12 The Political Context of Land Reforms I

Introduction

Land reform is a process directed towards changing existing patterns of land ownership, tenure systems, rent-seeking practices, agriculture wages, modes of revenue collection and the like. Land reforms could be informed by different objectives: political, social and economic. Political motive for land reforms could be the need to establish popular legitimacy of the political authority of the new nation-state or a political party intending to come to power. There can be social motive as well: to bring about equitable relations in agriculture. Likewise, land reforms can be carried to increase the economic efficiency on the land.1 In this module, we try to understand the political context of land reform in the early decades of post-independent India.

The political strategy of the Congress party during the independence movement was to involve peasantry with a view to take the nationalist movement to the rural areas of the country. To mobilize peasants, it promised to abolish the Zamindari system that had been introduced by the British. The Zamindari system was born out of the necessities of the colonial rule, that is, to collect revenue on the land. The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 introduced the Zamindari system, which helped the British in the collection of land revenue. Since the Zamindars were part of the political and the administrative structure of the British rule in India, the Congress party articulated the abolition of Zamindari system to gain the support of the peasantry in the nationalist movement whose ultimate goal was to fight for Independence from the British rule.

The significant association of the political parties with the question of land policy commenced with the launching of the Champaran Satyagraha led by Mahatma Gandhi in Bihar in the year 1917 espousing the cause of the tenant farmers. The first programmatic declaration regarding land reforms was made in the year 1931 by the Indian National Congress in the famous ‘Karachi Resolution’, which stated “Substantial reduction in agricultural rent or revenue paid by the peasantry and in the case of uneconomic holdings exemption from rent for such period as may be necessary by reason of such sub-reduction”.2 In the year 1947, the committee headed by Jawaharlal Nehru of Congress recommended that “all intermediaries between the tiller and the state should be replaced by non-profit making agencies such as cooperatives”3. It also recommended “the surplus land over such a maximum should be acquired and placed at the disposal of village cooperatives”.4 In the post-independence period, the congress party’s land policy focused on the abolition of intermediaries and tenancy reform, but did not initially address the question of land ceiling and land redistribution.

1 Donner Peter (1972), Land Reform and Economic Development, Penguin.

2Resolutions on Economic Policy Programme and Allied Matters, 1924-1969. (1969) Indian National Congress, New Delhi

3 Report on National Planning Committee, National Planning Series, Report of the Sub-Committee on Land Policy, Agriculture Labour and Insurance. (1948) New Delhi

4 Ibid

International Context

Land reforms were the important agenda of the socialist revolutions that took place in Russia and China in the twentieth century. These two revolutions, one in 1917 and the other in 1940s created the enabling political atmospherics for land reforms in many countries across the world. These movements considered land reforms as the major agenda for social transformation. The radical character of these revolutions influenced political elites in many societies to consider the land reforms to contain the unrest that may be unleashed by the slogan ‘land to the tiller’. These two events in the first half of the twentieth century influenced the politics in many societies across the world. The ideological character of these movements radicalized groups that were in conflict with the historically dominant social forces. The principles of equality, social justice and revolutionary change appealed to many in the ‘Third World’ and the societies fighting for their Independence from the colonial rule.

One of the key policy programmes in the newly independent nation-states was land reforms. The national governments conceived land reforms in a ‘top down’ approach. The elites of the newly independent nation-states were aware of the emerging international order after Second World War, and were influenced by the major economic and political powers, and chose to make land reform policies that suit their societies. Immediately after Second World War Japan introduced Land Reforms, it is said this is the only country to implement land reform successfully in a ‘top down’ approach. Land reforms were implemented in Egypt after overthrowing the monarchy in the year 1952. South Korea introduced land reforms in 1949. The Philippines introduced land reforms in 1963. Land reforms were introduced in Latin American countries, like Brazil, Peru, Cuba, and Chile as well. Land reforms were introduced in Pakistan and India after the end of the colonial rule. Each country had its own approach, and had a varying degree of success at land reforms. However, there is no denying of the fact that land reform was a prominent item on the political agenda of large number of national governments in the second half of the last century. It was part of the general ethos of the times. Any talk of socio-economic transformation without land reforms was seen as vacuous.

