, appointed on 12 November 1931, Prime Minister of J&K Colonel Colvin on 10 April 1933 According to Korbel (1954), the economic reforms in J&K issued a government order directing that the implementation were introduced by the Sheikh Abdullah government to counof the recommendations be commenced forthwith. ter the demand of plebiscite made by Pakistan. Among many recommendations, the commission had sugFor the party which has the more serious reasons to be fearful of the gested granting of proprietary rights, with the accompanying result of a plebiscite – the government in Srinagar – has been doing everything in its power to delay this day of reckoning. It has been right to transfer land, to the cultivators who were till then working hard to change the conditions of life under the Maharaja and tenant-at-will of government-owned lands. Th is was achieved to bring some relief to the povert y-stricken masses (Korbel 1954: 198). at a time when India, including J&K, had not gained Independence (Beg 1995). In J&K, the demand for restitution of the In its editorial on 11 January 1948 People’s Age wrote: ownership of land to the farmers goes back to 1924 when The game of Pakistani reactionaries and of the imperialist war Viceroy Lord Reading was presented with a 17-point memoranmongers can be easily defeated if the peasant masses of Kashmir are assured that feudal autocracy and jagirdari will be liquidated, land dum from prominent Kashmiri Muslims to inquire into will be given to the tillers, and the complete right of self-determination their grievances. Land Reforms after 1948
One of the main demands of the National Conference movement,7 which was launched in 1931, was the transfer of ownership rights of land from the maharaja to the peasants. Till then, almost the entire area of the Kashmir Valley and a substantial part of Jammu province was regarded as being in the personal ownership of Hari Singh, like the Sarf-e-Khas lands of the Nizam of Hyderabad. This demand was conceded as a result of the freedom movement, and lakhs of petty culti vators who were till then tenants-at-will got the ownership over their land (Malaviya 1955). However, at the same time the jagir dars and chakdars who till then had the status of tenants-at-will, acquired vast areas of land through the exploitation of the poorer villagers. The village population was impoverishe d and these jagird ars and chakdars, taking advantage of their poverty, manipulated the sale and purchase of land and accumulated thousands of kanals (8 kanals = 1 acre) of land (Aslam 1977: 60 -61).
132
granted to the various nationalities that comprise Kashmir. Kashmir can be saved only by winning over the peasants, and ending feudal autocracy and the reactionary policy of the appeasement of the Maharaja by the Indian Union government and by really liberating peasa nts (quoted in Raina 1988: 159).
Immediately after coming to power, Sheikh Abdullah declared the abolition of the privileges of muafidars and mukkarraree-khwars (recipients of cash grants). Further, he gave priority to the reorganisation of agr iculture on a modern and rational basis, through the abolition of landlordism, sec uring the land to the tiller, and formation of cooperative assoc iations. These steps were taken to fre e the peasant from t he burden of the jagirdars and kardars. Besides, waste lands were granted to tillers for cultivation, a moratorium was declared on non-commercial debts, and ejectment proceedings against tenants were stayed for a pe riod of one year. According to George Mathew (2011), even Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was envious of the Government of J&K for its speed and clarity on the issue of land reforms in the state. augu st 2, 2014
vol xl ix no 3 1
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Addressing the annual session of the National Conference on 14 June 1951, Nehru said: But perhaps the greatest reform was in respect of land and agrarian matters. The abolition of big Zamindari system, which was the ideal all over India had been given effect to here more swiftly than else where...These were achievements of which any country might be proud ...(Dhar 1989: 242).
