Land Reforms

Let’s start with the basic question: What are Land Reforms?

👉 Land Reforms are institutional changes introduced by the State to correct historical injustices in land ownership and land use.

Technically speaking, they are measures that aim at changing the existing structure of land ownership, tenancy, and cultivation in rural areas—where land is not just property, but also the primary source of livelihood.

Think of it this way: Suppose a classroom has 10 students and 10 pens, but 2 students are holding 8 pens, while the remaining 8 students share only 2 pens. Land reforms are like the teacher stepping in to say, “Let’s distribute the pens more fairly, so that everyone can write properly.”

So, it’s about redistribution—from those who have excess land to those who have none or very little.

Objectives of Land Reforms

Land reforms are not just about land; they are about justice, growth, and empowerment.

Let’s look at the major objectives:

1. Achieving an egalitarian agrarian structure
   – That is, creating a fair and equal society in rural areas where a few don’t own vast lands while the many have nothing.
2. Elimination of exploitation
   – Especially zamindari, absentee landlordism, and moneylender-based tenancy, where cultivators were treated almost like bonded labor.
3. “Land to the Tiller”
   – This is the soul of land reforms: the person who actually works the land should own it.
4. Upliftment of the rural poor
   – By giving them access to land, their income, status, and quality of life can improve.
5. Increase in agricultural production
   – When farmers own the land, they work harder, invest more, and produce more.
6. Foundation for rural development
   – Land ownership gives stability, confidence, and the ability to access credit and technology.
7. Democratisation of rural power structures
   – When land is fairly distributed, institutions like Panchayats become more representative.

In short, Land Reforms aim to combine economic growth with social justice.

The Problem: What Was Wrong Before Reforms?

To understand land reforms, we must understand what we inherited from the British.

Colonial Legacy and Pre-Independence Issues

Under British rule, agriculture became commercialised—not to help Indian farmers, but to serve British interests.

• Zamindari System was introduced to collect taxes efficiently—but it created intermediaries who became rich just by owning land, while farmers remained poor.
• There was rack renting—charging very high rent from peasants.
• Absentee landlordism grew—landowners lived in cities and cared nothing about the land or its tillers.
• Even though agriculture became commercialised, it did not become capitalist—because profits were not reinvested; they were extracted and sent abroad.

As a result:

• Rural India had a feudal and exploitative structure.
• There was widespread agrarian distress.
• No industrial growth, so no alternative employment.
• Debt traps due to loans from moneylenders at usurious interest rates.

Hence, at the time of independence, Indian agriculture was marked by:

• Fragmented and small landholdings
• Highly indebted peasantry
• Exploitation at every level

This situation made land reforms not a luxury, but a necessity.

The Solution: Post-Independence Land Reforms

The Economic Programme Committee (EPC) under Nehru took up land reforms as a national priority. Let’s see how reforms were carried out.

Institutional Reforms:

1. Abolition of Zamindari
   – Removed intermediaries. Land went from zamindars to tenants or the government.
2. Tenancy Reforms
   – Threefold aim:
   i. Security of tenure – Tenants could not be arbitrarily evicted
   ii. Fair rent – Usually limited to 1/4 or 1/5 of the produce
   iii. Ownership rights – Many states gave tenants the right to purchase the land they tilled
3. Land Ceiling Acts
   – Upper limit fixed for how much land a person could own. Excess land was redistributed.
4. Consolidation of Holdings
   – Merged scattered plots into a single holding for efficiency
5. Cooperative Farming
   – Promoted collective efforts, especially for small farmers

Technological Reforms: Green Revolution

Though not a direct land reform, the Green Revolution brought high-yield seeds, irrigation, and fertilizers to increase productivity. However, it mostly benefitted landowners, especially in Punjab, Haryana, and Western UP, not the landless.

Landmark Moments in Land Reforms

• Kumarappa Committee (1949):
  Suggested land reforms as essential for socio-economic justice.
• Nagpur Resolution (1959):
  Passed by the Indian National Congress, it endorsed land ceiling and land to the tiller.

Social Hierarchy in Land Holdings

Understanding who held land is important. Society was stratified like this:

• Landowners (Zamindars, large farmers)
• Tenants (sub-divided into superior and inferior)
• Sharecroppers (gave a portion of produce to landlord)
• Landless labourers (worked on others’ fields for daily wages)

The goal of land reforms was to move people up this ladder, especially from tenant/sharecropper to owner.

