Land Reform: A Denial of Justice

By S. RAJAGOPALAN
(Advocate, Madras)

There is a soul of goodness in things evil, and even World War II which rained death and destruction had a few redeeming consequences. The catastrophe saw the end of Colonialism and imperialism, and, as a corollary, of the exploitation of man by man. The idea that a few could subsist at the expense of the many has definitely lost ground. Socialism rather than individualism is the spurt of every activity. The ‘idle rich’ belong to the past, and even in capitalist countries like England, taxation and austerity have bridged the gulf between the lord and the labourer. Politically, its immediate offshoot has been the Independence of India to be followed up by the establishment of secular democracy in Japan. People the World over are becoming attracted towards a system and a philosophy which converge on Marxism or Socialism, and the soil in every country has been made ripe for an adventure like Communism; and it is no exaggeration to say that its influence as an abstract philosophy is far more profound than the military might or proselytising zeal of Russia. But the whirligig of time brings on its own revenges. No philosophy or political theory can subsist on mere catchwords or slogans which are not broadbased on justice and fairplay; and such opposition as has recently become mainfest in the satellite countries as well as in the home of origin abundantly proves that regimentation is too high a price for the abolition of private ownership.

In India the vast majority live in a state of misery, and to the common man, the bare necessities are the veriest luxuries. It is not unnatural that all efforts should be devised to end this state of affairs, even if that means the upsetting of the social structure. Indeed any policy or legislation which helps preserve the vested interests has no chance of a hearing at the bar of public opinion or at the ballot-box. No doubt the traders and industrialists have succeeded for the nonce in scotching all plans of nationalisation; in fact their own remissness in stepping up production they would attribute to the cry for nationalisation of industries. But the landowning classes have not been placed in such a favourable position and they have necessarily to go down when the atmosphere is surcharged with cries like “Land to the Tiller”, “Absenteeism must go”, which have become veritable war cries. It would however be profitable even at this stage to discuss whether the ‘land reforms’ which will be ushered in ere long have any juristic or ethical basis. And this is best done by a careful appraisal of the land tenures ill this country.

In Madras, which one may take as a typical specimen, excluding Malabar and Mangalore, which are governed by a special tenancy law, there have been three kinds of tenures, viz., the ryotwari, the inam and the zamindari. The sovereign in ancient India (as also the State in modern times) theoretically owned the land and all that lay beneath it, namely, mines, minerals and treasure trove. The actual occupant who took it up for cultivation was in effect the full owner, subject to the payment of a tax which was normally a sixth share of the produce, and was collected by the tax officials. This is the origin of the ryotwari system which is in vogue in respect of 27.6 million acres in Madras State alone. The Hindu kings had also conferred gifts of land in favour of temples and charities and also as remuneration for public and spiritual services; the tax was nominal or remitted. This concession was later extended to the village artisans such as carpenters, barbers, etc., as a sort of old age or disability pension,–a system which even now has been adopted for the demobilised personnel and the political sufferers. This is the inam tenure which accounts for 6.8 million acres. The Muslim and British rulers were keen only on the collection of revenue and, not being in a position to deal with the occupants directly, employed the very tax officials of the Hindu kings as rent collectors and in course of time looked to them not merely for the payment of the taxes but, in certain tracts of the country, for police duties as well. Not long afterwards, the zamindars, as these people came to be styled, owning about 12.8 million acres, successfully asserted proprietary rights over the land itself, becoming gradually a sort of imperium in imperio.