This is also a fact that the leadership of the National Conference opted for India for accession, and not for Pakistan, because they were sure that their radical agenda of bringing about reorganisation in the agrarian structure would not have been possible in a feudal Pakistan. The government’s next measu re not only gave economic relief to peasants, but also brought about a fundamental change in their status. In October 1948, the State Tenancy Act of 1924, which provided for the maximum rental to be paid by a tenant to his landlord, was amended and the severities caused by its operation stopped. The amendment provided tenants-at-will rights of protected tenancy in respec t of 2.13 acres of wet land or 4.13 acres of dryland in Kashm ir province and about double the size in the Jammu province, and placed restrictions on ejectments of tenants from land. The amendment fixed the maximum rental payable by a tenant to his landlord, in respect of tenancy holdings exceeding 12.5 acres, at one-fourth of the produce (or cash thereof) in the case of wetlands (including those growing paddy, wheat, maize, sugar cane and linseed) and at one-third in t he case of drylands. Prev iously, the tenant had to surrender more than ha lf of his produce to the landlord as rent. According to the provisions of this amendment, a tenant who had cultivated the land of his landlord for seven months before the commencement of the Tenancy Act was entitled to the privilege of a protected tenant. The tenancy reforms benefited nearly three-fifths of the peasantry, cultivating about 7 lakh acres out of the 22 lakh acres composing the total cultivated area of the state (J&K Today nd; Kashmir Marches Ahead 1958). These reforms gave relief to impoverished peasants of the state but did not bring about the abolition of the landlord system which was at the root of their poverty and suffering. In order to bring about a fundamental change in the production and ownership relations in agriculture, the Sheikh Abdullah government in April 1949 appointed a Land Reforms Committee under the chairmanship of Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg, minister for revenue, agriculture, forests and cooperatives, to prepare a plan for the abolition of big landed estates and transfer of land to tiller. The New Acts
In J&K, there were about 22 lakh acres of cultivated lands belonging to the maharaja, his jagirdars and chakdars (a class of landlords). The landlords rented these lands to the peasants under inhuman feudalistic conditions of tenure. But, before the committee could prepare and submit its report, Sheikh Abdullah on 13 July 19509 announced sweeping land reforms in a speech from the National Conference platform (Bamzai 1973). Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 2, 2014
vol xlix no 31
Three months later, on 18 October 1950, the J&K Big Landed Estates Abolition Act was passed by the J&K assembly, which superseded most of the preceding temporary measures and legalised the sweeping land reforms. The Act was aimed at translating into practice the principle of transferring land to the “actual tillers” of the soil. “Tiller means a person who tills land with his own hand” (Thorner 1976: 48). Khaliqa, a Matipura village peasant, was the first to receive land under the Act. Under this Act, every proprietor, whether he himself cultivated land or not, retained only 22.75 acres of land (besides orchards, grass farms and fuel reserves), and the right of ownership of the remaining land was transferred to actual tillers of land (subject to the maximum that the individual cultivator can possess) free from encumbrance and without payment of compensation. The tiller-owner was, however, liable for payment of land revenue and was assessed on the land that was transferred to him, together with a surc harge of four annas per rupee of land revenue as “land development cess” which was earma rked for use in the rehabilitation of the cultivators and the improvement of land given to them. According to this Act, the landlord was allowed to keep not more than 20 acres of agricultural land, one acre of land for vegetable gardening, half acre as residential site, and 1.25 acres of orchards – altogether 22.75 acres. Also, it was stipulated that the landlord must work on his land; otherwise, it would be expropriated. Provision was also made for the confiscation of the property of “enemy agents”, these agents being largely defined as persons who had expressed a desire for Kashmir to join Pakistan (Korbel 1954). This expropriated land was to be transferred in full ownership to the maximum of 20 acres to the tenant. All lands which were not under cultivation or not rented and in excess of 22.75 acres were transferred to the government for redistribution. As far as the question of paying compensation to the exproprietors was concerned, the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act left the matter to be settled by the Constituent Assembly of the state, and till suc h time for the expropriated land t he government was to pay the former owner for the first year after expropriation an amount equal to three-quarters of the land revenue of the expropriated land, for the second year twothirds, and for the th ird year and subsequent years half of such land revenue, these sums never to exceed Rs 3,000 per