Conclusion: Why Land Reforms Matter

Land reforms were not just about who owns how much land—they were about breaking the cycle of poverty, ending centuries of exploitation, and starting rural development on a fair foundation.

But it wasn’t easy. Implementation varied across states, and political resistance from landed elites slowed progress.

Still, wherever reforms were implemented sincerely, they led to:

• Higher agricultural growth
• Less exploitation
• Better rural democracy

✅ So, in essence:

Land Reforms = Land + Justice + Productivity + Empowerment

A true expression of what freedom should mean for rural India.

Abolition of the Zamindari System

🔍 Background

• At the time of Independence, Zamindari system was a symbol of colonial exploitation, with absentee landlords and widespread rack renting.
• The system stood as a major hurdle to agrarian justice and productivity enhancement.

⚖️ Challenges to Abolition

1. Lack of Land Records
   • Made identification of rightful tillers difficult.
2. Resistance from Zamindars
   • Deep resentment due to loss of hereditary privileges and land.
   • But: Zamindars became politically and socially isolated during the freedom movement, easing reform momentum.
3. State-wise Variation in Compensation
   • Amount paid to Zamindars varied across states based on:
     • Strength of peasant movements
     • Ideological leanings of state leadership
     • Class dynamics (landlords vs. tenants)

🧱 Weaknesses in Implementation

1. Loopholes in Definition of “Personal Cultivation”
   • Zamindars retained large land parcels under this clause.
   • Resulted in mass evictions of insecure tenants.
2. Legislative Delays
   • Landlord lobbies influenced state legislatures (land is a State subject).
3. Judicial Obstruction
   • Courts were used to delay or stall reforms through legal interpretations.
4. Bureaucratic Collusion
   • Local revenue officials often colluded with landlords, subverting laws on the ground.

✅ Outcome & Beneficiaries

• Despite hurdles, the Zamindari system was dismantled successfully in most states.
• Rich and middle peasants emerged as the chief beneficiaries.
• Marked a shift in agrarian power structure, laying ground for future reforms like tenancy and land ceiling laws.

🧭 Conclusion

The abolition of Zamindari was not a revolution from below, but a state-led reform from above, driven by the need for social legitimacy and economic modernization. While it fell short of empowering the landless poor, it was a crucial first step toward agrarian restructuring in post-colonial India.

Tenancy Reforms

Let us begin with a basic question:
Who cultivates the land in India? — It could be the owner (landowner) or someone who takes land on rent — called a tenant.

Now, even after the abolition of Zamindari, land ownership did not always reach the actual cultivator. The zamindars were removed, but new landlords or intermediaries often emerged, and tenants continued to exist, sometimes informally or without legal documentation. This is called “unrecorded tenancy.”

So, the government realized: if we really want to improve agriculture and ensure justice in rural India, we need to go beyond Zamindari abolition. We need to reform the very relationship between landlord and tenant.

This leads us to the next phase of land reforms — Tenancy Reforms.

🎯 Three Core Objectives of Tenancy Reforms

Let’s make it very clear — Tenancy Reforms were driven by three basic goals:

1. Security of Tenure

If a tenant has been farming a land for many years, he should not live in the constant fear of being evicted at the landlord’s whim.
Like how a tenant in a rented house feels secure with a lease agreement, the land cultivator must also feel safe.

2. Fair Rent

In many areas, the rent used to be half of the produce!
Imagine farming a field, investing all your labor and then giving 50% of your crop to someone else.
The aim was to cap rent at a fair level, usually one-fourth to one-third of the produce.

3. Ownership Rights

Tenants who had cultivated the land for a long time were given the right to purchase the land, under certain conditions.
This was based on the philosophy of “Land to the Tiller”.

⚖️ Two-Fold Purpose of These Reforms

The reforms aimed at:

1. Uplifting the condition of tenants — economically and socially.
2. Maintaining a balance — not to completely alienate the landowners, so that they continue to invest in agriculture.

🧩 Problematic Provision: Right to Resume Land for Self-Cultivation

Now here comes a grey area—
Landowners were allowed to take back their land for self-cultivation.
But what happened in practice?
Many landlords evicted tenants under this pretext — sometimes falsely — just to retain control.
So, while the law was meant to protect tenants, a legal loophole was used to displace them instead.

