Women’s Agential Power in the Political Economy of Agricultural Land

Abstract

This article seeks to understand whether the legal policies and advances of women’s movements have resulted in women’s entitlement to land and whether the land reforms carried out from the 1970s to the 1990s have weakened the grip of patriarchy and increased women’s capability and land-related decision-making power. We examine these questions by looking at (i) women as producers of agricultural goods and participants in the market economy and (ii) women as partial or full owners of land and the impact of this on decision-making. In both cases, there is the role of women as managers of productive assets, which is different from their former and traditional status as dependent family members.

Keywords

Women’s entitlement in land reforms Gender and caste inequalities Claims-making to land state response to women’s protests asset transfers in women’s names land ownership and gender-based violence

Introduction

There are two major features of gender relations in the political economy of South Asia. The first is the gender division of work. Women are considered responsible for household work and for the reproduction of labour power. Women cook food, clean the home and care for children and the elderly. Men, on the other hand, are socialized as ‘breadwinners’, heads of households, and exercise authority over women and children. This division of work at home extends to work in the labour market and in asset governance, as is evident from the segmented nature of work in agrarian relations and local government. Regardless of the work women do, or the responsibilities they have, they remain at the lower rung of the system. Women are concentrated in low-paid work, and their work is less valued for being unskilled or semi-skilled. Their work in social reproduction (cooking, caring and raising of the future human resources) is not recognized as work.

Second, a general pattern throughout South Asia is women’s limited ownership rights and decision-making authority over land and productive assets, as well as limited influence over the processes that govern and shape their communities. Social norms throughout the region (with some exceptions in Bhutan and Sri Lanka) prevent women from exercising their right to own and manage land and other productive assets. An examination of social norms in the structure of property and land relations shows that they tend to work as barriers against women’s economic agency and legal entitlements (Kelkar, 2013; World Development Report, 2015). Social and cultural norms that sanction and reinforce unequal access to ownership of land and property influence the institutions of the state and the market which, in turn, leads to gender discrimination and other social inequalities and policy outcomes (Perrons, 2015; UN Women, 2015).

Importantly, women in their collective and individual settings have expressed resistance to discriminatory social norms and the male appropriation of power and resources. This study seeks to understand the state response through policy changes to women’s mobilization for access to their rights to agricultural land in diverse social and cultural contexts in India, with special focus on Uttar Pradesh, largest state of India with a population of 200 million. In the given situation, the question is how rural women, as farmers and activists, mobilize themselves to assert their rights to land and related assets. An attempt is made in this study to document and interpret the ‘hidden scripts’ of women farmers and their stories of struggle to own and manage agricultural land, as well how land ownership has benefited them and their households.

During the 1970s through the 1990s, several states in India, for example, Kerala (1976), Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil Nadu (1989), Maharashtra (1994) and Karnataka (1994), amended the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, thereby putting daughters on an equitable footing with sons in inheritance rights to agricultural land. At the same time, recent studies of rural India have shown several further tendencies: (i) a slow breakdown of caste hierarchies and associated occupations; (ii) the declining importance of land ownership and its links with power and prestige in rural society; (iii) large-scale involvement of women in agricultural work, although without gaining ownership of land in most cases; and (iv) with agricultural work and farm management, women’s acquisition of more visible roles and increased access to technologies and markets, particularly through the countrywide growth of women’s organizing in Self-Help Groups (SHGs) for saving and credit facilities (IDFC Rural Development Network, 2013; Rodgers & Rogers, 2011; Shah, Rao & Vijay Shankar, 2009).

In India, land is a subject of state governance; the central government has only an advisory role. Several states in the country have, however, implemented measures for women’s secure rights to land that can improve women’s economic agency as well as increase productivity or investment in agriculture. Using the National Family Health Survey data, Sanchari Roy (2008) showed that women’s equal inheritance rights resulted in enhancing their decision-making within their marital homes, because it would guard against men’s tendency to over-consume alcohol and then dispose of their land for a small amount of money (Nathan & Kelkar, 2005; see Kelkar, 2014).

In this study, we would like to see whether the amendments by state governments as well as the advance of the women’s movement have resulted in an increase in capability and land-related decision-making for women farmers and whether they have weakened the grip of patriarchy. We examine these questions keeping in mind two major sites of household and local structures of governance: (i) women as producers of agriculture and participants in the market economy and (ii) women as partial or full owners of land and the impact of this on decision-making. In both cases, there is the role of women as managers of productive assets, one which is different from their former and traditional status as dependent family members.

There has been a serious concern with the so-called declining share of women’s participation in the labour force—or the de-feminization of the labour force participation rate (LFPR)—and the modernization of gender norms in India’s patriarchal society, which ‘seem to provide the ground rules for women’s withdrawal from the labour force’ (Abraham, 2013, p. 106; see also Kannan & Raveendran, 2012). Our concern in this article is not with this decline, but to point out that even with this decline, there is a disproportionately large number of rural women engaged in agricultural production. According to the 2011–2012 NSSO 68th Round data, 63 per cent of all women workers are in agriculture with over 74 per cent of rural women in agriculture (Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 2012–2013; NSSO, 2011–2012). At the same time, and considering that 85 per cent of all land in India is cultivated by small and marginal farmers, owning 1–2 hectares of land, only 13 per cent of rural women have operational rights to land (Government of India, 2011a).

