Abstract
Drawing from empirical research, the article highlights the landlessness of the Dalits in eastern Uttar Pradesh vis-à-vis the social construction of poverty and the question of identity based on caste. It analyses the nature and extent of inequality in the ownership of land (both agricultural and homestead) among different social groups and presents a comparative perspective of Dalits at the national, state and local levels. Further, on the basis of block and village level analysis, the article reveals the size of landholding patterns among different caste groups of eastern Uttar Pradesh. The article seeks an answer to the question as to why the Dalits do not have land and for what reasons. It is observed that land for them is not only a source of livelihood but also a question of dignity. The article advocates that minimum size of land will provide them safety, security and dignity.
Introduction
The study of Indian society is never completed without a reference to caste. In fact, rapid social change ushered by industrialization, urbanization and globalization has significantly altered the mosaic of India. Such change is visible both in rural and urban India. Rural India which has remained hitherto unresponsive and immune to technological transformation substantively has of late reacted rather sharply to these changes. The interconnected concrete roads in villages, introduction of MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and e-governance under Panchayati Raj institutions have transformed rural India. Yet some of the old institutions and organizations continue to upset these developmental initiatives leading to increasing conflict among various castes, communities and groups.
One of such age-old institutions and to a large extent a barrier to India’s developmental dream is the caste system. Caste is a vast social network of complex interrelation and interaction among differently situated social groups. Caste, defined in terms of hierarchy, endogamy and discrimination based on birth determines both life world and world view of individuals, groups and communities.
Interestingly, the other basis of social stratification, that is, class, is inherent in caste, if Indian social structure has to be critically analysed. With a few notable exceptions notwithstanding, caste and class are intertwined in Indian villages as upper castes are also upper class. Indeed, idiosyncrasies of numerical strength aside, dominant caste groups are essentially social class segments. As Beteille (2012) reaffirms, power resides in continuum of caste–class axis, rarely destroying the underlying caste hierarchy. This happens because access to wealth in an essentially agrarian social structure is decided by access to means of production to quote a Marxian terminology, which is land. Dominant castes and class groups in India, for example, the Thakurs and Bhumihars in North India, are also economically better of communities due to their possession of land. This gives them not only a better lifestyle economically but also social status and dignity.
On the contrary, the efforts to enhance the status of deprived caste groups have largely been unsuccessful due to economic deprivations arising out of their poor access to land especially in rural India. Access to land not only guarantees commodity production, food security and better living standards but also provides them better social status and condition. The very nature of control of land is related to land right, which in a nutshell refers to land title in terms of ownership and possession, which cement economic prosperity and social status. The instantiation between land and deprived castes, that is, Dalits in India, is a far bigger gap which requires a sustained and sustentative effort to bridge. This article has made an attempt to capture this social reality and an effort to find a viable solution.
‘Landlessness among the Scheduled Castes (SC) is a common feature in the Indian rural economy’ (Thorat, 2009, p. 54). The issue of landlessness (bhumihin) is inseparably linked with lack of control over resources, including skills, knowledge, capital and social connections. This puts the Dalits in a context which poses the greatest threat to their dignity, undermining their self-existence before society, culture, economy and polity. Landlessness occurs mainly at the individual or household level, but for Dalits it has a social and community implications which subject them to the vagaries of unemployment, crime, deteriorated housing and poor health conditions. Beidelman (1959, p. 75) argues that the caste system entails inequality in the distribution of power and considers land as the major integrative factor around which the caste and village system operate. In this way, the sociological analysis of landlessness requires understanding of the relationship between polity, economic and sociocultural situations, and processes. It assumes that to be landless (bhumihin) is a complex and cumulative consequence of deprivation and powerlessness over a period of time between groups within a region and between regions in the modern world system.
In this backdrop, drawing upon the empirical work, this article highlights the causes and consequences of landlessness of the Dalits in eastern Uttar Pradesh (EUP). The objective is to analyse the nature and extent of inequality in the ownership of land (both agricultural and homestead) among different social groups and to evaluate the comparative position of Dalits at national, state and regional context. Further, to highlight similarity and difference in the land-holding pattern between different castes and communities, this analysis is undertaken at block and village levels of EUP. The pertinent question ascertained is as to why the Dalits do not have land and for what reasons. It is found that land for them is not only a source of livelihood but also a matter of dignity and self-respect.