year (Korbel 1954). With a view to check a nd safeguard agai nst the evasion and circumvention of the law, the Act declared all transfers of land made after April 1948 to be null and void. This included the transfer of land consequent on partition, whether the transfer was affected by an order or decree of any court or an act of the par ties, if it was found that such tran sfer was made mala fideor with an intention to defeat the object of the enactment (J&K Today nd). Under the new law, the interest of the ex-proprietor in any land which was transferred to the tiller was not liable to attachment or sale in execution of a decree or any other process of any court, civil or revenue, and any attachment existing at the date of transfer or any order for attachment passed before such date ceases to be in force. Similarly, all suits and 133
SPECIAL ARTICLE
their land. He related the new measure both to Communist agitation proceedings pending in any court of law at the date of the in the state and to the conflict with Pakistan, and suggested that ‘agents transfer of land, and all proceedi ngs upon any decree or order of Pakistan jagirdars in whose grip those areas are at present will not passed in any such su it or proceedings previous to t he date of allow these meas ures to be implemented, and so it is for the people of transfer in respect of any interest in the land so transferred, those areas to rise and overth row their enslavers’ (Bek ker 1951: 328). were stayed. All holdings between two and 12 acres of selfcultivating properties were made inalienable. The tiller was When the National Conference government decided to carry not allowed to transfer the newly acquired property without out the land reforms in the state, especially the resumption of governmental permission. No one other than a Kashmiri citi- the jagirdari system, the opposition to the reforms came not zen was entitled to acquire land. If a proprietor or tiller dies only from the head of the state, Hari Singh, in the form of without heir, or transfers the land or any interest therein in withholding of assent, but also from the Indian government, contra vention of the law, or sublets it continuously for two har- especially Union Home Mini ster Vallabhbhai Patel who did not vests, he loses the rights of ownership, which lapses to the trust the leadership of the National Conference (Navlakha government (J&K Today nd). 1996). V Shankar, private secretary to Sardar Patel, on 4 May In most cases, the government fai led to receive the land tax 1948 wrote to Sheikh Abdullah: from the peasants for the simple reason that they had no Honourable Minister (Sardar Patel) has a sked me to request you to see money to pay. As a logical consequence, former owners rarely Panditji (Prime Min ister Nehru) about it (withholding of assent to the resumption of jagirs) inviting his attention in particular to the fact had any indemnity paid to them – for precisely the same reason. that these jagirs are being sought to be resumed without any payment The Constituent Assembly on 6 November 1951 appointed an of compensation whatever, which is quite contrary to anyth ing that we 11-member committee to examine and report on the desirability are doing in the Indian Dominion. It is also to be borne in mind that or otherwise of the payment of compensation for lands exproprobably the jagirdars would be mostly non-Muslims (Hindus), and priated under the provisions of the Act. this measure would probably create a certain amount of discontent and ill-feeling against the government among the minority community Acting on the report of the committee, on 26 March 1952, (Raina 1988: 162). the Constituent Assembly of the state decided to confiscate all landed estates without any compensation (Korbel 1954).10 At The credit for the historic decision of the land reforms was the time when the Act was passed, there were 1.5 lakh absen- given to the government for t heir foresight at a time when notee landlords holding 11% of the land, and cultivating peasants body in Pakistan and ver y few in India had thought of making numbering nearly 8 lakh holding 32% of the total cultivated the experiment. But, the reforms were not above criticism. area of the state. There were 3 lakh peasants who had no land, According to Amrita Bazar Patrika , Calcutta (quoted in but cultivated 10% of the total cultivated area. All t hese figures Kashmir after 9 August 1953 (1955: 13)), tell of how large an a rea was held by the absentee landowners Credit must be given to him and to the National Conference for introand how little was with those who themselves cultivated the ducing land reforms in the State at a time when nobody in Pakistan and very few in India had thought of making the experiment. But the land. About 1.45 lakh acres of land was owned by 472 propriereforms in Jammu and Kashmir were introduced in a huff. The Land tors, and 1,886 owners held 1,40,760 acres of land. There were Reform Committee of which his policy-maker, Mirza Afzal Beg, was about 9,000 proprietors whose holdings exceeded 20 acres of the chairman, had neither concluded its deliberations, nor had the land, out of which nearly 5,62,000 acres were transferred to committee submitted its report and the recommendations to the the tillers under the Abolition Act (J&K Today nd).