The state of Uttar Pradesh presents a mixed picture of gender and caste hierarchies and of movements led by the so-called ‘lower caste’ women and men to assert their rights to access justice and ownership of agricultural land and other related assets. The state and social institutions have made limited efforts at challenging gender and caste-based inequalities; instead, they have nurtured them through reinforcing social and cultural norms. Some of the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh are notorious for being the regions with the highest number of dowry-related murders and acts of sexual violence against women (Sen, 2012). Yet, counter posed to the structure of gendered power is women’s agential power, a countervailing power that enables them to bring about some changes in the gender relations. In drawing from the feminist analysis of political economy, we have used the term ‘agential power’ as the power to make decisions and act upon them, or what is generally called empowerment in gender analysis of development policies.

In India, social norms and formal institutional structures tend to deny women both the identity of a farmer and landownership rights. Women’s poverty is not only due to the gender deficit in agricultural land but also in decision-making. The institutional structures of the agrarian political economy make it especially difficult for women to make decisions on resource use, drudgery-reduction infrastructure, and good institutions that have the potential to be responsive to their strategic needs.

Importantly, the traditional caste system in north India has been transformed by the large-scale politicization of the ‘lower castes’ and other marginalized social groups. Further, the women farmers’ movement led by Aroh Mahila Kisan Manch and Gulabi Gang (Pink Sari Brigade) have played a significant role in the massive mobilization of rural women by attacking structures of caste and gender hierarchies. Women’s movements have developed the capacity to sustain a challenge to patriarchal forces. Rural women’s organizations have almost always been involved in conflict with institutional authorities, ranging from the family to state-defined social norms that have been maintained through customary and legal practices.

The sections below discuss the paradox of women’s entitlement in land reforms and women’s protests and demands to equal rights and property, as well as the increasing land transfers in women’s names and the changes resulting from women’s ownership of land.

The Paradox: Women’s Entitlement in Land Reforms

There have been some limited ways of gaining the right to own agricultural land. These have included: direct purchase of land; gift or any other valid transfer through a legal instrument; succession; registered will; and by an allotment to the title deed (patta) by the Gram Sabha (village governance assembly). In Uttar Pradesh, there have been three specific laws in place since 1950: the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZALR) Act, 1950; the Land Consolidation Act, 1954; and the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Landholdings Act, 1960. The UPZALR has had the following major achievements: (i) it has terminated the rights of intermediary landowners with compensation; (ii) accorded rights to tenure holders and also simplified the forms of land tenure; and (iii) stopped private tenancy and distributed agricultural land and house plots to many tenants and landless people (Arora & Singhi, 2009).

The UPZALR Act and several other laws related to the use and ownership of agricultural land holdings were repealed by the state legislations in 2012, in order to enact one comprehensive law, the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006. Importantly, this law has recently (February, 2016) come into force with provisions for women’s inheritance rights to agricultural land. Previously, in February 1995, the Uttar Pradesh government Department of Revenue issued an order (No. 104/1-2/95 No. 2) instructing all the district magistrates to allot government land title deeds (pattas) in the joint names of husband and wife, under Sections 126 and 198 of the UPZALR Act. According to the next order of preference in the disposal of surplus land, 40 per cent of title deeds were to be allotted to single women from landless agricultural labour households (Arora & Singhi, 2009, p. 251). To improve the socio-economic status of women, under Section 126 of the UPZALR Act, a decree was issued that titles (pattas) for agricultural land would be given to the husband and wife jointly in rural areas of the state. Sole titles to land would be given to ‘unmarried but adult daughters whose parents are no longer alive, and to abandoned and widowed women who are landless agricultural labourers’ (Government Order No. 104/1-2/95-RTO-2).

Implementation of these regulations, however, has been difficult. Inequality and discrimination of women have continued to be perpetuated both directly and indirectly through the laws and practices of the state and various informal rules in the local communities. The collusion of government officials with general caste local elites played a role in ensuring that ‘lower caste’ men and women, in particular, did not receive government patta lands, and women continued to remain vulnerable and marginalized in terms of their access to land as managers or owners. Women’s anger against such practices eventually gave rise to the Aroh Mahila Kisan Manch.

Women’s Protests and State Responses

A recurring issue that emerged during our collective discussions with women was their narration of violence within the home and outside. The men in the family had resisted women’s claims to land, their physical mobility and financial security. Social and cultural norms that sanction patriarchal control over women and perpetuate women’s unequal access to land, property and inheritance influence patriarchal institutions of the state and the market, which, in turn, lead to gender discrimination and other social inequalities in policy outcomes.

Our focus group discussions with men clearly showed young men’s resistance to transferring land to women and girls. They gave four reasons why men should retain the sole right to land: (i) it is the boys who take care of parents in their old age; (ii) in case of divorce or eviction from the marital home, the brother would be expected to take responsibility for the sister; (iii) women or girls are given a dowry as their share of parental property; and (iv) social norms do not permit that a girl or woman should have an independent right to land. The joint right to land in the marital home, however, was seen as less of a threat. In their everyday negotiations with men of their households and communities, women exercised informal resistance, in what James Scott has described as ‘off-stage defiance’ (1985, p. 23), or the ‘infra-politics of subordinate groups...[that is] a wide variety of low profile forms of resistance that dare not speak in their own name’ (1990, p. 19). There were also those women who remained quiet and demonstrated nothing but compliance to male dominance as a result of fear of insult and physical assault.