Land: The Poverty of Social Construction
Deprivation and poverty are social in nature and character. But the question of deprivation and poverty revolves around the social construction of identity, hierarchy and historicity. Historically Dalits are deprived of acquiring property, wealth and land. This historicity is continuing and has its bearing even today, and it is essentially manifested and re-manifested in social constructions of everyday life. On the whole, the economy of an individual or a community in an agrarian country like India essentially depends on land, and landlessness deprives him of not only economic security but also identity, social status and dignity. Hence land as the basis of all economic activities can either serve as an essential asset for a society to achieve economic growth and social equity, or it can be used as a tool in the hands of a few elites to hijack a country’s economic independence to subvert its social processes (Sethi, 2009). Land is the centre of rural life in India. Land has inherent value, and it creates value assets. A plot of land can provide a household with physical, financial and nutritional security, and a labourer with a source of wage. Land is a basis for identity and status within a family and community. Land is regarded as the foundation of political power (Deininger, 2003; Mearns, 1999). Further, the question is who has lands and who has no land; in this way, ‘we are therefore left with only two sides–the natural, objective side, land; and the human, subjective side, labour, which includes capital and besides capital, a third factor which the economist does not think about, mean the mental element of invention, of thought, alongside the physical element of sheer labour’ (Marx, 1982, p. 162). In this corroboration process, landlessness results in multidimensional and cumulative consequences further resulting in poverty, deprivation, lower social status and atrocities. Poverty cannot be understood sociologically in terms of low income or deprivation but rather in terms of the social response to such deprivations (Coser, 1965, p. 142). In this situation, how a person reacts/behaves with landless people and their deprivation has in the societal milieu. In this perspective, the social response to landlessness of the Dalits is viewed as disgraceful and undignified. In general, sociologists are critical of the economist’s perspective of free choice models, whereby individuals control their own destiny and are, therefore, the cause of their own poverty (Piachard, 1987, cited in Timothy M. Smeeding, p. 3) stands null and void as Dalits as a community or as individuals are viewed in the larger context of the Hindu society and its structure, not as alone human beings. Moreover, when seen as individuals, they are evaluated in the context of purity and pollution having the larger domain of hierarchy and stratification, meaning, thereby, subject to inferiority. Landless people are always associated with (a) resourcelessness, (b) choicelessnes, (c) insecurity and (d) deprivation and denial of justice which create incapacities in the pursuit of dignified life in a given society for a person, household, group or community. It makes the possibility to look into the cause, process and consequence of landlessness as well as the way its discourse is constructed and how the deprived people react in a variety of ways to the existing situation of their life. By focusing on the institutional mechanism of inequality, the sociology of landlessness provides a deeper analysis of material and discursive aspects of poverty, the way poor are constructed as a social category and the way stigma is associated with it. It can powerfully interconnect structure, discourse and agency and show that poverty is largely a social construct along with countervailing acting. In recent years, we have begun to hear the voices of the poor. But we need to know more about the way the historical destiny of deprived people is created materially and symbolically and how they live with and struggle against their socially constructed fate. It is essential to view landlessness of the Dalits in the context of the caste system. If we place the caste system in an economic context as opposed to Dumont’s religious interpretation, we arrive at a different conclusion (Michael, 2007, p. 192). It demands the development of a proper sociological enquiry to landlessness, poverty and deprivation for a perspective. Therefore, proper social constructions of perspectives of the issues are essential because it provides the nuances and alternative paradigms to deal with the situation in different theoretical manner. This effort will emancipate the dichotomies of hierarchies and advocates for of a society based on equality, egalitarian principles of justice.
