8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

1/11

UNIT 4 L ND TENURE SYSTEMS NDGR RI N STRUCTURE I1

Contents4.0 Objectives4.1 Introduction4.2 South India

4.2.1 Re-British Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems4.2.2 Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems during Colonial Period

4.3 Land Tenure Systems in North India4.4 Impact of British Rule in Northern and Central India4.5 Initiatives to Change Land Tenure and Agrarian Structure after Independence4.6 Let Us Sum Up4.7 Key Words4.8 Suggested Readings4 0 OBJECTIVESAfter going through this unit you will be able to understand:

l a d enure systems and agrarian structure during pre-British and British periodin North, South and Central part of India;the kind of land tenure and agrarian structure existed in North-East region ofthe country;the need of transformation in agrarian structure by introducing elements .ofchange in land tenure systems; andthe nature of land tenure system and agrarian structure after independence.

4 1 INTRODUCTIONIn the previous Units we have read that the systems of land tenure introduced bythe British in various parts of India were more or less of the same nature and hadidentical results. The outcome of the land settlements instituted by the British c nbe summarized as-1 It created a class of parasitic landlords, moneylenders, land speculators andWaders. They dealt mainly with agricultural produce and started playing an

ipportant role in the governance of countryside. This class was not interestedin any productive investment or agricultural development.

2 It promoted commercialization of agriculture especially in the areas producingfor export.3 It turned land into a private property. It made it possible that land could bealienated from the cultivators, throughout the country. The parasitic elements

who were controlled the countryside had dominant hold on surplus producegenerated by the cultivators.

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

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

2/11

Land Tenure Systems and4.2 SOUTH INDIA Agrarian ~tueture 114.2.1 Pre British Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure SystemThe accounts of villages in South India indicate extensively the existence of villagesmanaged by those other than the state before advent of British rule in India. Themost important was the prevalence of villages plaLed under the poligars. Poligarshad rented the villages. Some time a village rented at a privileged rate was grantedto one of them. In the same way a number of villages were placed under thevarious categories of people or institutions as well. Thus there were many villageswhich were not under the direct management of the state but were independentlymanaged by some individuals/institutions.Those poligars who had jurisdiction over hundreds of village used to exert pressurelike a king with the help of their military followers. The tiny poligars, thoughnumerically dominant, used to perform the duties like policeman in the small localities.Another striking feature was that some agricultural castes (vellaler) also entered inthe poligarship. These Vellaler poligars were either the residents of same village orcame from the neighbourhood. These were recorded as the mirasidars. Thesemirasidars were considered as owners of the village. They were the controllers ofthe production activities in the village. Mirasi right was known to be stable,mortagageable and inheritable. The significant feature of the mirasi was that evenNawab could not usurp it by force and had to purchase it.The late pre colonial South India had the mirasi system which may be consideredlike a social grammer through which one can understand one s wealth, status andpower in the society. Everyone from village functionaries to the state was expectedto perform its role for which some share in the product was assigned.Another concept related to land holding prevalent in South India before the colonialconquest is described by Robert Frykenberg as privileged land holding . Privilegein land holding was viewed as n arrangements that pertained to advantages (rightsand immunities) enjoyed by some, usually a minority. It originated from a grant fromthose in authority in the political community. In South India this grant was knownas inam which meant grant of land held rent free, on hereditary and perpetualoccupations. Grants by the rulers were called sanadi-inams and grants coming outof village resources were called gramu-inam or manyam . Classified functionallyand communally, host of imams were often known by their designated names. Forexample Muslim imams were known as waqf and muafi , Hindu inam asagraharams , shrotiyams and yatra Che-kathis etc. A descriptive list of imams

tenure of Madras presidency was submitted to the Government on 30 ' October1869 and contained some 452 separate categories of imams. Most of these categorieswere then defined or described as land holdings either wholly or almost wholly freefrom taxation. On the basis of the records of the East India Company in SouthIndia, Frykenberg (1977) has differentiated inam in four main categories accordingto their functioning. These categories have been broadly classified as i) Socio-religious holdings, ii) Socio-political holdings, iii) Social service holdings, andiv) Socio-economic holdings.4.2.2 Agrarian Structure and Land Tenure Systems during Colonial PeriodEast India Company established its rule in Canara in 1800 and claimed its base inHyderabad, Poona and Mysore. Munro was able to arrange a political settlementwith the important leaders and lords of the villages and formed alliances with local/village leaders. When Munro became governor of Madras in 1820, he establishedhis system of settlement throughout the Presidency wherever zamindarisettlements were not in force. This settlement was known as Ryotwari Settlement.

