January 7,1950
any more specific T h o u g h m e
Congress Agrarian Reforms
Committee-A Critique
Ved Prakash Sharma, M.Sc, (Ag.)
THE CONGRESS Agrarian
I Reforms Committee w h i c h
reported i n N o v e m b e r last h a d
been set u p b y D r . Rajendra
Prasad at the u n a n i m o u s sugges-
t i o n of the Revenue M i n i s t e r s at
their Conference h e l d i n N e w
D e l h i in December 1947. T h e
C o m m i t t e e had been asked to
examine a n d make recommenda-
tions about agrarian reforms aris-
i n g o u t of the a b o l i t i o n of z a m i n -
d a r i . It was also to consider and
report cm co-operative f a r m i n g ,
methods of i m p r o v i n g , a g r i c u l -
t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n , position of s m a l l
holdings, sub-tenants and landless
labour.
T h e C o m m i t t e e d i d not recom-
m e n d any u n i f o r m m e t h o d of
land utilisation but laid down, in-
stead, the principles w h i c h should
g u i d e the agrarian policy of the
c o u n t r y . These w e r e :
(1) T h e agrarian economy
p o l i c y s h o u l d p r o v i d e an oppor-
t u n i t y f o r the development of the
farmer's personality;
(2) T h e r e should be no scope
f o r e x p l o i t a t i o n of one class by
another;
(3) T h e r e should he m a x i -
m u m efficiency o f p r o d u c t i o n ;
and
(4) T h e scheme of reforms
s h o u l d be w i t h i n the realms of
practicability.
These principles, by themselves,
d o not t h r o w m u c h light o n the
p a r t i c u l a r t y p e of land u t i l i s a t i o n
t h e C o m m i t t e e m a y have i n m i n d .
M o r e o v e r , t h o u g h some of t h e m
are unexceptionable viz., t h a t
there should be no e x p l o i t a t i o n
of one class by another or that
agricultural production should
be made as efficient as possible,
t h e others have been left too
vague to serve as p r a c t i c a l guides
t o action. W h a t e x a c t l y does
t h e C o m m i t t e e mean, f o r in-
stance, w h e n it says that a g r i c u l -
t u r a l p o l i c y s h o u l d be so f r a m e d
as to provide an opportunity for
the development of the f a r m e r ' s
personality? Does t h e l a t t e r need
the m e n t a l climate of unfettered
p r i v a t e enterprise for its f u l l
flowering? Or can the farmer's
personality s t i l l develop w h e n he
is told to do this and that and is
f o r b i d d e n to do' certain other
things? The reconciliation of the
demands of personality w i t h the
recognised limitations imposed
by the needs of economic orga-
nisation in the context of our
rural economy, calls for m o r e
specific recommendations, and
not for fatuous generalisations.
T h e proviso that a g r i c u l t u r a l
reforms should be " w i t h i n the
realms of p r a c t i c a b i l i t y " sounds
even more fatuous, unless the
Committee wants that these
l i m i t s on personality a n d of prac-
t i c a b i l i t y should be determined
in the case of each province, if
not in each specific area, by some
other committees especially ap-
pointed for the purpose.
W h a t constitutes an economic
h o l d i n g is to be d e t e r m i n e d in
each case according to the eco-
nomic conditions p r e v a i l i n g ( i n
a province or a smaller u n i t ? ) .
F o r this also the C o m m i t t e e lays
d o w n certain principles viz., that
the holding must afford a reason-
able standard of l i v i n g to the
c u l t i v a t o r , and that it must pro-
v i d e e m p l o y m e n t for a f a m i l y of
n o r m a l size' a n d for a pair of
bullocks, at least. These may not
always be compatible aims. The
h o l d i n g just big enough to p r o -
vide a family may not give f u l l
e m p l o y m e n t to a pair of bullocks
and vice versa, if the land in
question is poor and h a r d to
plough.
It c o u l d be reasonably expect-
ed that the Committee would
a r r i v e at a m o r e precise defini-
t i o n o f a n economic h o l d i n g and
not leave this m u c h disputed con-
cept so vague. It is n o t even
clear w h e t h e r the C o m m i t t e e
wants the provinces to set up
t h e i r o w n organisations for deter-
m i n i n g t h e r i g h t size for i t . N o r
is 'a f a m i l y of n o r m a l size' made
9
ECONOMIC W E E K L Y
economic h o l d i n g is also, to p r o -
v i d e employment to a pair of b u l -
locks, the C o m m i t t e e does not say
h o w many acres of l a n d w i l l be
adequate for the purpose. In
the U . P . a pair of bullocks is con-
sidered to be f u l l y employed on
a h o l d i n g of ten acres. If this be
a f a i r estimate, it may be difficult
to find enough w o r k for a l l the
b u l l o c k s on account of the l i m i t -
ed area under c u l t i v a t i o n . Hence
this p r i n c i p l e r e a l l y clashes w i t h
the concept of the 'economic hold-
ing'.