The context of collective (and individual) protests by women for their rights to access justice and agricultural land can be seen against the backdrop of the Gulabi Gang in the Bundelkand region, with 400,000 members, and the Aroh campaign for the recognition of women farmers’ rights to land, in 71 districts of Uttar Pradesh. A significant majority of Gulabi Gang members are ‘lower caste’ women ranging in age from 18 to 65 years; however, the Gulabi Gang fights for the rights of all women regardless of caste (personal interview with Sampat Pal, Gulabi Gang leader, 15 December 2013). Reportedly, hundreds of men who had abused their wives were beaten up by Gulabi Gang members (Sen, 2012, pp. 4–5). The women formed their collective identities around claims of non-tolerance of: (i) corruption in the local and state governance; (ii) abuse of women within the home and outside; and (iii) discrimination against women and the marginalized/‘lower castes’. Their militaristic strategies against abuse and corruption are well reflected in such slogans as ‘we have stick for corrupt and abusive officers’, ‘the officer who is just is our brother’ and ‘those who do not listen to us, change them by kicking’.

In the initial years, many men refused to let their wives join the Gulabi Gang. Later the Gulabi Gang decided to be more interactive with men in discussing their goals and in explaining how violence against women also affects men (Fontanella-Khan, 2013). As a result, men, and especially ‘lower caste’ men, began to trust the Gulabi Gang and understand that the movement for women’s rights was beneficial for everyone. Some men willingly offered to pay for women’s travel for the campaign and men even accompanied the members for a Gulabi Gang public action, in view of potential attacks by dominant caste men and corrupt government functionaries.

With support from Oxfam India and a number of civil society organizations, the Aroh campaign was launched on 15 October 2005, with the aim of establishing the identity of women agricultural workers and cultivators as farmers. A study by Oxfam and the Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG) showed that 91.7 per cent of rural women contributed to agricultural activities, while only 2.9 per cent held joint titles to land (Oxfam and Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group, 2011). Furthermore, it showed that only 6.5 per cent of women had land rights: 81 per cent of them were widowed and 19 per cent were the only child of their parents. Women shouldered both domestic and agricultural work; however, only 7.6 per cent of women farmers were aware of the existence of the Kisan Credit Card (KCC), with 4 per cent of women having a KCC.

Reportedly, in early 2014, a detailed action plan was launched involving a bullock cart march in which 42,000 women and 15,000 men participated. Over time, the Aroh campaign started numerous initiatives for sole or joint land ownership of women, transfer of land in the name of women farmers, distribution of agricultural input, demand for work under the public works program of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and access to KCCs and agricultural extension. Realizing the importance of multidimensional interventions, the Aroh Mahila Kisan Manch was formed in 345 villages, in 71 districts of the state, with the association of 7,238 women farmers. The ripples of the politicization of women through participation in the Aroh campaign could be seen in the increased confidence, self-esteem and rejection of gendered social position on the part of women, as we noted during the course of the fieldwork. Aroh slogans include: ‘we work on land 70 per cent, therefore we claim our right to 70 per cent of land’; ‘if we have no money of our own, our knowledge or learning has no meaning’; ‘women have achieved miracles, we are no longer confined to the kitchen, now we are at the choupal (village decision-making platform)’.

Evidently, the incidence of women claiming their land rights was generally low. However, most of the respondents said that it was good for women to have land in their names. There were a number of women (as represented by some case studies) who had fought against their family members and had successfully claimed their right to own land. The most successful in the struggle for land ownership included two women from Jalaun district, whose trajectories are resumed below (Boxes 1 and 2).

Box 1:

Bindeshwari Devi

Bindeshwari Devi lives in Beona Raja village which is 20 km from Konch township in Jalaun district. She lives with her son, daughter-in-law and three grandchildren. She was only 22 years old when she lost her husband. Soon after her husband’s death she was thrown out of the house by her in-laws. Determined and aware about her right to own land, Bindeshwari fought against her father-in-law to claim her late husband’s property. Instead of leaving the house, she started cultivating the land. In the first year, she grew peas and mustard, from which she earned ₹ 20,000 and ₹ 12,000, respectively. From the money earned she bought a diesel engine for irrigating her fields. That year she earned ₹ 70,000 from green pea crops. She also leased 10 bighas of land for a sum of ₹ 3000 per bighas of green peas, wheat and paddy. In January 2014, she earned about ₹ 100,000 from agricultural produce and cultivated 25 bighas of land, of which 19 bighas were leased.

Box 2:

Gayatri Devi

Gayatri is from Nari village of Jalaun district. After marriage, Gayatri experienced violence and abuse from her in-laws, though her husband was supportive of her. Gayatri’s father, therefore, asked Gayatri’s husband to buy land in her name, as land was likely to give her respect in her marital home. After she became a land owner in her independent name, she felt that she had power. When she was told to leave her marital house by her in-laws, she said that she would never leave the house, as her land was there and she had built her own house on that land. After purchasing the land she also opened a savings bank account in her name. She spends this money on her children’s education and on her own consumption needs.

As noted elsewhere (Kelkar, 2014), women’s demand for equality within the family and for an equal right to land dates back to 1938, when a Sub-Committee on Women’s Role in Planned Economy of the National Committees of India began working on the legal right of women to hold property in their independent names (Sub-Committee on Women’s Role in Planned Economy, 1938). These demands, and other voices from the women’s movement in the 1970s, found expression in India’s Sixth Five-Year Plan, 1980–1985, para. 27.19 (Planning Commission of India, 1980).