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

3/11

Land Tenure Systems and Thus, the first half of the nineteenth century was a period of experimentation withgrarian Structure methods of collecting the land revenue. As the British extended their rule overSouth India, they confronted major problems in the identification of persons withwhom to settle the land revenue. Whether revenue be taken directly from individualcultivators or contracts be made with intermediaries. Political stability was animportqnt factor which guided policy-for-multation. In general, the policy adoptedwas that, for the sake of political stability there should be minimum disturbance inthe traditional rights. However, the B ritish d id not always u phold this principle, a nddeviated it from time to time.Initially ryotwari settlements were introduced in certain districts. But soon after theintroduction of Permanent Settlement in Bengal, similar arrangements were madein certain districts of Madras Presidency. The land revenue was fixed in perpetuity,the zamindaris were made both inheritable and transferable, and uncultivated landwere given to the zamindars tax free. The zamindars were a diversified group.While some claimed descent from kings or military chieftains, others from taxofficials. Yet others were new men who had bought estates. The zamindaris alsovaried in size. Some were enormous, sometimes covering almost the whole of adistrict while others consisted of just a few villages. Though the land revenue andtenure in this part of India was basically ryotwari, by 1830 over a third of thePresidency was under zamindari system. Thereafter, the area under zamindarideclined. Whenever zamindars were unable to pay the revenue as demanded, thegovernment confiscated their estates and converted them to ryotwari. But eventhen around one-fourth of the area remained under zamindari system until the1940s. The late nineteenth century South India was, thus completely different.Thou gh colonial administration recognized the ma rasidar s s tatus as village lords, itwas of little consequence in terms of economic value. Colonial administration hadcreated the class of pattadars who were given the central role in the village asthe 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 zamindarsremained undefined. It appears that the peasants of the southern zamindaris werein general more secure than those in northern zamindaris. Whefi the PermanentSettlement was introduced, it was assumed that the zamindars would collect halfthe gross produce and pay two-thirds of that to the government in cash, retainingone 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 wascontracted out to middlemen, who may have been the former rent collectors, or theleading cultivators of the village, or in som e cases, speculators with little experien ceof the revenue system. These leases were initially to last for three or five yearsfollowed by decennial leases. But by 1822, it was decided that the ryotwari systemshould be introduced in all the non-zamindari areas, as and when the village leasesexpired. Under the ryotwari system, in principle, the land revenue was generallyfixed at half the gross produce on unirrigated lands and three-fifths on irrigatedland. Besides the land revenue and the amounts officially set aside for communitypurposes 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 increasedfaster than the population. Large irrigation works were completed on the riversGodavaci and the K rishna. The cultivation of cotton, groundnut and oilseeds increased.The building of roads and railways facilitated trade. Between 1881-82 and 1915-16, price of grains rose by 100 per cent or ev en more. The terms of trade movedin favour of agriculture. The burden of land revenue fell. The cultivator was ableto invest in land. Progress was rapid in some regions, notably on the Krishna-

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

4/11

odavari, N.G. Ranga calculated in 1926 that the price of fertile1500 per acre in sixty years. The real income

f the village had increased by 250 per cent during the same period. The rich

ession of the 1930s hit both the rich as well as the poor. Agricultural

ds were symptoms of the widespread agrarian distress.opulation was growing faster than agricultural output. Until 1916

dness of rural population increased during the 19th century. The same trend

tion boards set up by the government during the Depression scaled1930s the volume of debt rose further. Itduring Second World War, when agricultural prices rose sharply that there

f the crop on ry land, but his share could be less, irrigated land ranging from one-third to one-fourth of the crop. The

share also depended on input sharing arrangements. Generally, the landlord

ative infrequency of tenancy disputes or because of an implicitat tenancy could not be a problem under a system of peasantlike ryotwari, hardly any measures were taken in Madras Presidency

heck Your Progress 1Note: i) Space is given below each question for your answers.

ii) Check your answers with the text.1 Mention major land tenure systems in South India during pre-colonialperiod.