🌾 Operation Barga: A Case Study from West Bengal

In 1977, West Bengal did something remarkable — it launched Operation Barga.

🎯 Objective:

To register sharecroppers (bargadars) and give them:

• Legal recognition
• Permanent and hereditary rights
• A clear share: 1/4th for landowner, 3/4th for sharecropper

✅ Significance:

• Mobilization of the rural poor.
• Empowerment of actual cultivators.
• Created political consciousness among sharecroppers.

❌ Limitations:

• Landlords started rotating tenants frequently to avoid permanent registration.
• Registering multiple rotating tenants was economically unviable and ethically questionable — whom do you register?

So while intention was noble, implementation had inherent contradictions.

🧱 Limitations of Tenancy Reforms

Let’s examine why the results were partial and uneven across India:

1. Security of Tenure

Implementation remained weak — no official records, oral agreements, and collusion with officials made reforms ineffective.

2. High Rents Persisted

Due to land-man ratio (too many landless people, too little land), tenants agreed to exploitative rents just to survive.
After Green Revolution, rents even increased, due to land’s higher productivity.

3. Ownership Rights – A Distant Dream

Reasons:

• Oral tenancy — no written proof, no legal protection.
• Voluntary surrender — often under pressure.
• Evictions, both legal and illegal.
• Loophole: Landowners resumed land for “self-cultivation.”

📚 Scholarly View: Daniel Thorner

Daniel Thorner, a noted agrarian historian, says:

“Even if tenancy reforms didn’t fully help the landless, they led to the rise of a progressive cultivating class — the middle peasants, who invested in agriculture and improved productivity.”

This means the reforms didn’t create a revolution, but they pushed Indian agriculture forward.

🔚 Conclusion: A Half-Won Battle

To summarize:

• Tenancy reforms were well-intentioned and necessary.
• But due to weak implementation, landlord resistance, and legal loopholes, the reforms only partially succeeded.
• Still, they laid the foundation for modern agriculture and rural upliftment in India.

Land Ceiling in India

Let’s begin with a simple question:
What happens when a few people own a lot of land and many people own none at all?

The answer: Inequality, exploitation, and low agricultural productivity.

So, land ceiling is a policy that limits the maximum amount of land an individual or family can own.
Any land above that limit is declared surplus, taken over by the State, and redistributed to the landless or marginal farmers.

The goal?
👉 Social justice and equitable distribution of land — which in a country like India, is the most precious economic resource for rural people.

🗓️ Chronological Development: From Demand to Action

Let’s trace this step-by-step like a timeline:

1946

All India Kisan Sabha — the farmers’ voice — demands a ceiling limit of 25 acres.

1949 – Kumarappa Committee

Recommended land ceilings should be three times the size of an economic holding.
(Economic holding = A farm size that ensures minimum decent standard of living for the farmer.)

1951–56: First Five Year Plan

Accepted the Kumarappa Committee’s approach, but left the exact ceiling limit to states.
Why? Because land is a state subject under the Constitution.

1959: Nagpur Resolution by Indian National Congress

Land ceiling becomes national political agenda:

• Every state must fix ceiling limits.
• Surplus land to be vested with Panchayats and managed by cooperatives of landless labourers.

⚠️ Major Weaknesses in Land Ceiling Laws (First Phase)

The intention was noble — but what went wrong?

1. High Ceiling Limits

States fixed ceilings that were so high that very few landowners actually crossed them. So hardly any land became “surplus.”

2. Ceiling Applied to Individuals, Not Households

Landowners simply divided land in names of family members — father, mother, son, daughter, even unborn child!

3. Too Many Exemptions

Certain lands were exempted from ceilings:

• Plantations: tea, coffee, rubber
• Religious institutions
• Cooperatives This defeated the entire purpose.

4. Delays and Legal Loopholes

Implementation was delayed. Meanwhile, landowners sold, gifted, or transferred land, or got into legal disputes to block redistribution.

🔄 Second Wave of Land Reforms

In the 1970s, triggered by agrarian radicalism (Naxalite movement, farmers’ protests), a second, stronger attempt was made.

✅ Key Changes:

• Ceiling limits were reduced
• Exemptions were withdrawn
• Ceiling applied to families, not just individuals
• Preference in land redistribution to SCs and STs

This second wave reflected a greater political will and a more pro-poor orientation.

