119
without compensation, to leave the plot before the land sharing agreement is reached (Payne, 2000: 284)
As this study assesses the extent to which the legislative and regulatory framework addresses land reform, in this case, the legislation seem to be failing to address the land redistribution programme. The reason might be that slum communities may end up giving up before the negotiations are complete.
This policy will not promote community development and poverty reduction, as the slum communities, who are the primary target, will not benefit because of their desperation for a place to live. A principle of public administration is that policy should be designed in a way that maximises the likelihood of successful implementation (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, 2005: 359).
120
iii Increasing focus on water and soil conservation. This led to the establishment of the Waste Land Development Agency to focus on wasteland and degraded land.
iv Debates on the necessity to continue with land legislation and improve the land legislation and improve the land revenue administration, 1995 onwards (Deshpande, no date:16 and Deininger, Jin and Nagarajan, 2009: 501)
The first three phases of land reform were intended to impact on poverty alleviation. The fourth phase impacted on environmental management.
The old caste system has negatively impacted on social mobility and landlessness. The large scale programmes were introduced to redistribute land to both the poor and landless Besley and Burgess (2000 in Deininger et al, 2009: 497). However, the programme had numerous dimensions, because the mandate was with the individual states than the central government of India.
This caused difficulties in the implementation of the programme.
4.7.2 Policy framework
In India, women were deprived of property rights. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 gave property rights to daughters, the widow or the mother of a property owner who was dying. In the 1990s there was call for the states to make provision of gender rights in the Land Ceiling Act of 1961. This Act was passed by all states in India and was meant to achieve the following:
reduce the maximum land holdings
acquire the surplus land
distribute the acquired land to the landless and marginal farmers (Food and Agricultural Organisation, no date: 1)
The legislation was full of gaps that favoured big landholders. Most states delayed the implementation of the land ceiling legislation to allow big landholders to manipulate the land records. In 1970, only 50% of one million hectares of agricultural land was distributed to the rural poor, not the landless.
121
The other land policy introduced was The National Agricultural Policy which focused on the policy of land leasing. This policy intended to liberalise the leasing legislation, increase land ceilings and allow contract farming (Deshpande, no date: 19).
India applied MBLRs to implement its land reform programme. Questions have been raised as to whether these structural adjustments in land reform policies could be replaced by poverty alleviation programmes (Singh, 2000:361), since the structural adjustments do not seem to contribute towards poverty reduction.
As land reform impacts are captured, it has emerged that there are discrepancies in contemporary rural India. These impacts affect small farmers in search of viable technology, landless labourers on the verge of being displaced, tribal people depending on common land, small farmers leasing land, tillers in dry zones and displaced farmers (Seetharaman, 2002, 439).
The Land Redistribution Act in Haryana embraced the willing-buyer willing- seller principle, and had limited success. To illustrate how negatively the legislation has impacted on land reform, land expropriation became an option.
In Haryana, economically and politically influential landowners impeded the success of land reform. Likewise, in South Africa, the farmer unions are very influential regarding the course of land reform.
In Punjab, land reform impacted on the tenants, revealing how capitalist agriculture affects tenants. Both small and marginal farmers found it difficult to survive and eventually leased their land to medium and big farmers. These lease arrangements were not on a crop-sharing basis but stipulated cash rent (Thapliyal, 2002: 301). This process is called ‘reverse tenancy’, because small and marginal farmers are unable to succeed in input intensive and mechanised farming. They are then deprived of the benefits of capitalist agriculture. This situation demonstrates that land reform in Punjab did not contribute to community development and poverty reduction. In essence, it deprived both small and medium farmers who support large families of a livelihood and left some families without food altogether.
122
Relating this to the key question of the extent to which legislative and regulations have addressed land reform, this is obviously not the case. The reason is that MLRs are legislative policies that could not benefit intended land reform beneficiaries, such as tenants and agricultural labourers. Land redistribution should be supplemented by access to technology, credit and other basic minimum services on the part of the poor. This would make agriculture a viable livelihood (Hanumantha, 2001: 593). There was no access to credit, technology and in particular basic services in India.
4.7.3 Merits
India’s land reform policy includes the provision of loans as credit to emerging farmers. These loans and credit started with the MBLR which was based on the structural adjustments land reform policy. The emerging farmers were encouraged to apply for these loans to assist in farm production. Unfortunately interest on these loans has increased to the extent that borrowers are unable to repay their loans and their property is repossessed. As a result, land reform objectives are not achieved. However, emerging farmers who are able to manage their finances correctly are able to survive.
The Land Ceiling Act of 1961 was meant to provide the landless and the poor with an opportunity to possess land. Its intention was to reduce the size of large land holdings so that others could have a share.
4.7.4 Demerits
The Land Ceiling Act of 1961 was full of gaps in its implementation. The big land holders manipulated the land records in most states. The results were that only 50% of the one million hectares was distributed by the 1970. The landless people were left to suffer the result of disparity in land possession.
Legislation in India does not seem to have addressed crucial issues of land reform. Instead, what has happened is that marginalised people have been displaced. Indian land redistribution policy has been a failure because although beneficiaries may have gained access to land, but production has either fallen or ground to a complete halt. It has been argued that if the situation is not
123
attended to there will be in the long run be social injustice and economic disaster (Seetharaman, 2002, 439).
Land reform has not had much impact on peasants in the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana (two Indian states (Thapliyal, 2001: 299). It has not contributed to community development or poverty reduction. The situation in Haryana is similar to that in South Africa, were legislation impedes land reform.
From a public administration perspective, such a policy needs to be reviewed and be subjected to outcome analysis. This entails examining the extent to which the policy changed its course and thereby failed to achieve its intended objectives (Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, 2005: 354).
Land reform did not achieve the desired goals, and impacted very little on agricultural development and poverty reduction in these states. The relevant state departments seem to have learnt a lesson from these developments. It is noted that land reform is an unfinished agenda in India as well as in many developing countries. There are views that MLR (Market land reform) might not benefit tenants, agricultural labourers and small landowners (Hanumantha, 2001: 592).