“The success government. Suddenly – presumably on account of political exigencies – he thought of abolishing the big landed estates and transferring land of the Act of 1950 can be very well appreciated from the fact to tillers. The quest ion had not been exam ined in all its details and no that out of 9.5 lakh acres of land distributed throughout the regular plan had been prepared when one fine morning he ancountry till 1970, about half (i e, 4.5 lakh acres) was dist ributed nounced the reforms from the National Conference party platform. in J&K alone” (Verma 1994: 94). The law had not been prepared and the assent of the Head of the The National Conference government, in order to review State which was necessary before the reforms of such a far reaching character could be announced had not been obtained. Though the the working of land reforms in the kandi (dry) areas of the announcement was regularised later on, the breathless hurry in state, appointed a committee under the chairmanship Justice which a time-old system was abolished without even proper obseJanaki Nath Wazir in 1952,11 who, in his report, recom mended quies, left every one wondering. The result was that the reform s were that the maximum unit for a proprietor in Kashmir kandi not implemented properly. Avenues of corruption were opened and should be fixed at roughly 28 acres and for a proprietor in the ‘the gift was bereft of the benefit’. The ceiling of holding was put arbitrarily no matter if the land was irrigated or dry. Some tillers got Jammu kandi at 34 acres, against the present uniform unit of less while others got more. 22.75 acres. The committee also recommended that lands attached to Gumpas (Buddhist religious institutions) in Ladakh Daniel Thorner (1953), who visited the valley in 1953 noticed should be excluded from the operation of the Act. similar grievances from the people of the villages he visited. He was informed that some of the well-off families in the Opposition to the Reforms village, when they got wind of the impending land reform, had Commenting on the issue of paying compensation to the gone through the legal forms of breaking up their joint famiformer landlords, Sheikh Abdullah stated that lies. People with money and connections were able to acquire more land than was due to them under the Act. Those who neither his government, which had inhe rited a bankrupt treasu ry, nor the penniless tiller was in a position to compensate big landlords for already possessed large landholdings were in t he best position
134
augu st 2, 2014
vol xl ix no 3 1
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
to receive additional allotments. According to him, the bitter- The land reforms in the state were made more effective by est complaints were about the government’s procurement taking measures to relieve the distress of rural and poor debtors policy and the malfunctioning of the cooperatives. “Yet, by preventing creditors from charging excessive interest. whatever the defects in implementation, t he fact of agrarian Along with the Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976, was also passed change could not be denied. Many tillers have become the J&K Debtors’ Relief Act of 1976, and the J&K Restitution of landowners and some land has even gone to the landless” Mortgaged Properties Act of 1976. These Acts were passed to (Thorner 1976: 50). provide relief to debtors as it was done in t he 1950s. According to Tara Singh Rekhi (1993), as recommended by the land comKeeping in view the total sociopolitical turmoil and post-partition mission and the subsequent agrarian reforms by the governdevelopment throughout the subcontinent the agrarian reforms of early fifties were definitely radical. Smooth transformation, irrespecment, the absentee landlordism vanished from the state, tive of the reasons which made it possible, of agra rian set-up added an tenancy system was abolished and the ownership rights of element of uniqueness to it. Number of anomalies in the pattern of land were vested in the ti llers. The total number of beneficia rland tenure crept in over the years. For instance, the Big Landed ies from the transfer of land to the tillers f rom 1951 up to 1985 Estates Abolition Act carried with it certain discrepancies such as unistood at 11,22,918 (see Table), whereas during the period from form fixation of ceiling without giving due weight to fertility of soil and geo-physical contiguity. Similarly, no ceiling was imposed on 1980 to 1985, the number of beneficiaries was 5,38,000 holding size of protected tenants who illega lly sublet their land violat(Rekhi 1993). ing the spirit of land reforms. Hence the govern ment in 1963 set up a Land Commi ssion to find out the various discrepa ncies which had crept in over the years in the land tenure pattern. The recommendations of this Commission formed, by and large, the basis of Jammu and Kashm ir Agraria n Reform Act, 1972 (Repealed) (Bhat 1989: 102).
Outcomes of the Reforms
According to George Mathew (2011: 25), land reform was a water shed in the history of J&K and a measure, the first of its kind in the subcontinent, lauded by different sections of society and people belonging to different walks of life in the countr y. The land reform greatly helped the marginalised sections, especially the scheduled castes to become landowners.
