Trace the development of land reforms in India between 1947 and early 1960's.

Answer:

Land reform was among the earliest and most ambitious undertakings of independent India. Between 1947 and the early 1960s the state abolished the intermediary tenures, attempted tenancy protection and imposed ceilings on holdings, with results that varied greatly and on the whole fell far short of intention.

The context and objectives

• Colonial settlements had left a countryside dominated by zamindars and rentiers.
• The Congress had promised abolition of intermediaries since the Karachi Resolution of 1931.
• The aims were to end exploitation, raise productivity and provide social justice.
• The Directive Principles gave the programme constitutional direction.
• Land being a state subject, implementation devolved on the provinces.

Abolition of intermediaries

• Zamindari abolition legislation began in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madras from 1950.
• Some twenty million cultivators were brought into direct relation with the state.
• Landlords challenged the laws, prompting the First Amendment of 1951 and the Ninth Schedule.
• Compensation was paid, and landlords retained substantial 'personal cultivation' (sir) land.

Tenancy reform and ceilings

• Laws sought security of tenure, regulated rent and the right to purchase.
• Ceilings on holdings were legislated from the late 1950s, with surplus to be redistributed.
• The Second Five Year Plan and the Nagpur Congress of 1959 endorsed cooperative farming.
• Vinoba Bhave's Bhoodan and Gramdan movement sought voluntary donation of land.

Outcomes and shortcomings

• Zamindari abolition succeeded, permanently destroying the old intermediary class.
• Tenancy reform largely failed, as landlords evicted tenants ahead of the laws.
• Ceiling laws were evaded through benami transfers and generous exemptions.
• Poor land records and the political power of landholders obstructed enforcement.
• Kerala and West Bengal achieved significantly more than most other states.
• Daniel Thorner and others documented how limited the redistribution proved.

Why implementation faltered

• Land being a state subject, political will varied greatly between states.
• Legislatures were dominated by landholding interests hostile to redistribution.
• Litigation delayed enforcement for years despite the Ninth Schedule.
• Records of rights were incomplete, so tenants often could not prove their claims.

Land reform in this period thus achieved one great success and one large failure: the intermediaries were abolished, but land was not meaningfully redistributed. As scholars conclude, the chief beneficiaries were the upper tenants who became owners, while the landless and sharecroppers, in whose name the reforms were framed, gained least.