Landownership of Dalits in India: A Brief Overview
Land constitutes a principal obstacle to broad-based development and empowerment of the Dalits in India. In an agrarian economy like India with great scarcity of land among the Dalits, this is entangled with a large population below the poverty line, most of whom are engaged in labour activities. This compelling economic insecurity demands not only demands redistribution of land but also other productive economic resources. This would be a major step to become a just society and to be able to address the frustration, anger and insecurity of Dalits populations. Table 1 depicts a perspective on possession of land. The nature of land distribution is very precarious and warranting. A pan-Indian disparity up to 75 per cent is a genuine and grave concern. Further, there are more disparities among and between the states. The percentage of landless and near-landless is higher in Punjab followed by Kerala, Haryana and Bihar. The percentage of landlessness and near-landless of Uttar Pradesh (UP) is 71.80, which is relatively better than Maharashtra and Odisha. As far as the size of landholdings of the Dalits is concerned, it is very much skewed as most of them have marginal and small holding. The percentage of marginal holding is 77.51 per cent in the year 2010–2011. Over the years, the number of marginal holdings also increases at the rate of about 1.5 per cent per year which is presented in Table 2. The findings are further substantiated:
Land concentration continues even today despite land reforms. As per 1985–1986, agricultural census, the top 10 per cent of the holding of more than 10 acre control about 50 per cent of the total land under cultivation, while the bottom (marginal and small holding) 76 per cent of holding control only about 28 per cent of total land under cultivation. This unequal distribution of land is also associated with caste as land is mostly in the hand of upper castes to the exclusion of the Dalits and other backward castes. (Nancharairah, 1998)
Percentage of Landless and Near-landless Households According to Land Possessed for Dalit Households (1999–2000)
Number of Landholdings of Dalits
Socio-demographic and Land Profile of Uttar Pradesh
Demographic Profile of Uttar Pradesh
UP is the most populous state accounting for 16.4 per cent of the total population of India. It has one-sixth of the total population and one-tenth of the land area of the country. It is also the fourth largest state in terms of geographical area, covering 240,928 sq. km, comprising 75 districts, 18 divisions, 822 development blocks, approximately 915 urban local bodies, 8135 Nayaya Panchayats, 59,163 Gram Sabhas and 97,941 populated villages (GoI, 2001).
The density of population in the state was 689 persons per sq. km in 2001 as against 324 of the country. The state has a predominance of small village, which implies that a large spread of social and economic infrastructure requires more resources. On the socio-economic and demographic point of view, the state is grouped under four regions, western, central, eastern and Bundelkhand. The detail of all these regions are presented in Table 3. Area-wise, the eastern region is the largest and the central region is the smallest unit. In the similar way, demographically the eastern region has the highest concentration of population in comparison to other regions.
Area, Population and Density in Different Economic Regions of Uttar Pradesh
Land Profile of Uttar Pradesh
The state has a total geographical area of about 24,170 thousand hectare, out of which 16,573 thousand hectare are under cultivation (Table 4). More than half (8,635 thousand hectare) of the cultivated area is sown more than once because of which the grossed cropped area is more than total geographical/land utilized area. Gross cropped area is 25,414 hectare in the state. The state share in total geographical area, net sown area and gross cropped area of the country are 7, 12 and 14 per cent, respectively. Per capita land area of the state is 0.14 hectare as compared to 0.33 hectare for the country as a whole. Thus, the state has to support more people with less land.
Land Use Pattern in UP (For the Year 2006–2007)
As per 2000–2001 agriculture census, predominance of marginal and small farmers are seen in the state, which is 76.9 per cent and 14.6 per cent of the total holding, respectively (Government of UP, 2009, p. 49). The detail of size of landholdings is presented in Table 5. It shows the percentage of small and marginal landholding is 61.2 per cent of the total area. Further, it also indicates that over the years, the percentage of marginal and small landholdings is increasing and other category of landholdings is on a decline.
Area Under Various Landholding Groups (in Percentage)
As a matter of fact, there is an increase in the number of marginal farmers by 59 per cent during the above period. Incidentally, the percentage of marginal holdings in the state is 76.9, which is the highest in the country.
Demographic and Land Profile of Dalits in Uttar Pradesh
The SC population of UP was 35,148,377 according to the 2001 Census, constituting 21.1 per cent of the total population (166,197,921) of the state. UP holds first and fourth ranks in terms of absolute number of SC population and its proportion to total population, respectively, among all the states and union territories. The decennial growth of SC population has been 25.3 per cent, which is comparable with the growth of total population (25.8 per cent) of the state. Further, as per 2011 census, the total SC population is 41,357,608, constituting 20.7 per cent of the total population. The decadal growth of SC population has been declined from 2001. The SCs are predominantly rural, as 87.7 per cent of them live in villages.