In 2005, the Government of India amended the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The Hindu Succession Amendment Act (2005) was a radical legal measure for women’s inheritance rights, establishing a gender-equal basis for land and agricultural property inheritance. However, the Act has been noted for limited implementation. Major barriers to women’s access to their rights and entitlements included: lack of recognition of women’s rights and strategic needs; the requirement of approval from the family or the spouse for travel/mobility; cultural taboos on women’s freedom to assert their rights to own land and productive assets; lack of finances or property of their own required for an independent existence; and the neglect of the state in providing adequate services and protecting women from violence within the home and outside (Batliwala, 2012; Kelkar, 2013).

In recent years, there have been serious questions asked about women’s joint titles to land. As a response, the Planning Commission of India organized a series of policy consultation meetings with civil society groups, including the Feminist Economist Group, to provide their critical inputs to the draft Twelfth Five-Year Plan (Planning Commission of India, 2012). Soon after, the Planning Commission came up with the general conclusion that policy measures for joint titles to land have not worked and have been seen as inconsequential for the social and economic empowerment of women. After consultation with civil society, the current Twelfth-Five Year Plan underlined individual land titles in women’s names, irrespective of their civil status, married or single (for detailed discussion, see Kelkar, 2013).

The following pages of the study discuss our field-based research findings largely related to the intersection of land ownership and resulting changes in gender relations in rural society.

Increasing Land and Asset Transfers in Women’s Names

Of the 118 women respondents in our fieldwork, a significant majority 110 women (over 93.22 per cent) had some land in their names, either individually or jointly with a husband or other member of their households. These women owned 175 plots (see Table 1), and they were aware of the plots owned by them. Of the 175 plots, 136 plots were in the individual names of women as sole owners and the remaining 39 plots in joint ownership with the husband or another member of the household.

Table 1.

Women’s Ownership of Plots

	Single Women	Married Women	Total Women
Individual title	18 (69.23 per cent)	118 (79.19 per cent)	136 (77.71 per cent)
Joint title	8 (30.77 per cent)	31 (20.81 per cent)	39 (22.29 per cent)
	26 (100 per cent)	149 (100 per cent)	175 (100 per cent)

Source: Authors’ survey.

A segregated analysis of land ownership between single and married women showed that the individual category of married women far surpassed single women in individual ownership of land. Overall, 63 per cent of the titles to the plots included a woman’s name and, among these, around two-thirds were owned individually by women, providing them better legal security. It was also evident that the sole ownership of land was significantly more prevalent among married women (79.19 per cent), as against single women (69.23 per cent), indicating some possible change as a result of the efforts of various initiatives and campaigns.

An increase in land transfers to women was further confirmed by Tehsil (sub-district land and revenue department) records for two years (2011 and 2012) covering 178 villages in the five districts of the study area. A total of 10,820 land transactions were analyzed, of which 5,214 were for the year 2011 and 5,606 were for the year 2012. These land transactions included all kinds of sale and mortgage transactions. Our analysis clearly showed that in 70 per cent of cases the ownership of land was in the name of men and in 25 per cent of cases it was in the name of women before the transaction. However, an almost inverse trend is seen after the transaction, wherein almost 61 per cent of land transactions were conducted in the names of women and 37 per cent in the names of men.

An effort was made to understand further the transaction implications by looking into the land ownership shift from the hands of men to women. With regards to the land ownership shift from the hands of men, which comprised the bulk of transactions (70 per cent), almost 60 per cent of these were transferred to women and 38 per cent remained with men. However, it was noted that in 65 per cent of the cases, land remained in the hands of women where they had participated as sellers. Importantly, in approximately 5 per cent of joint land transactions, 57 per cent of land went to women and 41 per cent to men, while around 2 per cent remained in joint ownership.

The reasons given for the increasing transfer of land to women were: (i) the migration of men, which left the management of the land with women and resulted in a change in women’s agency; (ii) the 2 per cent reduction in the stamp duty/registration fee in the case of women sellers; and (iii) the increasing nuclearization of the family structure, with erosion of trust in siblings for land and property-related rights.

Moreover, these women were largely well-informed about their land ownership; 95.76 per cent women showed a fair amount of knowledge about the acquisition and ownership of land by their household or the head. Of the total of 279 plots, 69.53 per cent were acquired through inheritance and a quarter (24.73 per cent) was bought on the market; only one plot came through government allocation. Evidently, despite having partial or full ownership rights to 62.72 per cent of plots, women had access to land documents in the case of only 24.37 per cent of plots. This shows that women have achieved only limited success with regard to control and management of land, as reflected in a focus group discussion in Nari village in Jalaun. Women said that they ‘work on land only to be maintained by sons and husbands. In real terms, the control of land lies with the men.’

With regards to ownership of other productive assets, it is difficult to ascertain the proportion of asset ownership in rural settings, primarily because assets are managed and used by all members of a household. Hence, in order to understand the pattern of ownership the respondents were requested to assign a value at current prices to the assets and suggest the proportion owned solely or jointly by them, or by their husbands or other household members.