T h e Committee introduced a
n e w concept, viz., that of 'basic
h o l d i n g ; a h o l d i n g smaller than
w h i c h would be palpably un-
economic f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w
of efficiency of a g r i c u l t u r a l opera-
tions. H o w the efficiency of a g r i -
c u l t u r a l operations is to be j u d g -
ed, h o w the 'basic h o l d i n g ' is to
be differentiated f r o m t h e 'eco-
nomic h o l d i n g ' and w h a t is meant
by a g r i c u l t u r a l operations are no
w h e r e stated clearly. W h i l e ad-
m i t t i n g the shortage of land, the
Committee suggests, neverthe-
less, t h a t the o p t i m u m h o l d i n g
w o u l d be three times the size of
the economic h o l d i n g , w h a t e v e r
the latter m a y be. To recom-
m e n d the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a n d
in o r d e r to m i t i g a t e the unrest
a m o n g the s m a l l tenants w o u l d
be m o r e sensible in the present
situation. T o b r i n g i n t h e ques-
t i o n o f ' o p t i m u m holding', w i t h -
o u t differentiating it f r o m 'eco-
nomic h o l d i n g ' more clearly,
obviously puts the emphasis at
the w r o n g place.
The Committee recommends
co-operative j o i n t f a r m i n g for
holdings below the 'basic' size,
and f u r t h e r , that the State should
enforce the below-basic h o l d e r to
c u l t i v a t e his f a r m j o i n t l y w t h
such other holders. One may
w i n k at some i n d i r e c t pressure
f r o m t h e State t o compel t h e h o l -
der of a f a r m between t h e basic
a n d o p t i m u m size to m a k e use of
the m u l t i - p u r p o s e co-operative
society for m a r k e t i n g and credit,
etc. B u t the suggestion that the
below-basic holders should be
forced to c u l t i v a t e t h e i r farms
j o i n t l y is w h o l l y unacceptable.
T h e use of force is a negation of
co-operative principles: as co-
ECONOMIC WEEKLY
operation is a democratic move-
ment-.
W h y even after 45 years of the
passing of the Co-operative A c t
in 1904, the co-operative move-
m e n t has not been a success is
w o r t h pondering over. Whatever
m a y be the ultimate cause of its
failure, a m a j o r i t y of the w r i t e r s
on co-operation agrees that one of
the reasons is that co-operation has
been a State-sponsored move-
ment. In the circumstances, it is
r e a l l y disappointing that the C o m -
m i t e e should recommend such
drastic intervention of the Slate.
T h e experiment of co-operative
j o i n t f a r m i n g is bound to fail if
i n t e r v e n t i o n of the State is sought
so freely. The State is r e q u i r e d
o n l y to educate the villagers in
the principles of co-operation and
convince them of its advantages,
not to enforce it by decree. E x -
perience in Madras has shown
that co-operative' farming has not
been a success even among the
landless labourers. N e i t h e r d i d
the Z a m i n d a r i A b o l i t i o n C o m -
mittee i n U P . advocate its adop-
tion. I t w i l l b e very difficult
indeed to induce the below-basic
holder to adopt co-operative f a r m -
ing w i t h o u t f i r s t m a k i n g h i m en-
thusiastic about co-operation. T h e
recommendation of the C o m m i t -
tee for the creation of State farms
for the purpose of research and
experimentation, however, is an
e m i n e n t l y feasible one as the
State is the o n l y suitable agency
to undertake this k i n d of w o r k .
The cultivator's r i g h t to land,
the committee proposes, should
be subject to the f o l l o w i n g condi-
tions:
(1) That he does n o t sublet
his holding;
(2) T h a t he transfers his h o l d -
ing according to w e l l defined
priorities laid d o w n by the ap-
propriate a u t h o r i t y and at a price
J a n u a r y 7, 1950
w h i c h is reasonable and not spe-
culative; and
(3) T h a t he conforms to the
test of good husbandry and the
scheme of crop p l a n n i n g proposed
f r o m t i m e t o t i m e b y the L a n d
Commission.
I n the interest o f better f a r m -
i n g it is h i g h l y desirable that the
c u l t i v a t o r should have perma-
nent, transferable and heritable
rights, b u t it is not clear f r o m the
conditions l a i d d o w n w h e t h e r the
tenant w o u l d be allowed to sub-
let his l a n d under e x t r a o r d i n a r y
circumstances. I t w o u l d have
been better if the Committee had
recommended the l i m i t of one
year for sub-letting in e x t r a o r d i -
n a r y circumstances, as in the C.P.