The ownership of land by the Dalits vis-à-vis other communities is presented in Table 6. It reveals that the share of SC holdings in total holdings of the State in 2001 was 17.01 per cent; whereas, in terms of area, it accounts for 10.91 per cent. In 2005, it was 17.12 per cent and area was 10.85 per cent. In 2010–2011, it was 17.52 per cent, and, area-wise, it was 11.51 per cent. Figure 1 shows that the share of SCs in area as well as in number of holdings has slightly increased over the years, with little variation. In marginal landholdings, their number is more, that is, 19.61 per cent and area 17.34 per cent. The land share of the Dalits is mostly confined to marginal holdings. The above fact brings out high inter-social group disparities in land ownership, suggesting that out of 100 per cent land area, Dalits have only 11.51 per cent, whereas their population in the entire state is more than 21 per cent.
Operational Landholdings of Dalits and Other People of Uttar Pradesh (in Thousand ha)
It means 80 per cent population owns 90 per cent of the land area.
The farm size and its categories are indicative of the fact that the incidence of landless and near-landless households is more pronounced in SCs than in other social groups, while the gap increase for successively higher land size categories is to the disadvantage of SCs. The existence of such disparities is a universal phenomenon in all the states and unambiguously highlights the weak resource base of the SC households, both in absolute terms and relative to their non-SC/ST counterparts. (Thorat, 2009, p. 54)
From the 2004–05 NSS data we see that in the aggregate, ‘Other’, who was 20 per cent of the population, owned 36 per cent of the land, as compared to SCs who were 22 per cent of land owned 9 per cent of the land. Given the historic restrictions on the ownership of land by Dalits, this figure of 9 per cent appears to be a result of the limited land reforms after independence, some beneficiaries of which have been Dalits. This aggregate figure hides some extreme disparity in some states: in Haryana, SCs who were 29 per cent the population owned 3 per cent of the land, while ‘Others’ who were 40 per cent of the population owned 72 per cent of land. These figures are indicative but by no means exceptional; more detailed data, for instance, in Deshpande (2011) and Thorat and Newman (2010), confirm the simple fact that gaps between Dalits and upper castes are unambiguous and persistent. (Deshpande, 2013, pp. 23–24)
Methodology and Sampling
The land situation of the Dalits in the country is highlighted. The description of the socio-demographic and land situation of UP, and also of the Dalits, is discussed. This is to present a macro view on the subject followed by micro-empirical analysis. The micro analysis follows from district to block and to village. Hence, the monograph makes an attempt to delineate and develop deductive perspective. In this manner, EUP has been selected for this study in order to gain an in-depth understanding of issue concerning landholding of the Dalits. A path-breaking study has been undertaken to look into the issue of grappling of land and how it affects the Dalits, its distribution and so on. In EUP, the Varanasi district is selected for the study to enquire and understand issues relating to land of the Dalits. Hence, having with a proper profile of the district is vital to familiarize the reader with the socio-demographic ambience of the study area. Tables 7–12 give a snapshot of Varanasi district, selected blocks and villages for this study.
Selection of District, Blocks, Villages and Respondents
The primary data is collected through intensive as well as extensive fieldwork by administering the interview schedule, focused interview and quasi-participatory observation method. The secondary and documentary source of data have also been used to explain the magnitude of servitude and landlessness as it persists among the Dalits of EUP. This study has been undertaken in the most backward region of Eastern UP, especially in two selected blocks of Varanasi district.