The British Government dealt with these three classes distinctly and differently. The inams were enfranchised, that is freed from liability for service and the grantees were confirmed in their possession on payment of a nominal tax called quit rent. In the ryotwari tracts, a comprehensive survey of the soil was effected and taxation was fixed on that basis, which, roughly speaking, worked out at half the net produce. In regard to the zamindars their peishcush payable to the Government was standardised in 1802. What however were not standardised were the innumerable taxes and exactions which were levied on the tenants, leading to constant irritation and friction. Some of the worst abuses of the system were however remedied by legislation in Madras in 1908, whereby the Zamindari ryot was given or, to be more exact, got permanent and heritable rights of occupancy in his holding. But still more remained to be done to place him on a footing of equality with the inam or the ryotwari ryot. The cardinal fact however was that the Zamindar, unlike the ryotwari landholder or the inamdar, was at no time the owner of the land and hence could not justifiably demur to all or any of the ryots’ demands. But suddenly in 1933, the Zamindari-cum-Justicite Ministry thrust, so to say, occupancy rights On the cultivating tenant in inam villages, without any agitation in their behalf, but solely, as a retired English High Court Judge wrote to the present writer, to spite the inamdars who were mostly Brahmins. The Zamindar, however, was a mere interloper between the State and the ryot and could not be assimilated to the position of an inamdar or a ryotwari proprietor who had been from time immemorial owner of the land. And it would be the height of injustice to tar the latter with the same brush. It does by no means follow that the exit of the Zamindar must ipso facto hasten the exit of the inamdar or the ryotwari proprietor. The times however seem to be out of joint for a calm and dispassionate examination of public questions; and while all of us are guided by passion and emotion, few of us could summon enough courage to prick the bubble of such tendentious slogans as “Tillers of the soil” and “Absentee landlords.”

The ryotwari tracts belong mostly to the agricultural middle-class people who have for several centuries been functioning as full owners. With the advent of the British and the increasing opportunities for education and employment in urban areas, the villages became depopulated and the former peasant-proprietors sought and secured government jobs or flourished in trade and commerce. But in almost every instance, they did not cut themselves off from their villages and lands. Conversely also many people in the urban areas became proprietors by purchase or as investors. The income from landed property has always been negligible, especially for small landholders, and this was all too evident in the ‘depression’ years; and it was rather because of the owner’s subsidiary occupation that many holdings had not been wiped out. No doubt technically these people can be termed ‘absentee landlords’ in the sense that they do not reside in the vicinity of the property all through the year, but otherwise their connection with their lands always been real and intimate. Let us examine a typical ryotwari set-up. The landholder contributes the capital and owns the land by inheritance or purchase. He pays the government revenue and meets all the cultivation, expenses such as manures, seedlings etc., and effects all necessary improvements at his cost. He takes a share of the produce which normally would be about half the net produce. In lean years however he has to write off the dues, if he cultivates it with the aid of an intermediary; but in surplus years he does not take more than his dues. In recent times, however, thanks to the Black-shirt-cum-Communist-cum-Kisan agitation, no landholder can endeavour to collect more than what his lessee or ‘waramdar’ willingly gives. Furthermore the rentals, that is to say, the lease amounts in ryotwari tracts have remained stationary for 50 years now, as contrasted with the house rents in urban areas which have been quadrupled in recent years. As regards duration, the ryotwari lessee or ‘waramdar’ is, in the vast majority of cases, kept on almost permanently and hereditarily but the tenant of house property is exposed to summary eviction immediately following default in rent, for however long a period of years he might be in occupation. But it so happens that only the ryotwari landholder is styled as a ‘parasite’ and dealt with as such. It is true that there have appeared in the Press statements by even responsible persons about the ‘sufferings’ of the ‘tillers of the soil’, but they have been mostly on the model of the Muslim League’s atrocity stories of the Congress Governments in
1937.

But the movement has not been without repercussions. The main reason for the failure of the Grow More Food Campaign has been the growing militancy of the tenantry and the consequent disinclination of the landholder to invest huge sums for scientific planning and cultivation, which only those with other avenues of income can possibly undertake. Even the Five Year Plan which rightly devotes major attention to agriculture will not cut much ice if the ‘absentee landlord’ is dismissed outright.