Livestock was the most common asset in the study area. To manage data analysis, livestock were grouped under milch animals, domesticated animals and other animals. It was noted that 71.19 per cent of respondents reported that their households owned livestock, with all of them owning milch animals. With regard to the proportion of ownership, women had sole ownership of 51 per cent of livestock. Three per cent was in joint ownership with the husband, 26 per cent was exclusively owned by their husbands, and 20 per cent was owned by other members of their households. It was observed that women from the ‘lower caste’ social groups had a greater role (52 per cent) to play in the management of productive assets, as compared with the women from the general castes (39 per cent).

Ownership of mobile phone and agricultural equipment was almost evenly distributed between husband, wife and other household members, at 34 per cent, 31 per cent and 32 per cent, respectively. In ownership of jewellery, the majority share of 62 per cent was exclusively with women. For items like bicycles and motor cycles, 41 per cent of ownership was with men, but 34 per cent of ownership was with women, the remaining 25 per cent being in joint ownership. With respect to the ownership of machine tools, almost half (47 per cent) was owned by men, 25 per cent by women, and 26 per cent by other members of the family; only 1 per cent was jointly owned. However, in the ownership of agricultural equipment, 48 per cent was with men, 33.5 per cent was with women, and 18.5 per cent was in joint ownership, with only 0.1 per cent with other family members. Interestingly, a significant proportion of ownership of agricultural machinery was with the women.

Effects of Land Ownership on Women’s Voice and Gender-based Violence

Increase in Capabilities and Decision-making

In a collective discussion with 15 women and three men in the village of Awadhpur, in Gorakhpur district, we asked about the change in the position of women in the last 10 years (authors’ interviews in March 2014). As a background to our question, we did explain that this change could be related to women’s increased work in agriculture and land management, as well to their participation in the Aroh campaign. Almost unanimously, the women responded by listing the following changes:

now women can start saving and withdraw money from the banks;

women have greater control over money through SHGs;

women manage land and livestock and work on vermicomposting; in the presence of her husband, one woman added, ‘I work so much, he only talks’;

women engage in marketing now and sell their vegetables in the market;

women have constructed or repaired houses, despite resistance from their husbands in some cases;

women successfully have bargained for better education of their children, as well as for their employability;

there has been a reduction in male violence against women, both within the home and outside: ‘men listen to us because we control our land, cash and assets’, they said; and

‘women have acquired some power now as a result of owning land’; in full agreement with others, a middle-aged woman added: ‘now we are saksham (capable), we have freedom of movement, self-confidence, and independence, we can manage our own assets and our life’.

In the questionnaire-based survey, women were asked about their ability to influence the decisions of male members of their families, including their husbands (see Graph 1). Among all the women interviewed, 86.38 per cent responded that they would be able to convince the male members of their families not to sell land in case they wanted to sell land. When the women were asked about their ability to influence the decision to rent out land, 89.61 per cent of them were confident of their ability. With respect to mortgaging or renting out land, their confidence in their ability to influence decisions came down by small margins, at 83.87 per cent and 85.66 per cent, respectively. However, important decisions such as the sale or renting out of plots were generally taken by men.

Women’s Perception of Factors Which Could Lead to the Loss of Land

On being asked about what could lead to women’s loss of access to land, 76.27 per cent of respondents firmly believed that it was not likely to happen, while 8.47 per cent offered no response. However, 10.17 per cent of respondents stated that they might lose access to land in case of an emergency in the family, such as illness, divorce, the husband abandoning his responsibility of supporting the household or in the aftermath of his death. Women, in general did not talk about the threat of losing access to land, and they seemed to be willing to sacrifice their access rights in case of an emergency situation (such as, serious illness of a household member). Analyzing the data at caste level for the plots showed that the level of confidence of not losing access to land was highest in the general castes (88 per cent) and lowest in Scheduled Castes (SCs) (69.89 per cent).

Graph 1.

Source: Authors’ survey.

On the question of vulnerability to losing access to the plots in case of a conflict within the household, responses were received for 93.19 per cent of the plots, of which 90 per cent of plot owners responded that it was unlikely to happen. When asked about the likelihood of losing access due to the inability of a household to pay back a debt, responses were received from 93.10 per cent of plot owners; interestingly, 20.38 per cent of plot owners said that they might lose access and 74.23 per cent said it was unlikely to happen. The ratio of likelihood of losing access increased to 31.64 per cent in the case of illness within the family. In 12 per cent of the responses, women felt vulnerable in case of divorce or abandonment of the household by the husband to live with another woman, while 6.6 per cent of women noted vulnerability in case of the death of their husbands.

Feminist analyses have indicated that women’s land ownership may bring about change in their command over resources and in their own consumption patterns as well as those of household members (Agarwal, 2003; Kelkar & Krishnaraj, 2013). Our field survey showed that a great majority of women (81.36 per cent) said that they had experienced an increase in the quality and quantity of traditional clothes (sari and salwar kurtas) they wore. With regard to the use of modern clothes (jeans, t-shirts and blouses), 40.68 per cent said that they had seen no improvement, and another 34.75 per cent decided not to answer. Reportedly, there was a noticeable increase in the regular use of items like oil (86.44 per cent), soap and shampoo (78.81 per cent). Semi-precious jewellery and cosmetic items were seen by women as part of ‘power dressing’ for meetings with officials and outsiders. However, the consumption of junk food had increased across all social groups and in the large landowning households as well.