The respondents to this study were village-level Dalit workers, labourers and marginal landholders and mostly the beneficiaries of anti-poverty programmes. For the purpose, the beneficiary list has been obtained from the block office. There are eight blocks in Varanasi district, out of which one-fourth of the blocks have been selected purposefully, namely, Kashi Vidyapeeth and Pindra block. Mostly, six villages (from three different types of villages) have been selected from each block. Three different types of villages are selected on the basis of following criteria: (a) the village of high incidence and magnitude of poverty, (b) the village of middle incidence and magnitude of poverty and (c) the village of low incidence and magnitude of poverty. In these blocks, there are around 312 villages, out of which 12 villages (six villages from each block and two villages from each type of village) were selected for the study on the basis of the above criteria. Random sampling was used choosing 441 households from 12 villages of Varanasi district of EUP. These households are interviewed through household interview scheduled. The villages and the respondents selected are presented in Table 7. To explore a sociological perspective, qualitative analysis was done. This was done understanding and by involving an interactive process with the respondents. Further, qualitative information were gathered by taking focus interview and quasi-participatory observation.
Sample Villages and Number of Respondents
District Profile
The present study is undertaken in Varanasi district out of the total 70 districts of UP. Varanasi is located in the east region and is one of the administrative divisions of the state. The district coming under Varanasi division are Chandoli, Ghazipur, Jaunpur and Varanasi. It has a population of 3,338,671, of which 14 per cent belongs to the SCs and 0.02 per cent belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Among the SCs, Chamar, Khatik and Dhobi are the largest in number. For the study, along with these specified communities, other SC communities are also interviewed to strengthen the rationale of the study.
The administrative and district headquarters are located in the Varanasi city. Varanasi city is one of the oldest urban settlements in the world. The city is considered as a holy city by many religions of India, and it is famous for its temples and Buddhist circuit. River Ganga is the essence of the district in the Varanasi city. The district is surrounded by Sant Ravidas Nagar district in the east, Chandauli district in the west, Jaunpur district in the north and Mirzapur district in the south. The detailed profile of the district is depicted in Table 8. The reporting area of land utilization of the district is 152.678 thousand hectare whereas net sown area is 95.842 thousand hectare. Other land use details are also presented in Table 9.
Profile of the District
Land Use Status in the Varanasi District (Average of Preceding 5 Years)
Profile of the Selected Blocks
As mentioned in Table 8, the district has eight blocks, out of which two blocks are purposively selected for the study. The demographic composition of these two selected blocks suggests that Kashi Vidhyapeeth has more numbers of persons than Pindara block; however, in size of landholdings, it is the opposite. The literacy rate of both the blocks is more or less the similar. The number of families living below poverty line was 9,962 and 9653 in Pindara and Kashi Vidhyapeeth blocks, respectively, which indicates that the former has more BPL families. The education and health infrastructure also suggests variation in both the blocks. The reporting land area utilized in Pindra block was 22,482 hectare and for Kashi Vidyapeeth block it was 15,896 hectare. The grand total of land use of both the blocks are 27,823 hectare and 8,882 hectare, respectively. On the basis of land size, Pindra block is bigger than Kashi Vidyapeeth. The comparative figures of both the blocks are presented in Table 10.
Profile of Selected Blocks
Profile of the Selected Villages
Against this backdrop, the landholding pattern of the selected villages is presented in the following section. The presentation below is confined to the issues of land and its related activities such as livelihood, dignity and resourcelessness.
Landholdings in the Surveyed Villages
To ascertain the landholdings of general category population vis-à-vis the Dalits of selected villages, the data was collected and presented in Table 12. It reveals caste-wise landholdings of the villages surveyed. The twelve villages surveyed have several caste groups, but all these are being clubbed into three main categories, namely, upper caste, OBC and Dalits. It is already revealed that Dalits have a very meagre amount of landholdings.
Land Holding Details of the Villages (Caste-wise)* in Hectare
For example, in Narottampur, Kala village has maximum landholding, that is, 428.835 hectare, out of which 253.25 hectare belongs to upper castes. OBC has 168.49 hectare and Dalits have only 7.084 hectare. This shows that there is an enormous gap between upper caste, OBC and the Dalit as far as landholding is concerned. Figure 2 presents a clear picture of the landholding among different social groups in the surveyed villages, which clearly indicates the ladder of landholding where the upper caste graph is at the top, OBC are in the middle and the Dalits are at the bottom. It is interesting to refer to Gandhi (1947, p. 48) who said, ‘No man should have more land than he needs for dignified sustenance. Who can dispute the fact that the grinding poverty of the masses is due to their having no land that they can call their own?’ In case of the Dalits, this is a bare fact which is not academically much debated and no policy formulation has been done in this perspective. There is significant disproportion of land-holdings in the country, resulting in continuation of poverty and landlessness among Dalits.