Land Tenure Systems andAgrarian Stucture I1

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

5/11

Land Tenure Systems andgrarian Structure 2) Which settlement is known as Munro settlement?

4 3 THE L ND TENURE SYSTEMS IN THE NORTHINDIThe major land tenure systems prevalent in North India were Zamindari, Mahalwariand Ryotwari. In the previous units we have already discussed about the nature ofland tenure systems. British rulers had established these land tenure systems tor~organize ndian agrarian structure to serve their interests. Under the zamindarisystem the native tax gatherers who had never taken any part in actual cultivationwere conferred proprietary rights. The consequence of this policy was that millionsof 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 3 percent part of the British India.It was prevalent in some districts of Jeeut province Agra, Avadh, Middle provinceand some parts of Punjab and North-Westem provinces. In Mahalwari systemiddividual members were not responsible for the collection of revenue and itspayment to British, but all the owners of land in the territory of a village collectivitymade an agreement on behalf of the village representatives or village mukhiydptadhan, for the fixed or certain amount for a fixed term or time period. After thatvillagers divided their respective shares and fixed their amount of land cess. In thissystem 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 vice-versa.They were all endowed with joint responsibility. Some scholars view it as favourableto the domestic tradition of India. In Mahalwari system of land tenure individualf m e r was both a zarnindar and a rent payer. In Ryotwari every registered individualfarmer was considered as owned of that land. He was responsible for paying landrevenue to the British govemment. He was permitted to sell, lease and sublet hisland any time. In Mahalwari system the unit of land revenue was the village or themohalla (a part of zagir). The owner of land was not the individual farmer, but itwas owned collectively by village sabhdgram sabha, others were called co-sharers.h Mahalwari system farmers were responsible for the payment of land revenueboth individually and collectively. Any individual was free to leave the land and insuch cases gram sabha was responsible for handling of that land. In Mahalwarisystem, 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 incase natural calamity occurred. In regulations of 1822 the Board of Commissionersalso suggested to extract fixed revenue from the village that was to be collectedby lambandar or gram pradhan. The major shortcoming of this system were highrhte of tadcess and also the rigidity of the government in extracting tax in thec alamity like famine, draught etc. The British govemment had made variousregulations and reorientation from time to time and changed the fixed land revenue.This system was subject of modification on various occasions becacse the farmers

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

6/11

were very unhappy due to its rigid and exploitative nature. In 1822 William Bentikmade an assessment of-~ahalwari ystem and in 1833 passed a regulation thattried to simplify system of assessment of yield and revenue. Different averagewere made for different kind of lands. For the first time land maps and registerswere prepared after the assessment. Martin Bind was responsible for introducingnew land revenue system in Northern India. He was known as the father of landsettlement in the northern regions. Land revenue was fixed in Mahalwari on thebasis 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 tothe government directly. Land keeping farmers were directly responsible for providingrevenue to the government. They had the right on land to sublet sell keep it forlease or lease it. They could not be deprived from his land if they regularly paidthe land revenue.The British assumed that permanency of settlement or zamindarisystem would bring order and permanency and zarnindars would be grateful to thegovernment. But it did not happened. British government wanted to introduce asystem that gave them right and scope of escalating land revenue from time to timein other areas. Ryotwari system was not related to big zamindars or landlords butlinked to those small landlordlzamindars who were doing their fanning with the helpof small farmers or poor landless tenants. Ryotwari system was in accordance toIndian tradition because in this system land tenure was given by those tenants/farmers who did farming themselves. The basic assumption behind Ryotwari systemwas that the state would be the sole land owner which will grant patta or title toryoyats. The ryoyat could retain the land so far as he paid the land revenueassessed by the state. However under any system of land tenure introduced by theBritish Government proprietary rights were not absolute. Being supreme the Britishgovernment had every right to determine the amount of revenue that was payableto the state. After default in payment British administration had right to auction alltypes of land. In short revenue demands were oppressive and extortionist in all thesystems.