This Act ended the rights in land of those who personally never cultivated, and also reduced the ceiling limit to 12.5 standard acres of land. With the enactment of this new Act, the old system of the landlord-tenant relationship came to an end. According to another research on land reforms in the state by Ashish Saxena (quoted in Mathew 2011), during the 1950sTable: Land Transferred to Tillers in J&K from 1951-52 to 1980-85 1970s, out of total surplus land of 84 acres, mainly taken away S No Year Land Transferred Number of Number of (in Acres) Tillers Beneficiaries from Rajputs and Mahajans, 70.24% was allotted to scheduled 1 1951-52 92,927 30,418# 2,98,922 caste tenants. A radical inter-generational shift in the occupa2 1952-53 66,755 50,189 1,70,165 tion pattern of the scheduled castes in terms of landless agri3 1953-54 36,619 32,260 1,15,831 cultural labourers to landowning peasants from grandfather 4 1980-85 1,06,000 3,08,000 5,38,000 (nil) to 47.1% in the present generation has taken place. Total 3,02,301 4,20,8 67 11,22,918 However, Verma (1994) has dif ferent views on the outcomes # However, Aslam (1977: 62) puts this figur e at 80,418 quoting Economic Development in Figures (Jammu and Kashmir), Director of Information, Srinagar. of the agrarian reforms in J&K. For him, the land reforms were Source: Rek hi (1993: 127). not sufficient to extinguish the class differences between the Even the new Agrarian Reforms Act of 1972 was found higher and lower sections in the farm sector. With the intro wanting in many ways. Whi le enforcing the Act, it was found duction of better irrigation facilities and high yielding crop that many landowners who depended heavily on income from varieties, new classes of rich peasants and orchard owners land and wanted to cultivate the land personally could not have become dominant and stifled efforts towards equity in own or cultivate the land. Some tillers had to pay higher rent the countryside. The increasing inequalities in the agrarian than what they were paying before the enforcement of the sector may be attributed to the defective ceiling laws, circum Act. In order to remove these discrepanc ies, the Reforms Act vention of laws by the landed peasantry and exemption of of 1972 was replaced by the Reforms Act of 1976 (amended) orchards from the ceiling laws. Dhar’s opinion on the land which, af ter its enforcement, came into ef fect on 1 May 1973 reform is also quite simi lar to that of Verma. (Bhat 1989). The Act of 1976 also fixed a ceili ng of 12.5 standLand reforms in Kashmir involved a gigantic redistribution of ownerard acres including orchards with certain conditions. ship holdings both horizontally and vertically. These reforms led to It further seeks to bring about the complete peasant proprietorship of land by eliminating landlord-tenure relationship wherever it exists within the ceiling limit of 12.5 standard acres. It has kept option for the petty landlord to resume for his personal cultivation that fraction of his holdings which is equal to the fraction of that produce which he was recovering as rent from the tiller. Tiller shall become the owner of the rest of the land left with him. Unlike the previous Acts tenant should be deemed to have become the owner of the land right from the enforcement of the new Act but shal l have to pay compensation for the land which he owns within a period of 10 years from the date of enforcement of the Act (Bhat 1989: 103). Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 2, 2014
vol xlix no 31
the total restruct uring of land tenure system. By and large it achieved its aims but it brought forth new problems. …Establishment of peasant proprietorship in Kashmir, however, led to the concentration of more land in the hands of rich peasantry. It abolished absentee landlords but created Kulaks at the site of the land (Dhar 1989: 256-57).
For Thorner (1953: 1002), Land reform in Kashm ir has clearly done away with the jagirs, and has weakened the position of all the great landlords. It has distinctly benefited those individuals who, at the village level, were already the more important and substantial people. It has done the least for the petty
135
SPECIAL ARTICLE
tenants and landless labourers, these two categories being the largest in the countryside. By not paying the compensation to the dispossessed absentee landlords, Kashmir has escaped the financial burden which several of the states of India have found so onerous.