In the above background, the landholding situations of the Dalits vis-à-vis how they manage their life without land and how the landlessness is viewed by the other communities in the village is explored and presented below.
Landholding Situation of Dalits in the Surveyed Village
As described above, in the selected village, landholdings of the Dalits are abysmally low, even though to have deeper understanding and exact position about their situation, a detail analysis has been done. The first issue explored was what type of land they owned.
Those who owned land were explored to know what kind of land they had and their responses are presented in Table 13. In this regard, 71.88 per cent have only homestead land and about 27.66 per cent have homestead and agricultural land both, and 0.23 per cent have barren land. Hence, it is required to know the quantity of land at their disposal on the date of study, which is presented in Tables 14–16.
Type of Land Owned
Total Land Possessed by Respondents on the Date of Survey (in ha)
In Table 14, the quantity of land they have on the date of survey is shown. Out of this, 30.61 per cent have a very meagre amount of land, that is, in between 0.002 and 0.001 hectare, above a half of the population, that is, about 54.65 per cent, have less amount of land which is in between 0.101 and 0.200 hectare, 4.08 per cent have land between 0.201 and 0.300 hectare, which is little land, and only about 2 per cent have land above 0.3 hectare.
Table 15 suggests that the Dalits do have an land. But its size highly minimal. In this context, the size of agricultural land was further enquired. It is presented in Table 16.
Area of Homestead Land (in ha)
Ownership of Agricultural Land
Landholding is an important source of income and an asset for households in rural area. But very less number (2.49%) of the Dalit households are engaged in agriculture as their primary occupation; hence, it is clear that the Dalits do not have agricultural land, that’s why many of them are engaged in other activities. Although, to understand the gravity of their landholdings, a categorical question was asked to ascertain their agricultural land possession. The detail of land possession are presented Table 17.
Table 17 presents the agricultural land they own. The range starts from a very meagre to small, medium and medium patch of land. It is evident that 73.47 per cent of the Dalits do not have agricultural land and only 26 per cent have land. To know the area of the land cultivated during last year, the question was raised and presented in Table 18.
Total Agricultural Land Possessed (in ha)*
Area of Cultivated Land (in ha) During the Last Year
Table 18 reveals that 6.34 per cent of the Dalits cultivated up to 0.050 hectare of land in the past year, 9.07 per cent cultivated land between 0.051 and 0.10 hectare, 7.02 per cent cultivated land between 0.101 and 0.200 hectare, 3.40 per cent cultivated in between 0.0201 and 0.0300 hectare, and about 1.7 per cent cultivated around 0.301 hectare and above. Hence, very less quantity of land is cultivated by the Dalits, which has not contributed much to their food requirement. As stated earlier, Table 15 suggests that only 27.66 per cent of the households have agricultural land and 72.11 per cent do not have any agricultural land.
When asked why they do not have any agricultural land (refer to Table 19), 51.70 per cent of the households responded that they do not have land because their forefathers had no land, 3.40 per cent had land which were sold off by their predecessors due to poverty, 4.76 per cent do not have land because their land was illegally captured by other caste, and 1.13 per cent cited family problems as reasons for no landholdings (problems like father did not give land to such households which is now separated from the family). The above finding of this study is further substantiated by a recent study that suggests,
‘while there has been a substantial transfer of land ownership from the upper castes to the middle and lower castes, access to land remains very low for the SCs. This is particularly true for landholding in higher size class, and for holdings with better quality irrigation like well irrigation’ (Athreya & Chandra, 2000).
Why Do Not You Have Agricultural Land?