📉 Why Land Ceiling Still Fell Short

Despite good intentions and reform measures, success was limited. Let’s understand why:

1. Litigation Paralysis

Much of the surplus land got stuck in legal disputes — over ownership, transfers, exemptions.

2. Regional Disparities

Some states implemented better than others — for example, West Bengal and Kerala did relatively well, while others lagged behind.

3. Cooperative Management Never Took Off

Surplus land was supposed to be managed by landless labour cooperatives.
But in reality, this idea never materialized due to lack of support, resources, and capacity.

🔚 Conclusion: An Unfinished Promise

Land ceiling laws were the most direct way to correct land inequality.
But due to:

• High limits
• Loopholes
• Delays
• Weak political will in some regions

… the actual redistribution of land remained modest.

However, as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar once said,

“A reform, even if partial, is still a step toward justice.”

Even limited land redistribution brought security and dignity to thousands of rural families — and planted the seeds of social change.

Understanding Cooperatives and Consolidation in India

In simple terms, a cooperative is a voluntary association where people come together to pool their resources, work collectively, and share the benefits equitably.

Think of it like a group of small farmers coming together and saying:
“Alone we are weak, but together we are strong.”

They pool in their land, tools, seeds, labor and decide to farm together — the profits are then divided fairly.
Importantly, no matter how big or small your land share is, each member has only one vote — this reflects democratic functioning, not feudal hierarchy.

🧭 Historical Evolution of Cooperatives in India

Let’s take a chronological journey — because ideas evolve with time, and so did India’s cooperative experiment.

Kumarappa Committee, 1949

This was the first serious endorsement of cooperatives. The committee stated:

States should be empowered to enforce different levels of cooperative activity based on family types.

First Five-Year Plan (1951–56)

Suggested voluntary cooperative farming.

“If the majority agrees, cooperative management should be binding for all.”

Second Five-Year Plan (1956–61)

This was the high point of the cooperative farming dream:

• Based on overhyped success of collective farming in China
• Nagpur Congress Resolution (1959):
  🟢 India’s future agrarian model should be cooperative joint farming
  🟢 Farmers would retain land ownership, but farming would be collective
  🟢 Sharecroppers would be rewarded based on labor contribution

BUT, fear gripped people:

• “Will I lose my land?”
• “Is this state control in disguise?”
• Landed elites felt threatened — it seemed like soft expropriation.

When internal issues in China discredited collective farming, India backtracked.

Third Five-Year Plan (1961–66)

Government mellowed the ambition —
👉 Only 10 pilot cooperative farms per district were planned.

⚙️ Types of Cooperatives (You can remember this as FSC):

1. Farming Cooperatives – pooling land and labor
2. Service Cooperatives – input procurement, machinery sharing
3. Credit Cooperatives – access to loans and credit for farmers

❌ Why Cooperatives Often Failed in India

1. Misuse and Manipulation

• Powerful families formed fake cooperatives to avoid land ceiling laws.
• They gained subsidies, credit, and priority access to government resources.

2. Flawed Service Cooperatives

• Controlled by village elites — they monopolized inputs like seeds and fertilizers.
• Credit meant for the poor was diverted to their own businesses.
• As per RBI (1960s): only 3–6% of agricultural credit reached the truly poor.

3. Poor State-Sponsored Cooperatives

• Lacked irrigation, quality inputs, and infrastructure.
• Pilot projects failed due to low productivity and morale.

🔚 End Result:

Cooperatives became bureaucratic entities dominated by local elites — more of a state department than a people’s movement.

🥛 Why Did Amul Succeed But Others Didn’t?

Now, let’s understand Operation Flood — a case where cooperative spirit did succeed.

🚀 Operation Flood and the Amul Model

✅ Launched in 1970, based on Amul’s success

• Led by Verghese Kurien under NDDB
• Tried to replicate Anand (Gujarat) model across India

🎯 Objectives:

• Increase milk production
• Empower small and marginal dairy farmers
• Provide a stable, organized market
• Strengthen rural economy and nutrition

🌟 Impact:

• White Revolution: India became the world’s largest milk producer.
• Poverty alleviation: Dairy became a daily income source for landless laborers.
• Women empowerment: With SEWA, over 6000 women dairy cooperatives were set up.

❓But Why Couldn’t We Replicate Amul in Other Areas?