Land Reforms in India

The land reforms which took place in India in the early decades after Independence can be understood “in the background of Indian agrarian history under the British rule”5. “In India, the most crucial influence on the development of agrarian relations in the modern period had been that of the colonial character of the economy”.6 The land tenures in British India were adopted and modified to suit the economic and political requirements of the British economy”.7 The colonial rule established Zamindari and Raiyatwari land systems in India to regulate revenue collection, Under the Zamindari system, the rights of the property in land were conferred upon the native tax-collector “who did not have direct interest in cultivation of the soil. As a result, millions of people who had been proprietors as well as cultivators of their lands were reduced to the position of mere tenants-at-will on their own fields. Under the Raiyatwari system, no

5 Joshi P.C.(1969),. Land Reforms in India, In A. R. Desai (ed) Rural Sociology in India, Popular Prakashan , Mumbai, 444

6 Ibid, 445

7  Ibid

intermediary proprietors were recognized and actual tillers were vested with a heritable and transferable right of property in their lands”.8 The proprietary rights of the Zamindars and Raiyats were not absolute. The British Government was supreme, it was free to determine the amount of the revenue on land that was payable to the state. If the proprietors defaulted in payments of revenue, the British administration had the right to auction the lands. “In Zamindari areas the consequent inability to meet these revenue demands led to the compulsory transfer of land on a vast scale from the traditional nobility to the more rapacious money-lenders and speculators. In the Raiyatwari areas also, the heavy pressure of revenue assessments led to the pauperization of the Raiyat and to the alienation of his land in the hands of the merchants and money-lenders. Thus, in both the areas, there developed a class of intermediary proprietors between the actual cultivator of the soil and the state, which, through a process of sub-infuedation, grew into a hierarchy of non-cultivating landed interests. They all claimed a share of the gross produce of land leaving the cultivator barely with subsistence”.9The British rule in India also impacted on the local manufacturing industry. The mass produced goods from the British Industry flooded the local markets resulting in altering the local trade relations, and many people who were employed in non-agriculture activities lost their employment and took to agriculture as wage labourers, or tenant cultivators. On the other hand, many tenants or peasant with land had to lose rights over land to money-lenders when they were not able to pay the loans back. Independent India inherited a land system where non-cultivating landed interests claimed major share in the produce leaving the cultivator to subsistence cultivation. Against this backdrop, the nationalist movement promised a better future for the peasant as it articulated a concerted agenda for land reforms.10Land reforms in India have been mostly state-led and have followed ‘top-down’ approach. There were few peasant movements ‘from below’ that resulted in the implementation of land reforms with some degree of success, like the Telanagna peasant struggle of the 1940s, and later Naxalbari movement had some general impact. Vinoba Bhave’s Boodhan movement is known for its employment of peaceful means of persuasion in distributing land among the landless. But these movements did not have a pan- India presence, the onus of setting agenda for land reforms solely fell on the national government. The union government set the agenda through its Five Year Plan. “The basic orientation of land policy set by the Five Year Plans was to provide a framework for economic development and political stability. The objectives of the land policy set forth in the national plans were: firstly, to remove such impediments in agricultural production arising from agrarian structure inherited from the past and secondly, to eliminate all elements of exploitation and social injustice within the agrarian system. These objectives were sought to be achieved by abolishing all intermediary interests, by regulating rent, by conferring tenants security of tenure, and eventually ownership rights, by enforcing ceiling on agriculture holdings, by distributing surplus land among landless, and lastly by bringing about the consolidation of holdings”11

8 ibid

9  Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Vakil F.D and Rao T Tirupathi (1980), Five Year Plans and National Policy on Land Reforms, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, p.55

In India, land reforms were implemented by the states. Given this scenario, the next logical question would be as to the factors that influence a state administration in making decisions. India adopted parliamentary system of government with constitution as important and integral part to make legislations and implement policies. There are many institution and actors that can influence a policy in an electoral parliamentary democracy. A wide range of institutions get involved in policy making like political parties, Constitution, Legislature and Executive, Bureaucracy, Judiciary and other interest groups. These institution/actors have their own political ideology which can determine the course of the policy making and implementation.