Further, in 1992, 13.34 per cent of the rural SC households owned some land, but the size of the landholding was too small (less than 0.40 hectare) for 56 per cent households that they were termed as ‘near-landless’. These near-landless households largely work as agricultural/non-agricultural labourers because their negligible landholding is not sufficient to support their family. Thus, landowning SC households are either nearly landless or largely marginal and small farmers (Thorat, 2009, p. 54). The pattern of landownership is highly skewed against SCs. Nearly 70 per cent of SC household either do not own land or have very small landholding of less than 0.4 hectare. A very small proportion (less than 6 per cent) consists of medium and large farmers. The scenario of landownership among SCs is even grimmer in Bihar, Haryana, Kerala and Punjab, where more than 90 per cent of SC households possess negligible or no land. In this regard, the president of Mushar Adhikar Manch Vibhuti Prasad Chowhan said that
the notorious fellow (‘tikdambaj’) has acquired the land and they have made the hard workers (‘mehenatkas’) as slaves. Further, he said that this notorious act has deep rooted link with caste system and the cleverness of upper caste, therefore, the land has been acquired by the upper castes. The other indicators he suggested that the land are being called in the name of caste such as ‘Musharwa’, ‘Teliwala’, ‘Chamrawala’, ‘Mallawala’, ‘Gondwala’, ‘Nishadwala’, ‘Nuniawala’, and ‘Julhawla’, etc., which indicates that previously these land were owned by these marginal communities and even today the patch of land is referred in their caste names.
The question of land is so important an issue for the Dalits because of today’s socio-political discourse, space and situations. This has been further ascertained from the field, and, as was said by him, it is important for following reasons:
Dignity: Land is essential for livelihood but it has many social implications, related with the question of dignity of the marginalised and the Dalits. The question is of ‘no land-no respect’ (Jamin Nehi to Samman Nehi). This denotes the status of the poor people in the society and the vicious circle related with to this. Without land it is difficult to get into good education of the children and their marriage, which has further related with nutritional intake and low capacity of doing hard work. The most important point is without land (or if you are a landless) society will not respect you, therefore, you are always be look down upon. In the day-to-day affairs, people used to say that ‘what you are or what you have, I have so many acres of land’!
The process of land-making involves tremendous hard work. Once it is cleaned up from the patches of forest, it becomes a homestead/agricultural land. This is labouriously done by the Dalit. But in the course of history, land has been snatched away by the upper caste. The ways land are taken from the Dalits are manifold, such as physical assault and creating panic (dara-dhamka). It is being observed that the Dalits used to work in the land of the upper caste, for which they used to receive wages but the same has been calculated as borrowings, which has the consequence of them giving up their land. The Dalits are being forced to leave the village under constant pressure and are being forced to work in the land of the upper caste (Hari-bagari-lagan). During zamindari period, the Dalits were unable to pay the tax; as a result, their land had been taken away. It has been observed from the fieldwork that the landowner’s house is 5–10 km away from actual location of land, but the fact that land is in the Dalit locality indicates that initially the land was with the Dalits, which was subsequently snatched by the upper caste.
However, certain fundamental structural features serve to perpetuate a system of social and economic inequality against Dalits in Tamil Nadu, as in most other States. The most important of these is Dalits’ relationship to land and other productive assets. Two-thirds of the State’s population lives in rural areas, and the proportion is marginally higher among Dalits. An overwhelming proportion of Dalits in the rural workforce are agricultural labourers with little or no access to land. (Chandra, 2000)
To know the livelihood of these households further, it was explored that without land how the family members manage their food requirement and the result are presented in Table 20. In this regard, about 86.16 per cent managed food by performing labour, 3.40 per cent by doing agricultural work by taking land on lease (adhiya and batai), 19.27 per cent farming their own land and about 12.01 per cent are still doing their traditional caste-based occupation. A total of 2.26 per cent are engaged in lower cadre government jobs, and some are doing other kind of jobs like that of a driver, pensioner, private job, small occupation and so on. Further, the president says that
‘in the country, the main cause of poverty and famine is the unequal distribution of resources and it is in the possession of higher caste people. In this context he says that as long as the land is in the hands of upper strata of the society and others do not have any land till this continues fight will go on (jab tak rahi vyaktigat puji, jhagda mite man ganaye)’.