4 4 IMPACT OF BRITISH RLTLE IN NORTHERN ANDCENTRAL INDIAIn Northern India various kinds of land tenure systems were inter mixed as bothZamindari and Mahalwari systems were introduced in this region. Initially Bengaltype permanent settlement was favoured but after 1811 considerations ofenhancement of revenue led to the abandonment of fixed revenue system and evenin the case of zamindari areas only a small proportion of land was underpermanent settlement the rest were settled temporarily. In Punjab and parts ofUnited Provinces Mahalwari system was introduced where the unit of assessmentwas the village. In this system payment of revenue became the jointresponsibility of the village propsietary body. Each individual cultivator contributedhis share in the revenue. Initially the burden of revenue was very heavy. The Britishlaid claim to about 85 per cent of the rental. In principle it was reduced to two-thirds after 1833 and to one-half after 1855 but in actual practice this principle wasnot adhered to.From the very- beginning British government wanted to extract maximum revenuefrom the central parts of India and for this region heavy assessment was imposedby the British. High assessment land and an impossible revenue impoverished thepeople. The mistake was realized at a later date and was condemned in thestrongest terms. It was only in 1834 that a long settlement for twenty years wasconcluded in these territories which was allowed to continue till the early 1860s.Under the new settlement of 1864 that was introduced in the Central Provincesmalaguzars r revenue-payers were recognized as the proprietors of the soil with

Land Tenure Systems andAgrarian Stucture 11

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

7/11

Land Tenure Systems and a right to sell or mortgage their property. Tenancy rights were conferred on thegrarian Structure cultivators. In principle it was decided that the land revenue would be limited toone-half of the rental of estates, but the principle was not adhered at the time ofassessment. Settlement officers did not accept the actual rental of esgites. Theyestimated what the rental should be from their own calculations, and based the land.ravenue deman d on the estimated rentals. Thus, the rental considered as e basisof assessment was higher than the actual rents received by the land owners. Asa result, land revenue deman d was higher than 5 0 per cent of actual rental.Impact of Land Revenue SystemWe noticed that land revenue was to be paid in cash, not in kind. Secondly, theamount of revenue was kept fixed for a period of twenty or thirty years, under thepermanent settlement. Consequently, the revenue of the state did not increase. Onthe other hand, the payment of revenue in cash generated a pressure on thecultivators. They were forced to produce cash crops like indigo, sugarcane andwheat, and had to borrow money for payment of tax or took advance from thevillage moneylenders of the local grain dealer-cum-moneylender, who was in somecases also the village accountant (patwari), was the position strengthened. Thecultivator was concerned more by h is immediate cash requirements to m eet revenueand rent installments and other expenses like marriage in the family rather than byprospects of higher profits from valuable crops especially when the profits tendedto make their way to the middleman's pocket. In Shahjahanpur district the fataleffects of accepting the inducement of urban Khandsaris or sugar factories becameso notorious that the Chandel Rajputs inhabiting the Ramganga tract in the K hundurpargana refused to grow sugarcane bearing loss of their independence and proprietary.title to alien creditors.Land TransfersWith the introduction of private ownership and transferable proprietary rights inland, the land sales increased. The Board of Revenue on revenue administration oforth West Province commented in 1854. The transfer of ownership of land wasmassive and fast. Probably in no other country in the world the land tenures hadchanged hands so certainly, constantly and extensively. These mutations wereeffecting a rapid and complete revolution in the position of the ancient proprietorsof the soil. Behind this alienation and mortgage of land, there em erged a serious andmuch larger problem of indebtedness. It was estimated that 10 percent of agriculturalland had already passed into the hands o f, what district officers termed, as 'the wily

mahajan and 'sleek, impassive bania . Yet official opinion remained opposed toany tampering with free trade in land because of the fear that legislative inferencemight seriously upset the provision of rural credit and jeopardize the security of theland revenue. S imilarly by the time of the 1864 Settlement in the districts of CentralProvinces, almost the whole of the profits was taken away by the moneylenders.While mortgage was growing rapidly, decrees were being carried out through 'thecivil courts in the 1870s. Continuous transfer of land from cultivators to m oneylendersprompted legislation in the shape of Bundelkhand Alienation Act of 1903. Butdespite the Alienation Act the professional m oneylenders in Bundelkhand rem aineda permanent part of the rural scene and kept their hold over the peasants. m e s emoneylenders-cum-traders were more interested in receiving rent or in controllingthe disposal of cash crops grown by the peasants than directly engaging in a g r i c u l t u ~ .Thus the introduction of legal private property right in land tended to enhanci theclaim of intermediaries above the actual cultivator and left the peasant based smallscale traditional cultivation intact. The expectation of the British of the emergenceof capitalist agriculture, which would benefits from the econ omies of scale, did notmaterialise.