Most of the political parties that came into being during and just after the Independence movement declared their support for land reforms in the country. Indian National Congress, an umbrella organisation for many competing interests, broadly followed what has come to known as the ‘Nehruvian Socialism’. The Communist Party of India (CPI) and Communist Party of India (CPIM) were influenced by the Marxist ideology. There were other parties which stated their ideological position as socialist, like the Praja Socialist Party, Samyukta Socialist Party etc., and they too supported the cause of land reforms.

The role of the union government in the post-independent India has been to provide a framework for economic development. The union government introduced many amendments to the constitution in the parliament to remove any legal impediment in implementing land reforms. The union government and the state government are guided by Directive Principles of State Policy, which describe broadly the future role of the state in respect of the institution of property. Though the term property does not occur at any place in this part, a large number of provisions impinge on the institution of property and relate to the following matters.12

1) the duty to promote a social order based on economic justice;

2) the duty to distribute all material resources and avoid concentration of wealth, which is subservient to the common good;

3) the duty to promote economic interest of the weaker sections of the society; and

4) the obligation to assure adequate means of livelihood; equally pay for equal work; avoidance of abuse of exploitation; just and humane conditions of work; a living wage and a decent standard of living; public assistance in case of want; adequate standard of public health and reorganization of agriculture and husbandry which imposes financial burden on the state and would require a greater share of ‘return’ according to the owner from the use of property.

Land reforms agenda featured in all the election manifestos of all the political parties both for the national elections and at the state elections in the post-independent India. Post-independent India also witnessed a large number of land reform legislations passed in various states. One needs to understand why it was necessitated to enact such high number of legislations. The following is the compilation of land reform legislations that were enacted by different states in India.1312 Murthy M.V. Rama (1980), Constitutional Context of Land Reforms, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, p.2313 Besley, Timothy and Burgess, Robin (2000), Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from India, The Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 115, No. 2, 389-430 Andhra Pradesh14: (Telangana Area ) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (amended 1954), Hyderabad Abolition of cash grants Act, 1952, Inam Abolition Act (absorbed) enclaves, 1954; ( Hyderabad jagirdars )Act, 1955; Inam (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1956; Tenancy Act, 1956 (amended 1974); Inam Abolition Act, 1957.Assam:State Acquisition of zamindari Act, 1951; LUSHAI Hills District (Acquisition of Chiefs rights) Act, 1954; Fixation of ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956 (amended 1976); Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960; Tenancy Act, 1971;Bihar:Land Reforms Act, 1950; Homestead Tenancy Act, 1957; Land reform Act, 1961(amended 1973); Land ceiling Act, 1961; Act 12 (amended to Land Reforms Act), 1973 (amended 1982); Act 55, 1976; Tenancy (amendment) Act, 1986;Gujarat: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, (amended 1955 and 1960); Agricultural Land ceiling Act, 1960; Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969; Amending Act, 1973;Haryana: Punjab security of Land Tenures Act, 1953; PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955;Jammu and Kashmir: Consolidation of Holding Act, 1962; Agrarian reforms Act, 1976;Karnataka: Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954;Mysore (Religious and charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955; Land Reforms Act, 1961; Land Reforms Act, 1974;Kerala: Agrarian relations Act, 1960; Land Reforms Act, 1963; Land reforms Act, 1969 (amended 1979); Agricultural workers Act, 1974;Madhya Pradesh: Abolition of proprietary Rights (Estates, mahals aliented land s) Act, 1950; United states of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951; Abolition of Jagir Act, 1951; Vindaya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land reforms Act, 1952; Land revenue Code, 1959; Consolidation of Holding Act, 1959; Ceiling on Agricultural Holding, 1960;Maharashtra: Hyderabad tenancy and agricultural Land Act, 1950;Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1958; Agricultural Land (ceiling on Holding ) Act, 1961;Orissa: Estate Abolition Act, 1951; Land reform Act, 1972; Land Reform Act, 1960 (amended 1973 and 1976 ); Consolidation of holding and Prevention of fragmentation of Land Act, 1972;14 Andhra Pradesh State(1956-2014)Punjab: Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953; PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955; Land Act, 1972;Rajasthan: Land reforms and resumption of Jagir Act, 1952; Bombay Merged Territories and Area (jagir Abolition), 1953; Holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation ) Act, 1954; Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and land reforms Act, 1955; Tenancy Act, 1955;Tamil Nadu:  Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI, 1948; Thanjanur tenants and panniayal protection Act, 1952; Madras cultivating tenants protection Act ,1955 ( amended 1965); Cultivating tenants (payment of fair Rent Act), 1956; Public tenant Act, 1961 (amended971); Land reforms ( fixation of ceiling on land )Act, 1961; Agricultural land- records of tenancy right Act, 1969; Occupants of kudiyirupu Act, 1971; Rural artisans(conferment of owner ship of kudiyirupu) Act,1976;Uttar Pradesh: zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act, 1950, (amended 1952,1954,1956,1958,1977); Consolidation of holding Act, 1953; Imposition of ceilings on Landholding Act, 1960;West Bengal: Bargadars Act, 1950; Estates Acquisition Act, 1953; Land reform Act, 1955(amended 1970, 1971, 1977); Acquisition and settlement home stead land (amendment) Act, 1972; Acquisition of homestead land for agricultural labourers, Artisan and Fisherman Act, 1975; Land reforms (amendment) Act, 1977; Land reforms (amendment) Act, 1981; Land reforms (amendment) Act, 1986; Land reforms (amendment) Act, 1990.]