Managing Food Requirement Without Land
The Bahujan Samaj Party government, as per the rules 122 B4 F, came up with a provision: If it is agricultural land or habitat land before 2002 and is in the possession of the scheduled caste people, the land will be provided to them as patta. But this provision was not fully implemented because of carelessness of low-level administrative officers. The activist also shared the slogan (dhan aur dharti bat kar rahegi, aur chuki janta chup nahin rahegi), it means the land and the property will be distributed as long as the people protest. Jo jamin jote boye wo jamin ka malik hoye (those who till the land, will own the land). He also foresees a future: kamane wala khayega aur lootne wala jayega, naya jamana ayega (those who earn livelihood will survive, but those loot, will go, and a new era will come), ann bhara bhandar main, bhukhi janta gaon main (food grains are stocked, but people are starving in the villages), jal, jungal, jamin ho dalito ke adhin (water, jungle, and land needs to be given to the Dalits).
Most Dalits are in the agriculture sector either as labourers or tenants or cultivators. Therefore, the size of landholdings will throw light on indicated that Dalits predominantly rely on agriculture and this dependency has been increasing constantly despite modernization of the economy. There appears to be few attempts by experts to examine why Dalits are increasingly relying on agriculture and are not visible in other sectors of the economy? (Chalam, 2010, p. 90)
Conclusion
It is absurd to say that India is overpopulated and that the surplus population must die. I am sure if the available land is properly utilized and yielded up to its capacity, it would surely be sufficient for the whole population. Only we have to be industrious and make two blades of grass grow where one grows today (Gandhi, 1947, p. 48). This clearly shows that the distribution of land in the form of land reforms, transfer of income and subsidies in the shape of durable assets will help the Dalits come out of the vicious circle of poverty. But
the restructured safety nets of the government do not recognize the above as strategies to alleviate poverty. Further, land reforms in the form of distribution of surplus land, and tenancy reforms, are considered forbidden discourse in the current debate on poverty. The ruling elite of the country who are now basically drawn from the feudal and landed interests find a stake in such policies. It is alleged that they to sabotage any programme that can really benefit the dalits. Some dalit intellectuals are entertaining the idea that since the western capitalist model does not recognise caste, the policies prescribed by the World Bank might help alleviate poverty among the dalits through market. The experience of the market in India so far has not substantiated their belief. On the contrary, the absences of traditional welfare programmes, subsidy schemes, and positive discrimination have subjected dalits to multiple disadvantages along with their age-old social disadvantage. (Chalam, 2010, p. 90)
In one of the case studies in Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh, it is found that the possession of a piece of land and durable assets in the hands of the Dalits positively contributed to the reduction of poverty (Yona, 2005, cited in Chalam, 2010, p. 89). ‘The restructured safety nets without land reforms, Dalit-oriented subsidies and positive discrimination will make the Dalits the most deprived in general in the region and in India in particular’ (Chalam, 2010, p. 90). The above discussion and narrations propose that without land, the socio-economic vis-à-vis socio-cultural status of Dalits is not going to enhance at all, and they will remain pauperized. No substantive government majors will be fruitful without proving them with a piece of land, rather it would be a leap service. Hence, it is sure that they will remain excluded from the process of development in the years to come. Further, it is pertinent to say that the magnitude of their exclusion from the process of development is due to poverty, increasing landlessness and lack of access to basic means of livelihood, services as well as opportunities. In a broader sense, poverty can be measured by taking into consideration the exclusion from land, education, healthcare services and civil and political rights. Further, the high incidence of poverty is due to the failure of the land reforms in reducing the inequality in the distribution of land in India. However, largely it has benefited the sharecroppers and a few intermediary castes who were then tilling the land. It did not help the Dalits because they were neither sharecroppers nor tenants. India’s rural poverty has a direct relation to the feudal system prevailing in the agrarian sector. Although various reforms are undertaken, the effect is not as much as planned. Hence, most of the landless, small and marginal farmers continue to be poor. This leads to lesser per capita income and low productivity ratio. Many studies on poverty establish that poverty has been concentrated among agricultural labour households. Moreover, one important reason for poverty is high incidence of landlessness and heavy dependence on agriculture. In addition, a considerable number of the people in India are agricultural labourers, and they lack proper skills, education and training. ‘Making land accessible to households which had been made landless in the near or more distant past would put an end to their exclusion from right to property’ (Breman, 2007, p. 414).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The article is an outcome of Major Research Project funded by University Grants Commission, New Delhi, in the year 2008.