Sheikh Abdullah, being a far-sighted leader, knew from his experiences since 1931 that bringing radical cha nge in the state and fighting the Dogra Maharaja would not be an easy task without active support of the entire K ashmiri society. For Rai (2004) agrarian reforms in Jammu and Kashmir were not as radical as t hey were made out to be. She finds “indications of the compulsions to placate a variety of special interests with in Kashmiri society, including Pandit concerns, under which Abdullah had to operate” (Rai 2004: 281-82) while implementing land reforms. According to her, the radical promises made in the New Kashmir Manifesto (1944) were diluted by the ruling party so that there was no social instability in the countryside. Corruption in the National Conference machinery mitigated the harsher aspects of the reforms for the big landowners. Smelling a nexus between the National Conference government and Kashmiri Pandits, Ra i asks how come Pandits did not oppose the agraria n reforms. It is said that over 30% of the land in the valley belonged to (the Pandits) prior to the reforms, much of which had been obtained at the time of the first settlement of the 1880s. An equally large proportion was obtained through purchase after 1934, when proprietary rights were granted to Kashmiri cultivators following the agitation of 1931-2. Considering that the Pandits comprised approximately 5% of the Kashmiri population, their control of over 30% of the land speaks for significantly large holdings. However, Pandits did not resist
the abolition of big landed estates quite as shrilly as did their Dogra counterparts (R ai 2004: 283).
According to her, an arena in which the National Confe rence made conspicuous concessions to Pandit privileges was in administrative employment. Their primary vocation...being employment in government service, 10% of the state jobs were reserved for Pandits. While it is true that a much larger proportion of 50% was reserved for Muslims, the smaller numbers of the Pandits made this an impressively generous allowance. Indeed the Pandits were getting much more than their proportion of the population entitled them to and, through the liberality of the National Conference, were said to be better represented in the state serv ices than they had ever been before (Rai 2004: 284). Conclusions
As expected, India’s most-publicised land reform became a success. This achievement has been attributed largely to the political will of the leadership of J&K, especially that of Sheikh Abdullah, and the special status granted to the state under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This Article of the Indian Constitution, originally intended as an interim measure, gave exemption to J&K from the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Sheikh Abdullah, to whom Maharaja Hari Singh had handed over the reins of the state after signing the Instrument of Accession to India, had sought such an exemption so that his government could implement the promises made in his New Kashmir Manifesto. As expected, there was also a strong reaction against the land reforms because majority of the beneficiaries were poor
The Problem of Caste NEW
Edited by
SATISH DESHPANDE Caste is one of the oldest concerns of the social sciences in India that continues to be relevant even today. The general perception about caste is that it was an outdated concept until it was revived by colonial policies and promoted by vested interests and electoral politics after independence. This hegemonic perception changed irrevocably in the 1990s after the controversial reservations for the Other Backward Classes recommended by the Mandal Commission, revealing it to be a belief of only a privileged upper caste minority – for the vast majority of Indians caste continued to be a crucial determinant of life opportunities. This volume collects significant writings spanning seven decades, three generations and several disciplines, and discusses Pp xi + 425 Rs 595 established perspectives in relation to emergent concerns, disciplinary responses ranging from sociology to law, the ISBN 978-81-250-5501-3 relationship between caste and class, the interplay between caste and politics, old and new challenges in law and policy, 2014 emergent research areas and post-Mandal innovations in caste studies. Authors: Satish Deshpande • Irawati Karve • M N Srinivas • Dipankar Gupta • André Béteille • Rajni Kothari • Kumkum Roy • Sukhadeo Thorat • Katherine S Newman • Marc Galanter • Sundar Sarukkai • Gopal Guru • D L Sheth • Anand Chakravarti • Carol Upadhya • Ashwini Deshpande • Meena Gopal • Baldev Raj Nayar • Gail Omvedt • Mohan Ram • I P Desai • K Balagopal • Sudha Pai • Anand Teltumbde • Surinder S Jodhka • Ghanshyam Shah • Susie Tharu • M Madhava Prasad • Rekha Pappu • K Satyanarayana • Padmanabh Samarendra • Mary E John • Uma Chakravarti • Prem Chowdhry • V Geetha • Sharmila Rege • S Anandhi • J Jeyaranjan • Rajan Krishnan • Rekha Raj • Kancha Ilaiah • Aditya Nigam • M S S Pandian
Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd
www.orientblackswan.com Mumbai • Chennai • New Delhi • Kolkata • Bangalore • Bhubaneshwar • Ernakulam • Guwahati • Jaipur • Lucknow • Patna • Chandigarh • Hyderabad Contact:
[email protected]
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Muslims, and those who lost their lands were powerful in 1953, his successors in Srinagar were not accepted by Hindu landlords having strong ties with the erstwhile ruler the “people” as their own leaders, rather they were seen as and other important political leaders in New Delhi. There “rulers” who were imposed on them by New Delhi. The were also reports of an anti-reform movement launched by the people of Kashmir were neither anti-Pakistan, nor pro-India; “Praja Parishad”, but it cut no ice. Needless to say, these they were, in fact, pro-Sheikh Abdullah because of his reforms were not only extremely popular in the Muslim- untiring implementation of the radical agrarian reforms. dominated areas of the state, but were also equally popular in So, the people of Kashmir were ready to go anywhere Sheikh the areas dominated by “Harijans” (scheduled castes) and Abdullah would take them. This is where the leadership of lower-middle-class Hindus. Sheikh Abdullah becomes crucial as someone who fought for Owing to post-Partition developments, particularly the in- social, economic, political and cultural rights since 1931, ternational conflict over Kashmir and immense popularity of whereas his successors lacked his strengt h, chari sma and, Sheikh Abdullah, the opposition to the agrarian reforms could above all, the legitimacy. not even find any outside patronage. Involving all Kashmiris i n Prime Minister Nehru knew the importance of Sheikh a “nation-building” programme and the articulation of the Abdullah as far a s India’s relations with J&K were concerned. notion of “Kashmiriyat” were some of the strategies adopted The governments in New Delhi, over the years, in thei r eagerby the state government to not just deflect the rising opposi- ness to integrate the state with India and do away with the tion to the reform programmes, but also to streng then its pop- “interim measure” of Article 370, eventually separated the ularity and acceptability in the post-Dogra regime and tighten people of the state from India. New Delhi’s relations with J&K its hold over the state. could have become an example of a true federal system in Although reforms in the land relations in the state continued practice, but it is presented more as an example of asymmetry even after the removal of Sheikh Abdullah from power in the Indian federation. Notes
1 The chief minister in J&K was earlier designated as prime minister. However, this was changed when the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1965 was passed on 10 April 1965. 2 According to Alastair Lamb, Sheikh Abdullah became head of the J&K Emergency Government on 29 October 1947 (with the title of Chief Emergency Administrator), with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed as his deputy and Mirza Afzal Beg as a minister. This Emergency Government, however, continued to operate under the general supervision of the prime minister or Diwan, who until March 1948 remained Mehr Chand Mahajan (Lamb 1992: 144-45). According to Khushwant Singh, Sheikh Abdullah was appointed Director General, Administration – the first Kashmiri Muslim to hold this post (Abdullah 1993: 97). 3 Muafis were land revenue assignments, and there were two types of muafis: religious and non-religious. In religious muafis, one-third of the amount of the land revenue was received by the muafidar in cash and two-thirds in kind. In the case of non-religious muafis, the whole of the assigned land revenue was received either in cash or kind, or both. The government totally abolished the non-religious muafis and also terminated the right to receive the assigned land revenue in kind, in respect of religious muafis. To receive grain in the name of religion, and that too at e xploitative rates, was absolute per version of the spirit of religion (Malaviya 1955). 4 According to Mirza Afzal Beg (1995), who held the revenue portfolio in Sheikh Abdullah’s government, there were 396 jagirdars and muafidars in the state and they an nually appropriated an amount of Rs 5,66,313 out of land revenue, whereas J&K Today (nd) puts this amount at Rs 5,56,313. 5 In 1834, Ladakh was annexed by Maharaja Gulab Singh with the help of his general Zorawar Singh, and it was finally incorporated into the Dogra state in 1842 after crushing a Ladakhi rebellion. 6 Apart from Bertrand J Glancy, who was a senior officer in the Political Department of the Government of India, the other members of the commission included Khawaja Ghulam Ahmad Ashai (Muslim nominee from Kashmir), Chaudhari Ghulam Abbas (Muslim nominee Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 2, 2014