Women Accessing the Markets

In South Asian patriarchal cultures, the market has been a taboo area for women. However, cultures have been mediated by new economic realities, such as the large-scale migration of able-bodied men from the villages to the urban centres, women’s intensified agricultural work and, in many cases, women’s ownership of land and management of the produce. In this new situation, women’s patterns of participation in local markets would be expected to change. To our question on whether they sold their agricultural produce in the local market, 74 per cent of the women answered that they did sell some part of their vegetables and grain in the local markets and also bought things for daily consumption, such as salt, sugar, oil and clothes. Over 72 per cent visited the markets, 72.41 per cent visited only as buyers, 5.75 per cent only as sellers, and 21.84 per cent regularly bought and sold things from the local market. Close to 50 per cent of women respondents from Banda and 41.18 per cent from Sant Kabir Nagar participated in local markets both as buyers and sellers.

With regard to women visiting the markets, 89 per cent from the general castes, 75 per cent from the SCs and 71 per cent from Other Backward Caste (OBC) social groups regularly visited the local markets for day-to-day consumption needs. Women who visited the markets to sell their vegetables or agricultural produce included 83 per cent from OBCs, 57 per cent from the SCs, and 63 per cent from the general castes. The women who visited markets as sellers of their produce included 83 per cent from the OBCs, 57 per cent from the SCs and 63 per cent from the general castes. The women who engaged with the market both as sellers and buyers included 43 per cent from SCs, 37 per cent from the general castes and 17 per cent from the OBCs. Seemingly, the purdah norms and patriarchal control on women’s mobility have influenced OBC social groups more than other caste groups. In the younger age group (20–35 years), 82.61 per cent of women visited the market as buyers, unlike women aged 50 years and above who regularly visited the markets both as buyers and sellers.

With land ownership and management of produce, women have gained greater prestige in the household and also have increased control over how agricultural fields and the produce are managed, which is what Amartya Sen (1990) explains in his path-breaking analysis of the household as cooperative-conflict. The household as a nurturing unitary model, expanded originally by Gary Becker in the 1960s, suggests that the household is a collection of individuals who have a single set of interests and, as such, without any possibility of conflict or differentiation among the members. This unitary model has increasingly been questioned (Kelkar & Krishnaraj, 2013; Seebens, 2011; Sen, 1990). In his analysis of the cooperative-conflict household model, Sen proposes that household members do not necessarily share the same preferences and that they try to pursue their own interests and claims in the pluralistic system of existence. The respective bargaining power of women and men within this model of household depend much on their asset ownership (or its potential) through inheritance or acquisition of land from the market and family transfers. This approach changes the gendered perception of economic contributions to the well-being of the household and decision-making within the home and outside.

Notwithstanding the changes, the old structure of the gender division of labour and associated social norms still determine the direction and form of these changes, as seen in the case of preference by the majority for joint ownership of land, more so among the educated women. Moreover, men have continued to dominate the public sphere and wield power, especially economic power in production, whereas women have continued to remain in their assigned roles in the domestic sphere and agricultural work as an extension of household work. State policies, social norms and familial nurturing of boys and men have continued to strengthen the position of men as breadwinners and heads of households.

As was observed in an earlier study (Kelkar, 2013), the policy and practice of technological upgrades have shown limited concern for the recognition of women’s work, particularly of Dalit women, who have continued to work in the most defiling, low-skilled and low-paid jobs. Surprisingly enough, women’s major work in agriculture is recognized by agriculture–rural development policy makers. As we noted in the preceding pages, some policy measures have been introduced for women’s unmediated land entitlements. However, implementation agencies, influenced by social norm, have not recognized women as legitimate farmers who can own land and manage crop production. In this given situation, the majority of women lacked confidence to discuss land and property management issues with government officials and community leaders, who have thus far given limited support to women’s rights to own and manage land and agriculture. Only those women whose names were on the land documents as owners seemed vocal about their knowledge of land issues and were more likely to take part in decision-making about land management and crop production (Kelkar, 2014).

Land Entitlement and Reduction in Gender-based Violence

As observed elsewhere (Kelkar, Gaikwad & Mandal, 2015) women’s ownership of land and right to access productive assets results in the reduction of gender-based violence both within the home and outside. The land ownership and management rights tend to strengthen women’s economic agency and social position, thus enabling them to resist violence. The ownership and management of land can help women to gain respect and recognition within the family, and thus it can be a key factor in reducing domestic violence. More than half (51.69 per cent) of our respondents firmly agreed that they have gained dignity and respect within their households as a result of land ownership. Overall, 84.75 per cent of the respondents categorically stated that the recent enhancement of the status of women within their households was due to land ownership.

With a varying degree of intensity, 74 per cent of the respondents correlated the reduction in domestic violence with land ownership. This correlation increased to 81.82 per cent among the women who had participated in the Aroh campaigns. As Suhadra Devi from a boat-keeping community in Chakchatgan village, Banda district, maintains, ‘now we can demand our rights, fear has left our body. Men are careful when land is in the woman’s name. There has been a reduction of violence at home.’ On the question of awareness about legal provisions recognizing and protecting women’s right to land, only a few women (16.10 per cent of respondents) said they were aware of any such legal provision. However, this percentage was better (29.55 per cent) amongst the women who had participated in the Aroh campaigns.