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

8/11

ndTenure Systems and4.5 INITITAIVES TO CHANGE LAND TENURE AND grarian ~tucture IIAGRARIAN STRUCTURE AFTER INDEPENDENCEThe pre-independence agrarian structure that was marked with great inequality inthe ownership of land had received serious attention after Independence. Theagrarian structure which was m arked, on the one hand, by the concentration of landownership in the hands of parasitic class who played no positive role in theproduction and, on the other, had divorced the landownership from the vast massof peasantry who were the actual cultivators. Therefore, a radical measure in theform of land reforms was required to bring fundamental changes in rural socialstructure and economy.In India, land reforms w ere initiated as an attempt to alter the pattern of distributionof land holding through radical measures by the state. Several factors wereresponsible for these acts. The m easures of land reforms policy have been prominen tlylaid down in the Five Year Plan documents. The main objective of the reformspolicy may be summed up as:i To remove mdvational and other impediments to increase agricultu;al

production,ii To eliminate all elements of exploitation and ensure social-injustice withinagrarian system.The land reforms have been considered as the number one priority area in thewhole range of rClral development activities and have been on the national agendaof rural construction has been constantly recognized in the successive Five YearPlans. Governm ent of Ind ia has been continuing play its advisory role in the fieldas the subject is in the state list of the constitution and is in exclusive legislative andadministrative jurisdiction of the States. The Land Reform s Division of the M inistryof Rural Development has been playing a crucial role for evolving a nationalconsensus at various stages for taking up major steps towards effective land reformswhich included the abolition of Zamindari and of all the intermediaries since thebeginning of fifties. Important landmarks in the policy has been the introduction offamily ceiling on agricultural holdings from mid fifties and monitoring the progressof distribution of ceiling surplus land as part of the 20 Point Programme of theGovernment since seventies.The Centre and State government have, as a result, adopted important strategiesfor rural developm ent by effecting m ajor reorganization of socio-econom ic structurethrough land reforms. The land reforms prog ramm e strive to fulfill all the principlesof National Land Reforms policy which consists of the following measures.1 Abolition of interm ediaries and bringing the tenants in direct contact with thegovernment,2 Tenancy reform s with a view to provide security of tenure to actual cultivatorsof land against eviction and regulation of rents,3 Redistribution of land by imposing ceiling on ag ricultural holding,4 Consolidation of holdings,5 Prevention of alienation/restoration of alienated tribal land, and6 Updating and computerization of land records.Though the Centre and State governments have initiated several meaningful measuresrelated to land reform s, there is still a wide g ap between the p roclaimed objectivesand the ac tual outcom e. After the 731d Constitutional Am endm ent A ct 1992,Panchaya ti Raj institutions have become very important. Several subjects related to