from Jammu), Pandit Prem Nath Bajaj (Pandit nominee from Kashmir), and Pandit Lok Nath Sharma (Pandit nominee f rom Jammu). 7 In October 1932, Sheikh Abdullah founded the All Jammu a nd Kashmir Muslim Confe rence. On 11 June 1939, it was renamed as the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. 8 According to Alastair Lamb (1992), Sheikh Abdullah on 5 March 1948 was appointed prime minister as head of an Interim Government of the state of J&K. 9 13 July is celebrated every year in Kashmir as Martyrs’ Day in the memory of those who died following a clash with the police in 1931. 10 However, according to Jammu and Kashmir Today, the date on which it was decided by the Constituent Assembly was 13 March 1952 ( J&K Today, nd: 15). 11 Justice Janaki Nath Wazir was a former judge of Lucknow High Court and subsequently Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court. References
Abdullah, Sheikh Mohammad (1993): Flames of the Chinar: An Autobiography, abridged and translated from the Urdu by Khushwant Singh (Delhi: Viking). Aslam, Mohamed (1977): “Land Reforms in Jammu and Kashmir”, Social Scientist , 6(4): 59-64. Bamzai, Prithivi Nath Kaul (1973): A History of Kashmir: Political , Social, Cultura l, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (Delhi: Metropolitan Book). Beg, Mirza A fzal (1995): “Land Reforms i n Jammu and Kashmir” in Verinder Grover, The Story of Kashmir: Yesterday and Today, Volume 2 (Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications), 406-10. Bekker, Konrad (1951): “Land Re form Legislation in India”, The Middle East Journal , 5(3): 319-36. Bhat, M S (1989): “A Profile of Agrarian Science in Jammu and Kashmir” in M L Sharma and R K Punia (ed.), Land Reforms in India: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Delhi: Ajanta Publications), pp 99-111. – (2000): “Land Distribution in Rural Jammu and Kashmir: An Inter-temporal Analysis” in B K Sinha a nd Pushpendra (ed.), Land Reforms in India: An Unfinished Agenda , Vol 5 (New Delhi: Sage Publications), pp 139-69. vol xlix no 31
Dhar, D N (1989): Socio-Economic History of Kashmir Peasantry (Srinagar: Centre for Kashmir Studies). J&K Today (nd): Jammu and Kashmir Today , Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir after 9 Augus t, 1953 (1955): Kashmir after 9 August 1953 (Srinagar: Lalla Rookh Publications). Kashmir Marches Ahead (1958): Kashmir Marches Ahead: A Review of Progress (Srinagar: Lalla Rookh Publications). Korbel, Josef (1954): Danger in Kashmir (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). Lamb, Alastair (1992): Kashmir: A Disputed Legac y, 1946-90 (Karachi: Oxford University Press). Lawrence, Walter (1967): The Valley of Kashmir (Srinagar: Kesar Publications). Malaviya, H D (1955): Land Reform s in India (New Delhi: Economic & Political Research Department, All India Congres s Committee). Mathew, George (2011): “Land Reforms: Jammu and Kashmir Shows the Way”, Yojana, October, 55: 24-26. Navlakha, Gautam (1996): “Invoking Union: Ka shmir and Official Nationalism of ‘Bharat’” in T V Sathyamurthy (ed.), Social Change and Political Discourse in India: Structure of Power, Movements of Resistance, Volume 3: Region, Reli gion, Caste, Gender and Culture in Contem porary India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 64-106. Rai, Mridu (2004): Hindu Ruler s, Musli m Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (Delhi: Permanent Black). Raina, N N (1988): Kashmir Politic s and Imperialist Manoeuvres: 1846-1980 (New Delhi: Patriot Publishers). Rekhi, Tara Singh (1993): Socio-Economic Justice in Jammu and Kashmir: A Critic al Study (New Delhi: Ideal Publications). Thorner, Daniel (1953): “The Kashmir Land Reforms: Some Personal Impressions”, The Economic Weekly , 5(37): 999-1002. – (1976): The Agrarian Prospect in India, second edition (New Delhi: A llied Publishers). Verma, P S (1994): Jammu and Kashmir at the Political Crossroad s (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House).
137