The Committee recommends
an elaborate system of land ad-
m i n i s t r a t i o n w h i c h should be de-
centralised by devolving as m u c h
p o w e r as possible on the regional
units. The Committee is to be
 January 7,1950 ECONOMIC WEEKLY

complimented for proposing the (3) P r o v i s i o n of housing sites. c e r t a i n l y deserve a more practi-
creation of a r u r a l economic c i v i l F u r t h e r , the p r o b l e m o f u n e m - cal and t h o r o u g h treatment than
service for the execution of the p l o y m e n t and u n d e r - e m p l o y m e n t that given to t h e m by the Com-
w o r k o f t h e L a n d Commission. in the case of a g r i c u l t u r a l la- mittee. The should be given a
Indeed, such a service has been bourers, the C o m m i t t e e feels, can h i g h p r i o r i t y as a g r i c u l t u r a l la-
long over-due. W i t h o u t i t , the only be t a c k l e d by a planned b o u r has been harder hit than
c o u n t r y cannot be helped to stand development of suitable agro- most others b y W o r l d W a r I I .
on its o w n legs in the field of industries and by the establish- The creation of a u n i o n of land-
a g r i c u l t u r a l development. I t i s ment of e m p l o y m e n t bureaux. less l a b o u r is another recom-
a v i t a l need today and the Gov- These suggestions are v e r y attrac-
mendation of the C o m m i t too.
ernment should take a speedy t i v e indeed b u t w h e t h e r they are
T h i s u n i o n , it is suggested, should
decision on this question. practicable also in the present set
maintain close t o u c h w i t h the
up of a g r i c u l t u r e is more t h a n
A b o u t a g r i c u l t u r a l indebted- one can say. The C o m m i t t e e organisation of u r b a n labour.
ness, the C o m m i t t e e has recom- does not choose to define the role Perhaps the C o m m i t t e e forgot the
mended compulsory scaling d o w n of the State in this i m p o r t a n t as- unorganised n a t u r e of agricul-
of debts on t h e basis of the pay- pect of the a g r i c u l t u r a l economy t u r a l labour and overlookedthe
i n g capacity a n d t h e e q u i t y o f of the c o u n t r y . F o r instance, difficulties i n v o l v e d i n organising
loans in the case of farmers. In though p r o v i s i o n of housing sites i t . H a d these been f u l l y appre-
the case of a g r i c u l t u r a l labourers, for landless l a b o u r has been re- ciated, the question of intimate
past debts are to be c o m p l e t e l y commended, it has not been stated t o u c h w i t h the organisation of
w i p e d out. The C o m m i t t e e f u r - w h o w i l l p r o v i d e t h e m for those u r b a n labour w o u l d not have
ther endorses the proposal for w h o have n o houses n o w w o r t h been b r o u g h t up so g l i b l y . It
compulsory registration a n d con- the name. The Committee, it should better be left to the
t r o l o f money lenders. B u t i t seems, f r a m e d these proposals panchayat to solve, preferably
fails to suggest a fair rate of w i t h o u t seriously e x a m i n i n g t h e i r by organising agro-industries.
interest to be charged f r o m c u l t i - p r a c t i c a b i l i t y . I t was more i n - L a s t l y , the C o m m i t t e e recom-
vators. N e i t h e r does it consider fluenced in this by the state of mends stabilisation of prices and
'the extension of the Insolvency affairs p r e v a i l i n g in the case of crop insurance, w i t h o u t suggest-
A c t to the cultivators, as recom- u r b a n labour t h a n b y its o w n i n g the practical steps by w h i c h
mended by the R o y a l Commission study of r u r a l conditions. The stabilisation is to be attained or
on Agriculture. problems of a g r i c u l t u r a l labour Continued on page 12
A grave lacuna in the C o m -
mittee's w o r k is tht neglect of the
role of Reserve B a n k of I n d i a in
financing agriculturists. No con-
s i d e r a t i o n has been given to this
question. H o w are the 'credit
u n w o r t h y ' c u l t i v a t o r s to be sub-
sidised? W h i l e recommending
that subsidy should be p a i d , the
Committee does not say w h e t h e r
the State should pay it t h r o u g h
the existing channels or a new
type of agency is to be set up for
this purpose.
The C o m m i t t e e f u r t h e r r e -
commends the creation of regulat-
ed m a r k e t , m u l t i - p u r p o s e co-
operative societies and licenced
warehouses and makes these t h e
major planks in its scheme of re-
forms o f m a r k e t i n g and r u r a l
finance.
On the question of a g r i c u l t u r a l
labour, the C o m m i t t e e has recom-
mended
(1) B a n n i n g of serfdom;
(2) A n early i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f provisions o f the M i n i m u m
Wages A c t f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a -
bourers t h r o u g h Wage Boards;
and

11