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

9/11

Land Tenure Systems nd land reforms have been put under the jurisdiction of Panchayati Raj institutions andgrarian Structure these institutions have to play a vital role in the successful implementation ofvarious land reform programmes.The nature of the land problem varies from state to state and even from region toregion, and in introducing the Land Reforms a flexible approach has been adoptedto suit and respond to the differing local requirements. In actual practice the landreforms have faced problems and issues have varied from one point of time toanother. The ideological and political factors and the way the ownership and the useof land is interlocked with the power structures have been matters of great importanceand significance. The land reforms in India, therefore have to be viewed fromsocio-economic and political perspectives.The tenancy reforms failed to yield much positive impact, as a large number oftenants-at-will were evicted from land. Also the benefits of consolidation ofholdings remained confined to Punjab, Harayana, and western Uttar Pradesh. Thefirst phase of post independence land reforms in 1950s and 1960s yielded mixedresults. It could be termed successful in the sense that the intermediaries wereabolished, which provided the basis for improvement in agricultural productivity.Nevertheless, the unequal agrarian structure remained in place. In 1953-54 nearly8 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 termsof land ownership. Although the average size of holding declined from 2.39 hectaresin 1993-54 to 2.21 hectares in 1971 in several states, the average size of largefarms 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 ownedby rural households in 1953-54. This was nearly 38 4 per cent of the total geographicalarea and 61 per cent of the topographically usable land. certain proportion of landin the rural areas, no doubt, was owned by urban households. The owned area of310 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. Thesehouseholds constituted the cultivating small tenants. The next 24.9 per cent of thehouseholds together held only 1.4 per cent of the land and each of these held anarea less than 1 acre in size. Thus, nearly 47 per cent of the households either heldno land or held land with an area of less than one acre. The disparity in thedistribution 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 wasthe lowest in South India (about 3.42 acres), while it was the highest in CentralIndia (about 8.29 acres).How far does such extreme inequalities in the distribution of ownership holdingsaffect the agricultural economy is a question that follows naturally. It may bepointed out that, the efficiency of cultivation which depends on appropriatecombination of different factors of production.Pattern of Operational HoldingsNow in this section, we will discuss the concept of operational or cultivationholdings which refers to the operational holdings that is more appropriate to theefficiency of agricultural operation. Theoretically, even with a very adversedistribution of ownership, through a process of leasing in and leasing out, it ispossible to have a pattern of operational holdings, less inconsistent with the dictates

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

10/11

of efficient technology, or with the requirements of the laws of returns, or of returnsto scale. As a matter of fact, if there was a very little of leasing out of land by largeowners and very little leasing in by small owners, the pattern of operational holdingswould look much the same as that of ownership; and if that were the pattern ofoperational holdngs, there would be too many tiny f m s operational holdings) andsome f m s oo large for efficient cultivation.Although a small decline in concentration of land took place after the land reformlegislation, land distribution remained highly skewed. In 1953-54, the bottom 6 percent of holdings operated 15.5 per cent of area while in 1960-61 the bottom 62 percent of holdings operated 19 per cent of area. At the other end, in 1953-54 the top5.8 per cent of holdings operated 36.6 per cent of area while in 1960-61 the top4.5 per cent operated 29 per cent of area.4 6 LET US SUM UPIn this unit, we have attempted an understanding of the evolution of land tenuresystems in South India, Northern and Central India from pre colonial period to~nde~endence.e have observed that the development in agriculture sector wasnot natural but forced one. It was the British policy which forced Indian economyto serve the interest of British economy. Peasantry was forced to sell their productsin order to meet there revenue payment obligation in cash. In the process ofevolution of land relations a non agriculturist community emerged which strengthenedits grip on rural land and agricultural produce. Thus, the process of exploitation ofpoor peasant began.British agrarian policy in northern and central India stratified Indian peasantry intoa rich landlord, peasant and landless labourers and the gap between these classeswere widened day by day.In these units attempts have been made to acquaint you of various p;oblems thatemerged in the agrarian structure due to changes in land relations, which were notconductive for economic and social development. We have also discussed aboutvarious measures initiated by the Government of India and state governments toovercome the problems of rural people that emerged due to land relations duringBritish period. A brief effort has been made to acquaint the readers about postindependent scenario also.4 7 KEY WORDSMirasi right The ownership right of farming community over

village land. It was mortgageable, stable andinheritable. The significant feature of this right wasthat even Nawab could not usurp it by force, he hasto purchase it.Munro Settlement Known as Ryotwari Settlement.4 8 SUGGESTED RE DINGSDesai, 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 HistoryManohar, New Delhi.

Land Tenure Systems andAgrarian Stucture II

8/13/2019 Block 1 MRDE 003 Unit 4

11/11

andTenure Systems andgrarian Structure Grover, B.L. 1985), Indian History Manohar Publication, Delhi.Roinesh, Dutta 1990), The Economic History of India Vol-1 and Vol-2, ow

Prise Publications, Delhi.Roy, Satya 1990), Bharat Me Upniveshvad Manohar Publishing House, Delhi.Sharma, R.S. 1971), Land R evenue in India: Historical Studies Motomahal

Banarsidas, Delhi.Singh, R.P. 1987), Sociology of Development in India Discovery PublishingHouse, Delhi.