Despite this success, similar cooperative models in other sectors didn’t bloom. Why?

1. Clear Product and Demand in Dairy

• Milk is daily need
• Quick turnaround time (production to consumption)
• Stable, visible market

2. Focused Leadership

• Verghese Kurien ensured autonomy, professionalism, and integrity in operations.

3. Low Land Dependency

• Dairy didn’t require land redistribution — unlike farming cooperatives
• Land reforms got caught in political resistance and litigation

4. Single Commodity Focus

• Milk is standardized, perishable, and collectible
• Other sectors had complexities in pricing, perishability, and logistics

🧠 Conclusion

While the cooperative movement in farming floundered due to elite capture, poor planning, and political fear, the Amul model showed that with the right:

• Leadership
• Community participation
• Infrastructure
• And institutional integrity

…cooperatives can become engines of economic transformation.

But it must be a bottom-up movement, not a top-down bureaucratic scheme.

Impact of Land Reform Policy in India

Land reform in India was never just about changing who owns land — it was a transformational agenda aiming to bring:

1. Productive efficiency in agriculture
2. Social justice for the rural poor

1. Impact on Productive Efficiency

The idea was simple:

“If you give land to the actual tiller, he will have the incentive to invest and improve productivity.”

However, in practice, the results have been modest to disappointing. Why?

🚫 Major Reasons for Limited Impact:

1. Poor Implementation
   • Laws were made, but enforcement was weak.
   • Political and administrative resistance, especially from powerful land-owning groups.
2. Ownership Still Not with Tillers
   • In many areas, tenants continue to work on land without formal ownership.
   • This discourages long-term investment and use of modern techniques.
3. High Actual Rents
   • Despite legal rent ceilings, oral tenancy and informal agreements kept rents high.
   • Tenants remained vulnerable and unproductive.
4. Incomplete Consolidation of Holdings
   • Fragmented holdings = Inefficient use of inputs, machinery, and irrigation
   • Still prevalent in many states
5. Cooperative Farming Did Not Succeed
   • Poorly managed, elite-captured, or failed pilot projects.
   • Lack of enthusiasm from small farmers fearing loss of autonomy.
6. No Economic Security for Tillers
   • Without permanent, secure ownership, no farmer is going to borrow money to buy drip irrigation or hybrid seeds.

📉 Net Result:

Despite high aspirations, productivity in many areas remained low due to structural and institutional limitations.

2. Impact on Social Justice

While the economic impact was muted, land reforms did bring positive changes in rural social structures.

✅ Achievements:

1. Abolition of Intermediaries (Zamindars)
   • This was a historic step — cutting off a feudal class that collected rent without contributing to agriculture.
   • Direct relationship was established between state and cultivators.
2. End of Feudalism at the Top, Serfdom at the Bottom
   • Though inequality still exists, colonial-style landlordism has largely disappeared.
3. Tenancy Reforms Gave Protection to Tillers
   • Security of tenure
   • Legal caps on rent
   • Right to purchase land under certain conditions
4. Empowerment and Dignity
   • Even symbolic changes in land rights helped weaken caste hierarchies in some regions.
   • Provided a base for political mobilization of marginalized communities.

🚧 But… Limitations Remain

• Uneven Progress Across States:
  For example, Kerala and West Bengal made significant progress, but many Hindi heartland states lagged.
• Slow Pace of Reforms:
  The urgency of the Nehruvian period faded, and by the 1980s, land reforms had almost disappeared from political priorities.

🧠 Conclusion: A Mixed Bag

You can think of land reforms in India like a project that cleared the jungle but didn’t build the house.

• It succeeded in removing feudal elements and laid the foundation for a more equitable society.
• But it fell short of transforming agriculture into a high-productivity sector, due to lack of secure ownership, poor implementation, and half-hearted cooperative initiatives.

As Daniel Thorner insightfully observed, land reform helped in creating a class of progressive cultivators, but the full promise of agrarian transformation remains partially fulfilled.