Property is both tangible and intangible; that is to say, it comprises not merely houses, lands, cash and jewellery but also rights in regard to trade marks, copyrights, and business goodwill.” Generally speaking, a certain degree of ‘absenteeism’ is inherent in the enjoyment of property, except perhaps dwelling houses, personal jewellery and cash. The owner of a trade mark or copyright in England, for instance, need not have to be actually present in India to safeguard his rights; and it would be absurd to require of the Directors of a commercial concern that they should sit at the counter and participate in the business. A shareholder drawing fat dividends out of shares purchased at a nominal price in a business transacted overseas, is as much of an ‘absentee” owner as a ryotwari mirasdar who settles down in a township for earning his livelihood and educate his children. Yet, why should it be a normal feature in the one case but a sin in the latter, entailing deprivation of property? A ‘Land Reforms’ Committee which recently went into the question confessed that, “it had no sympathy with the big landlord who is content to receive a cash rent from lessees whom he may not have seen for years.” One hopes that this type of pernicious reasoning would not be applied to other kinds of property. For example, there are debenture-holders of public corporations and companies who are necessarily to be in the dark about the minutiae of the business transacted by them and have no voice in the internal management. Would that disentitle them to receive their income or assign their rights? Should every shareholder of a mill actually know and work with the labourers on pain of being ousted from ownership?

The argument that the “tiller of the soil” must be conferred ownership leads one to fantastic conclusions, if only it be carried to its logical limits. Is the State prepared to extend the concept to every other variety or form of ownership? Let us for example take the case of a film which makes a big box-office hit solely on the strength of its story and songs, bringing in several lakhs to its producer. Would any producer be compelled to share his profits with the writer and the composer upon whose ability alone the film becomes popular, but who might have been dismissed with a few hundreds after all? Sir George Schuster spoke recently in Madras of a “danger to society”, which was nothing more than the demands of labour for profit-sharing. The idea of the tiller of the soil becoming owner is equally ‘dangerous’ but how few of us realise its full import!

It is not However suggested that agricultural labour should not be protected and insured against destitution and old age; but that should be the primal concern of the State acting in collaboration with the landholder. Agricultural labour must be tackled as any other type of labour, and uniform privileges should be accorded to every variety. The lot of the tiller of the soil is bad enough in all conscience, if not desperate. Perhaps the only consolation is that it is not worse than that of a mill worker or of a miner who has no heritable or transferable right in his assignments but works harder–and in the case of a miner, at the risk of being outright by rock blasts; or indeed, for the matter of that, he is not worse off than a labourer in the tea and coffee estates. So far as agricultural labour is concerned, the two enemies, debt and drink, have been liquidated; but more remains to be done. The pressure on land must be reduced and, as Gandhiji had envisaged, supplementary occupations must be devised on the model of the Swiss farmer’s. Scientific farming and mechanisation of agriculture must be taken on hand, and the number of persons who live solely by agricultural labour must be reduced to the minimum. Conferment of proprietary rights is a leap in the dark and the anomalies it might bring about are too numerous to be mentioned. To take a common instance, several cultivating tenants take up lands collectively, and, if they own the entire holding, the resulting effect would be something very curious. Thus if A cultivates 5 acres of B, 5 acres of C, and 5 of D, he may obtain 15 acres, leaving A, Band C indigent and in the streets. Another method which is suggested is to fix a ceiling on holdings, which in the ultimate analysis may operate as discrimination, when it is not applied to other kinds of property such as houses and shares. There are, however, innumerable ways by which a tiller of the soil can become owner by dint of his own effort and diligence. The recent Tanjore Tenants Act confers very substantial benefits on the cultivating tenants, which, used efficiently and skilfully by thrift and good husbandry, may enable them to buy up their landlords themselves without resort to expropriation without compensation. In other words, let the tiller of the soil rise by his own worth and work; let him not rise on the ashes of the small landowner or peasant-proprietor. Above all let our rulers walk in the path of righteousness and Justice, not minding the allurements of China or Russia.