A very large number of legislations relating to land reforms were passed in such a short time. Let us look into the factors that led to such a situation of having multiple legislations. Under the constitution, land is the state subject; the government at the Centre has no jurisdiction over land reforms and agriculture. The state administration has the authority to bring in legislations relating to land reforms. There existed significant variation among states in their approach to land reforms and they adopted varying strategies to address a variety of land tenure systems that exited. The laws were amended multiple times in a short period to accommodate the shortcomings that were thrown up while implementing the reform. There are multiple laws governing land reforms because of the complexity of land relations to address land tenure rights, abolition of intermediaries, fixation of ceiling on landholdings, for consolidation of land holdings. Laws were enacted to address specific needs of a particular region within a state. The laws enacted for land reforms may not apply for the entire state but a region of the state for varied reasons.

Implementation

Once the legislations had been enacted, it did not automatically result in desired outcomes, because “State-led strategies encountered significant problems on the ground, as the initiatives frequently do not find support from the relevant local actors, and because bureaucratic modalities cannot accommodate the varying meanings of land, plural notions of property, and diverse political-economic contexts”.15The political leadership at the state level was increasingly provided by landowning elites in the post-independent period, this had a decisive negative impact when it came to implementing land reforms. The government at the centre was aware of the rising influence of the landed interest; this had forced the national leadership to lay down broad principles of land reform policy through Five Year Plans.

Another issue that the governments had to deal was with regard to the legal questions. The land reforms legislations were challenged in courts. The constitution was amended to facilitate implementation of land reforms. The amendments that were made are First Amendment Act, Fourth, Seventh, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Ninth and Forty-Second amendments, these amendments are brought in when the land reform policies were challenged by the Judicial pronouncements of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