Land Reforms: Present Status

Land reforms in India were initiated with the dual objective of increasing agricultural productivity and ensuring social justice through equitable distribution of land. These reforms have five major components:

1. Abolition of Intermediaries

• The intermediary systems such as Zamindari, Mahalwari, and Ryotwari have been officially abolished.
• However, integration of former tenants into ownership remains incomplete in many regions due to:
  • Absence of formal land titles
  • Lingering socio-economic inequalities

2. Ceiling on Land Holdings

• National Guidelines (1972):
  • 10–18 acres for two-crop irrigated land
  • 27 acres for single-crop irrigated land
  • 54 acres for other types of land
• Land is a State Subject, so implementation varies.
• Recent Development:
  • Himachal Pradesh (Dec 2024): Amended Land Ceiling Act, sparking debate on its potential to dilute equitable land distribution.
  • Many states continue to maintain high ceiling limits or provide exemptions (e.g., plantations, religious trusts, etc.).

3. Tenancy Reforms

• National Guidelines issued in 1972 aimed at:
  • Providing security of tenure
  • Fixing fair rent
  • Granting ownership rights to tenants
• Present Status:
  • Implementation remains weak
  • Informal tenancy (oral agreements) persists
  • Inadequate enforcement and record-keeping
  • Many tenants remain outside the purview of legal protection

4. Consolidation of Land Holdings

• Objective: To address fragmentation and improve operational efficiency
• Status:
  • Implementation remains patchy, with low political priority
  • Requires consensus among landowners, making it administratively difficult
  • Lack of land records and disputes further hinder progress

5. Computerization and Updation of Land Records

• Initiated under National Land Records Modernization Programme (NLRMP) in 2008
  • Later renamed as Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP)
• Status (as of August 2023):
  • ~94% of Records of Rights (RoRs) computerized
  • Programme extended to 2025–26
• Challenges:
  • Mismatch between textual records and actual landholding
  • Low convergence between different departments (revenue, survey, registration)

Conclusion

Despite substantial progress in digitization, other components like land ceiling enforcement, tenancy reforms, and land consolidation remain incomplete and uneven across states. Land reform remains a crucial but under-implemented policy area, requiring renewed political commitment and administrative innovation.

Categorisation of Farmers in India

(As per Agriculture Census 2015–16)

To understand Indian agriculture at its roots, one must begin with a basic yet powerful question—how much land do Indian farmers actually own or operate?

The Government of India, in its Agricultural Census, classifies farmers based on the size of operational holdings. This is not just a statistical exercise. It tells us who holds how much, and why inequality in rural India persists.

Farmer Categories (Based on Landholding Size)

Category	Landholding Size
Marginal Farmers	Less than 1.00 hectare
Small Farmers	1.00 to 2.00 hectares
Semi-Medium Farmers	2.00 to 4.00 hectares
Medium Farmers	4.00 to 10.00 hectares
Large Farmers	Above 10.00 hectares

📌 Note:

• 1 hectare = 10,000 square meters
• 1 acre = 4,046.86 square meters

🔍 Distribution of Farmers (2015–16 Census)

Category	% of Total Operational Holdings	Remarks
Marginal Farmers	68.5%	Majority are subsistence farmers
Small Farmers	17.7%	Small surplus producers, highly vulnerable
Semi-Medium Farmers	9.2%	Moderate land, some market participation
Medium Farmers	4.3%	Better off; mechanisation possible
Large Farmers	0.5%	Elite group, politically and economically powerful

🔸 Combined Share of Marginal and Small Farmers:
➡ 86.2% of all farmers operate on holdings less than 2 hectares.

🧠 Why This Matters

This isn’t just a table of data. It reveals three deep truths about Indian agriculture:

1. Fragmentation is Real and Rising
   • Over the years, with land being divided among heirs, average landholding size has shrunk drastically.
   • The average holding size fell from 2.3 hectares in 1970-71 to around 1.08 hectares in 2015-16.
2. Ownership ≠ Prosperity
   • Most small and marginal farmers don’t produce enough for the market.
   • Many depend on non-farm income, daily wages, or government support schemes like PM-KISAN.
3. Policy Needs to be Precision-Targeted
   • Without tailored policies (credit, insurance, inputs, market access), small farmers will remain stuck in a cycle of low productivity and poverty.

⚖️ Conclusion: From Data to Direction

• The dominance of small and marginal farmers shows that Indian agriculture is not just a matter of land—it is a matter of justice, survival, and dignity.
• Any reform, be it in land laws, MSP, credit systems, or irrigation, must keep this structure in mind.
• As Dr. Ambedkar once said—“Agriculture cannot be improved unless the land is distributed more equitably.”