Access to land may facilitate women’s empowerment and enhance their dignity. However, as a direct comparison could not be made, the landowning respondents were asked to compare themselves with their peers who did not have any land. Among the respondents, 33 per cent stated that there was improvement in their mobility, while 12 per cent did not see such change, and the remaining saw it happening, but with varying intensity. Nonetheless, there seemed to be a clear trend in terms of the improvement of women’s social position when they owned land (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparison of Changes Seen by Women with and without Land (N = 118 women)

Sl. No.	Comparison Parameters	Yes(Per cent)	No(Per cent)	To Some Extent(Per cent)	Largely(Per cent)	Not At All(Per cent)	No Response(Per cent)
1	Improving mobility	33.05	11.86	33.05	19.49		2.54
2	Control/management of land and its produce	27.97	19.49	24.58	26.27		1.69
3	Purchase of major household items	24.58	11.02	30.51	30.51		3.39
4	Reducing shouting/beating at home	23.73	22.88	22.88	25.42	1.69	3.39

Source: Authors’ survey.

Women’s newly acquired dignity and social prestige with ownership of land were well summed up by Girija Devi of Beona village, a local primary school helper

Earlier I used to beg for food, now I am a chairperson of 327 women SHGs, a federation. Now we have samman (dignity), people love and respect us. Pressure or control on mobility has reduced; we are saksham (capable) we have freedom of movement, self-confidence and independence. We can manage our own life and resources. Now we can talk to police, bank officials, and government functionaries. We no longer freeze in seeing such officers. In two words, women’s owning of land has resulted in two major changes: paisa and samman (assets and dignity).

Individual or Joint Land Titles

During our initial field visits to Uttar Pradesh, we noticed a prevalent view in the villages that registration of individualized land rights of women would lead to security and improved livelihoods for the poor, in general, and women, in particular. However, it was not easy to claim these rights either from the state or from the men of the dominant castes, the large landholders. Furthermore, women experienced difficulty in claiming their right to own land within their own households.

In the given system of formal and informal barriers against women’s right to own and manage land, it is important to note that 11 per cent of women respondents had claimed land through a formal legal system. Through the Aroh campaign, these women have played a major role as reference group for the other women and men in the region. However, the success rate of the women who had claimed their rights to land was 77 per cent (100 per cent for the general castes, 83 per cent for the SCs and 60 per cent for the OBCs). The success rate was significantly higher for the literate women (80 per cent), as compared to non-literate women (66.67 per cent).

Disaggregation of data by age group suggests a high preference for land ownership across all age groups. However, joint ownership of land was preferred when titling was considered, the preference level being highest for women aged 50 years or more (48.39 per cent), although not significantly lower among other age groups (see Table 3).

Table 3.

AROH Campaign: Women’s Perception on Ownership of Land (N = 44 women)

Perception Base		Those Who Participated (Per cent)
Do you think that it is good or bad for women to have rights to land?	It is good	93.18

	It does not matter	0.00
	It is bad	0.00
	No response	6.82
Does it matter whether women’s rights to land are held jointly with their husbands or whether women have independent rights to land?	It does not matter	11.36
	It is better for women to have joint rights with their husbands	59.09
	It is better for women to have their own rights to land independent from their husbands	25.00
	No response	4.55

Source: Authors’ survey.

Conclusion: Towards Gender Transformational Change

As noted above, a greater understanding of gendered systems and power relations in ownership and control over land and other productive resources is required. This includes a survey of obstacles that limit women’s access to legal rights to land and land-based livelihoods. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that there are processes of collective action and agency, by which women have come together to buy, sell or lease land to use as credit for agriculture or other productive purposes. However, many women in our survey understood these within the existing gendered systems, such as a general preference for a son inheriting land, or in a similar vein, the preference for joint pattas. Despite this, a number of respondents preferred the sole right to land in case the husband abandons the family, or on his death. Social norms have an embedded disadvantage for women, and women’s unmediated (not through the household or its head) right to land and productive assets is not prioritized.

Married women’s access to justice as against the policy attention directed towards ‘female-headed households’ is well summed by a former High Court judge in addressing a Women Farmer’s conference in 2014: ‘access to justice is incomplete when available only after pranpati [husband, the controller of my life] is no more. Justice is effective and complete when available in his presence and on equal terms’ (authors’ notes).

Our analysis has shown the following: (i) there is a continuing tradition which regards the man as head of household, with his determining power, ownership and decision-making over land and assets; (ii) there is a low level of awareness by women with regards to legal policies and a general reluctance to assert their inheritance and ownership rights; and (iii) women’s lack of economic power leads to their silence and lack of bargaining power, both within and outside the home. However, some propellants for the policy change in favour of women’s land rights include: (i) the official acknowledgement of women’s major responsibility for agriculture work; (ii) the demand by women’s movements and civil society organizations for women’s unmediated rights to land and assets; and (iii) the spread of knowledge about rural women’s large-scale involvement in agricultural work and the policy recognition of this work.

Based on individual and collective discussions with women and men in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh, we can suggest a four-pillar strategy for gender transformational change that is likely to address the causes of gender discrimination and women’s inequality, including the legal neglect as well as the socially and culturally constructed norms and relations of power and hierarchies between women and men. These include (i) gender-sensitive laws and policies; (ii) knowledge on land ownership; (iii) legal literacy on land in communities; and (iv) strengthening institutional capabilities in gender-responsive land policies and their implementation.

Secure land and property rights for women and economic opportunities for both women and men pave the way for inclusive markets and the spread of technology and justice. As noted by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012, p. 84), ‘[f]ear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions’. The focus on culture is useful in understanding the role of beliefs, values and social norms in creating and reinforcing inequalities. Social norms related to culture can be hard to change, thus supporting institutionalized differences between women and men. There is need, therefore, to complement the old with new knowledge, technology, skills and values in the political arena, as well as in the economic governance of land and markets. The way to change the patriarchal systems of political and economic governance is to have mandatory measures for women’s representation in leadership institutions, with adequate measures for the development of capability for more effective participation in land governance.