The major limitation in implementing the land reforms that challenged the spirit of land legislations was the social profile of the bureaucratic machinery as “land reforms laws were implemented exclusively through the bureaucratic apparatus of the state. Such an approach was considered to be self-defeating as the civil servants both in the higher and lower echelons are themselves belonging to the class of land-owners”16.The Task Force Report of the Planning Commission noted “as in the case of men who wielded political power those in the higher echelons of the administration also are substantial land-owners themselves, or they have close links with the land-owners17”. Further “the village functionaries like patwaris, karamcharis, karanams, sambags, talatis, etc, are invariably petty land-owners”18.The following section outlines the political context of the initiation of land reforms in the state of Andhra Pradesh. This case study helps us to understand the complexity involved in attempting for land reforms in India.Many new administrative (states) units were formed, mostly on the linguistic basis. This is the period after independence, when land reform agenda was debated which was put forth during anti-colonial struggle; parallel movements demanding reorganization of states were underway.15 Sikor Thomas and Muller Daniel (2009), The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction, World Development Vol. 37, No. 8, 1307-131616 Sharma B.A.V. (1980), Politics of Land Reform, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, 1-1717 Joshi P.C (1978), Land Reforms in India , Institute of Economic Growth, Allied Publishers, New Delhi,197818 IbidThe state of Andhra Pradesh inherited two kinds of intermediary systems: the Zamindari system in Andhra areas and Jagirdari system in Telangana area. Andhra area was part of the British-ruled Madras Province before Independence, and Telangana was under the rule of Nizams of Hyderabad.The state of Andhra Pradesh came into existence in November 1956 by merging Telugu speaking areas of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and Madras Presidency. The two regions of Hyderabad state and Andhra had two separate state governments till 1956.19Prior to the year 1947, in the Telangana region there was peasant revolt against the rule of Nizam of Hyderabad, and also against the Jagirdar tenure system. This movement was led by the Andhra Maha Sabha, which had communists as its members. Peasants from the villages were mobilized on two planks, one, to end the rule of Nizam, and, second, on the slogan ‘land to the tiller’. “The Telangana peasant armed revolt has been described in terms of its character and political objectives as the ‘most revolutionary movement that has yet arisen in India”.20 The militant character of this movement had led to recognition of agrarian reform as the urgent policy issue. The militancy of the movement drove the landlords to the urban areas, the leadership of the movement started distributing land to the people in the villages. After the end of the ‘police action’, a military governor was appointed to administer the affairs of the state. The new administration, to counter the peasant movement announced abolition of Jagirdari system. The Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation was promulgated on August 15, 1949 and later the appointed governor constituted Hyderabad Agrarian Reform Committee. The committee submitted its report in November, 1949; it recommended the abolition of all intermediaries between the state and the peasant. The committee further recommended all tenants who had cultivated a land continuously for a period of six years previous to January 1, 1948, will be deemed as protected tenants, unless the land-holder takes steps to establish the contrary position.21The Andhra area was under British rule before Independence. Here the communist party and the congress party were very active. The congress party mobilized peasants to join the non-cooperation movement of Gandhi in 1920-21. By the year 1923, peasant associations were formed in the districts of Guntur, Krishna, East Godavari and West Godavari. In the year 1928, the Provincial Ryot Sangam was formed with the active involvement of the congress leader Prof. N. G. Ranga. In the year 1931, Prof. N.G. Ranga was made the chairman of Zamindari Ryots Enquiry Committee by Nellore District Ryots Conference to enquire into the plight of the ryots in Venkatagiri Zamindari area. Prof. Ranga at the later conference put forth the proposal demanding the abolition of zamindari system. The Andhra Provincial Congress accepted the proposal in the year 1946.19 The state of Andhra Pradesh was reorganized in 2014, forming  two states – Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.20 Sharma B.A.V. (1980), Politics of Land Reform, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers21 Rao M Satyanarayana (1980), Land Reform Policy and Legislation:1950 to 1956, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, 281-301

The communist party had a strong presence in Andhra area. It is said that Andhra Communists were the first to organize agriculture labourers into rural unions. The peasant movement in Telangana during 1946-51 was directed from the Andhra region bordering Hyderabad state. Most of the leaders of the peasant movement in Telangana came from the ranks of the Andhra communists.

The election manifesto of the congress in Madras province, in 1946 promised abolition of all intermediaries between the government and the peasant. The Congress party won the election and formed the ministry in Madras province. The communist party and other peasant organizations demanded the abolition of Zamindari system as promised by the congress before elections. The government at the province under pressure from communists the Madras Estate (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act was passed in 1948. Under this act 22:

a) all Zamindars and Inamdari estates were abolished

b) the forests and waste lands in these estates were taken over by the government;

c) Ryots were given pattas with full rights

d) all the records and administrative buildings in the estate were taken over by the government

e) Zamindars would be paid compensation; and

f) Zamindars would be given pattas for lands under their own cultivation.

Telugu speaking areas of Hyderabad and Andhra were merged to form the new state of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Since then, the congress party had a dominating presence in Andhra Pradesh. The dominant landowning caste provided political leadership. Most of Chief Ministers in Andhra Pradesh have been from Reddy caste. The other landowning castes that have influential political position and controlled most of the agricultural lands in Andhra Pradesh are Velmas and Kammas. In the decades when land reforms were implemented, these landowning castes had a dominating presence in the administrative and political structure in the state. These dominant castes, due to their social status and economic power, captured the administration of village panchyats, zilla parishads (district level).These landowning castes which were part of the rural power structure and the state leadership had a negative impact on land reforms and led to its poor implementation. This gave rise to the ‘extremist’ movement popularly called Naxalite movement.

Conclusion

In the ultimate analysis, land reform is a political process. It can be driven by ideological commitments, anti-colonial struggle or emanate out of the compulsions of electoral processes. The process of land reforms in India took place within the framework of the constitution. The elected bodies, the courts and the implementing agencies all function within constrains of the constitutional boundaries. The land reform process in India has its roots in fight against the colonial rulers, the political ideological affiliation of certain political parties also set the agenda 22 Krishnayya T.S.R (1980), Peasant Movements and Organisations in Andhra Region, In Sharma B.A.V (ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, 197-206 for land reforms, and also the land reforms were seen as economically logical to increase efficiency on the land. Before Independence, a multitude of land systems existed in the country. There were land tenure systems that are peculiar to that particular region. There were diverse land revenue systems and there were different kinds of intermediary systems like Zamindari, Jagirdari. The land reforms in India are a very complex exercise. The complexity is reflected in the way the land reform policies are formulated, and also the number of legislations that came into being in all the states of India. And even more complexity is reflected in implementing these reforms. Identification of the lands for distribution or the task of legally validating actual cultivators has been a difficult exercise since the early years after independence as there were no proper land records available for the authorities, or in some places available records may have been ignored to favour certain vested interests. Identifying and selecting the beneficiary is left to the officers of the government who may not have the knowledge of the local conditions. And also once the rights are conferred on certain family or individual, it was important that that particular family is not evicted by force by the local elite. The task of land reforms falls on the states. State governments are entrusted with the task of formulating legislations and implementing land reforms. The country is diverse and complex with diverse political formations and configuration of interests at the state level. Each state has formulated land reform legislations to suit its needs and to cater to the existing political conditions. There is no single land reform legislation that can be applied uniformly across the country. The union government has so far only given the broad guidelines and directions to the states on how to implement land reforms through Five Year Plans and as per the constitutional framework. As each state has to formulate its own law, this has resulted in huge number of land reform legislations in the country. And, some states made laws that has jurisdiction limited to certain areas/regions within the state. It becomes difficult to study all the state laws on land reforms. Hopefully, this module gives a broad picture on land reforms process in the country in the early decades after Independence. In the Module 31 B, we will offer detailed account of land reforms in select Indian states.

One thing is clear though. The study of land reform in India is incomplete without an understanding of the political processes, constitutionalism, policy making, law, courts, social movements, landlordism, landlessness and the caste system.

Bibliography

• Besley, Timothy and Burgess Robin (2000), ‘Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth:Evidence from India’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 115, No. 2, 389-430
• Donner Peter (1972), Land Reform and Economic Development, Penguin.
• Joshi P.C.(1969), ‘Land Reforms in India’, In A. R. Desai (ed) Rural Sociology in India, Popular Prakashamn , Mumbai, 444-475
• Resolutions on Economic Policy Programme and Allied Matters, 1924-1969. (1969) Indian National Congress, New Delhi
• Report on National Planning Committee, National Planning Series, Report of the Sub-Committee on Land Policy, Agriculture Labour and Insurance. (1948) New Delhi
• Sharma B.A.V.(ed) Political Economy of India: A Study of Land Reforms policy in Andhra Pradesh, Light and Life Publishers, 1980
• Sikor Thomas and Muller Daniel (2009), ‘The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction’, World Development Vol. 37, No. 8, 1307-1316