As noted, there is a general reluctance to recognize women’s unmediated authority to own and manage land and property. It is often argued that women who have land or housing documents in their names are likely to be in a stronger bargaining position vis-à-vis men than women who do not formally own land or houses. Women face disadvantages, even if they belong to a household that has land. This gender gap in ownership is not due to women’s disinterest, as there are encouraging results that show that women want to own land and, in many cases, have successfully struggled against their families for land ownership rights. Furthermore, there are definite advances in the capability of women to own and manage land and acquire greater control over the disposition of household income from agricultural produce. These, however, need to be studied and documented to assess the emerging picture of women’s position with respect to the ownership of land. A broad conclusion is that without land and asset-based economic security women (and men) lack real freedom to overcome their vulnerability and move out of poverty and inequality in rural societies.

References

Abraham

Vinoj

. (2013). Missing labour or consistent ‘de-feminisation’? Economic and Political Weekly, 48(31), 99–108.

Acemoglu

Daron

, & Robinson

James A.

(2012). Why nations fail, the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London: Profile Books.

Agarwal

Bina

. (2003). Gender and land rights revisited: Exploring new prospects via the state, family and market. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1 and 2), 184–224.

Arora

Saroj

, & Singhi

L.C.

(2009). Women’s access and rights to land in Uttar Pradesh. In Chowdhry

Prem

(Ed.), Gender discrimination in land ownership (pp. 314–333). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Batliwala

Srilatha

. (2012). Changing their world: Concepts and practices of women’s movements. Toronto, Mexico City and Cape Town: AWID-BFEMO. Retrieved 14 March 2014, from http://www.awid.org/publications/changing-their-world-concepts-and-practices-womens-movements

Fontanella-Khan

Amana

. (2013). Pink Sari revolution: A tale of women and power in India. London: Macmillan.

Government of India. (2011a). All-India report on agricultural census, 2010–2011. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.

IDFC Rural Development Network. (2013). India rural development report 2012–2013. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research. (2012–2013). Annual report. Retrieved 4 April 2014, from http://www.icar.org.in/en/node/5943

10.

Kannan

K.P.

, & Reveendran

(2012). Counting and profiling the missing labour force. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(6), 43–59.

11.

Kelkar

Govind

. (2013). At the threshold of economic empowerment: Women, work and gender regimes in Asia (Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series, December). New Delhi: International Labour Organization.

12.

Kelkar

Govind

. (2014). The fog of entitlement: Women and land in India. Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), 49(33), 51–58.

13.

Kelkar

Govind

, & Krishnaraj

(Eds). (2013). Women, land and power in Asia. New Delhi: Routledge India.

14.

Kelkar

Govind

, Gaikwad

Shantanu

, & Mandal

Somdatta

. (2015). Women’s asset ownership and reduction in gender-based violence. New Delhi: Landesa/Rural Development Institute.

15.

Nathan

Dev

, & Kelkar

Govind

. (2005). Chenchu women of Andhra Pradesh, India: Empowerment in the market and household. New Delhi: UNIFEM South Asia Office.

16.

National Sample Survey Organization. (NSSO). (2011). Employment and unemployment situation in India, 2009–2010 (NSS 66th Round). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

17.

National Sample Survey Organization. (NSSO). (2012). Energy sources of Indian households for cooking and lighting, July 2011–June 2012 (NSS 68th Round). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

18.

Oxfam and Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group. (2011). Mirror of efforts. Gorakhpur: Kasturi Offset Systems.

19.

Perrons

Diane

. (2015). Gendering the inequality debate. London: Routledge.

20.

Planning Commission of India. (1980). Sixth five year plan (1980–1985). New Delhi: Government of India.

21.

Planning Commission of India. (2012). Twelfth five year plan (2012–2017). New Delhi: Government of India.

22.

Rodgers

Gerry

, & Rogers

Janine

. (2011). Inclusive development: Migration, governance and social change in rural Bihar. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(23), 43–50.

23.

Roy

Sanchari

. (2008). Female empowerment through inheritance rights: Evidence from India. Retrieved 5 April 2014, from http://www.dagliano.unimi.it/media/Faini_Conf2008_final_programme_1.pdf

24.

Scott

James

. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

25.

Scott

James

. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

26.

Seebens

Holger

. (2011). Intra-household bargaining gender roles in agriculture and how to promote welfare enhancing changes (ESA Working Paper No. 11–12). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

27.

Sen

Amartya

(1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In Tinker

(Ed.), Persistent inequalities (pp. 458–500). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Sen

Amartya

. (2012). Women vigilantism in India: A case study of the Pink Sari gang. Online Encyclopaedia of Mass Violence. Retrieved 14 April 2014, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulabi_Gang

29.

Shah

Mihir

, Rao

Rangu

, & Vijay

Shankar, P.S.

(2009). Rural credit in 20th century India: Overview of history and perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(15), 1351–1364.

30.

UN Women. (2015). Progress of the world’s women, 2015–2016: Transforming economies, realizing rights. New York, NY: United Nations.

31.

World Development Report. (2015). Mind, society and behavior. Washington, DC: World Bank.