SPECIAL ARTICLE

august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 130
Sheikh Abdullah and Land Reforms
in Jammu and Kashmir
Anirudh Kumar Prasad
Anirudh Kumar Prasad ([email protected]) is with the
Department of Political Science, Hindu College, Delhi University.
One of the reasons attributed to the poor agricultural
situation in post-Independence India was its unequal
land relationship. The Congress Party opted for land
reforms as that would transform India into a progressive
nation. As the 1949 Constitution decided in its favour,
the responsibility of implementation was left to the
states. One state which emerged as the leader in
agrarian reforms was Jammu and Kashmir, led by Sheikh
Abdullah. This article reviews the land relations and
agrarian reforms in Jammu and Kashmir and suggests
implications this had for the politics of the state.
J
ammu and Kashmir (J&K) is the only state of the Indian
Union which enjoys two special statuses. Of the two,
the rst has been conferred upon it by Article 370 of the
Indian Constitution, and the second, the radical land
reforms, i e, abolition of landlordism, land to tiller and coop-
erative association has been earned by the state. J&K has
achieved a unique distinction among all the states of India by
introducing land reforms of considerable magnitude, inclu-
ding the remission of land revenue on smallholdings (Aslam
1977), and went on to become the most publicised land reforms
of the country.
Prime Minister of J&K
1
Sheikh Abdullah, soon after coming
to power,
2
started the agrarian reform programme in the state
in 1948, with the abolition of sinecure payments such as jagirs,
muas and mukarraries. Earlier, the beneciaries of jagirs and
muas
3
had a number of privileges at the cost of the citizens
within the territorial limits of such jagirs, approximating the
rights of the erstwhile maharaja of J&K in matters of scal
nature. In one stroke, the new state government abolished
396 jagirs/muas involving an annual land revenue assign-
ment of Rs 5,56,313.
4
The government also abolished xed
cash grants known as mukarraries (2,347) to the tune of
Rs 1,77,921 per annum (J&K Today, nd).
These changes were viewed as very revolutionary because
they took away the privileges of the erstwhile maharaja
and feudal vassals over most of the cultivated areas in the
state without payment of any compensation. Land reforms in
the state were also seen as correcting a historical wrong
against the peasantry and were one of the most important
promises of the National Conferences New Kashmir Manifesto
(1944). The state governments next step in 1948 was to
protect the rights of the tenants through amendment of
the State Tenancy Act of 1924. Safeguards were provided
to the tenants-at-will (tenants-at-will were those peasants
who could be ejected from the land at the landlords
pleasure). Rights of protected tenants were given to the bulk
of tenants-at-will; their tenure was secured by making their
ejectment illegal.
The change in the tenancy law was followed by the
Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950, J&K Agrarian
Reforms Act, 1972, and J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976
(Verma 1994). The most important feature of the reforms
introduced as a result of the enforcement of the Big Landed
Estates Abolition Act, 1950 was that ownership of land in
the state was subjected to a maximum ceiling of 22.75 acres.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 131
All holdings above this ceiling were distributed among
the tillers.
Passing of this Act led to the expropriation of 9,000 land owners (both
in Jammu and Kashmir) who owned among themselves 8 lakh acres,
without payment of compensation for the surplus land. Thus, 2.3 lakh
acres were transferred to about 2 lakh tillers out of 4.5 lakh acres of
land taken away from land owners (Dhar 1989: 235).
Historical Background
It is a well-known fact that the relation between ownership
and cultivation of land, and rights and status of the actual cul-
tivators determine the conditions under which agricultural
production is conducted.
From the early Hindu period down to the twelfth century, ownership
of land in Jammu and Kashmir had remained vested in the community.
Between the 12th and the 18th centuries ownership of land was vested
in kings. Peasants could occupy the land for cultivation subject to pay-
ment of an arbitrarily xed rent or at the pleasure of the kings or their
agents. Some land was earmarked as khalsa (state) land and reserved
for the royal household to meet their expenses. In exchange for certain
privileges, chosen agents called kardars managed this land on behalf
of the royal households. Rest of the land was divided into military
circles and granted to army chiefs, subedars and taluqadars. They in
turn divided these land grants into khalsa and jagir lands and granted
these to their favorites and dependents on the same terms and condi-
tions on which they had received them (Bhat 2000: 143).
This system of land management led to the emergence of a
hierarchy of landed aristocracy which not only misappropriated
land revenue, but also showed no interest in the management
of land. Another class of intermediaries called farmers was
created through the process of leasing out villages to contractors
who were free to make their own contract with the occupants,
i e, people who were forced to cultivate a particular piece of
land (Bhat 2000: 143).
Thus, people became landlords and tenants by a process different
than that obtained during earlier period. During the period between
18th and 19th centuries, rulers attempted to marginalise the landed
aristocracy and dealt directly with the cultivators. However, their
efforts were thwarted by the powerful landed interest groups such as
the chieftains (called sirdars). These groups were accommodated by
assigning them the rulers share. This gave birth to yet another class of
assignees of land revenue with no proprietary rights in land. These
were called jagirdars, maudars and mukarndars.
From mid-19th century, a new type of land tenure came into
existence on account of the Treaty of Amritsar signed in 1846.
According to this treaty:
(a) the British government transferred and made over, for ever,
in independent possession to Maharaja Golab Singh of Jammu,
and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous
country, with its dependencies, situated to the eastward of the
river Indus, and westward of river Ravee, including Chamba
and excluding Lahool; and (b) in consideration of the transfer
made to him, Maharaja Golab Singh paid to the British Govern-
ment the sum of Rs 75 lakh (Nanak Shahi) of which 50 lakh
were paid on ratication of the treaty and 25 lakh subsequently
by the end of September 1846 AD (Beg 1995: 406).
Thus, the Kashmir Valley was purchased by Maharaja
Gulab Singh from the British rulers, and so the ownership of
the land in Kashmir Valley from this time onwards was vested
with the maharaja of Jammu. The occupants of the land in
Kashmir Valley were called assamis who had to pay, besides
land revenue, malikana in recognition of his being the owner
of the land (Bhat 2000). The assamis had no right to transfer
land on the ground that they were entitled only to its possession
as long as they paid land revenue and malikana. The assami
may be dened as a man recognised by the State as the lawful
occupant of land in Kashmir, and in the Mughal times and
thereafter, from the point of view of the State, the status of
assami in theory meant nothing more than a tenant-at-will
(Lawrence 1967: 428). Such assamis existed in the districts of
Ladakh and Gilgit as well, the source of the maharajas owner-
ship of land in this case being conquest and not purchase as in
the case of Kashmir Valley.
5

In Jammu also, considerable areas of land were held by him
in ownership prior to the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846, and the
occupants of such land were also called assamis/ malguzars.
In the case of acquisition of land, for public purposes, the
assamis/malguzars were entitled to compensation at only
one-third of the prevailing market value. Original occupants
of the land held proprietary rights granted by the state deeds.
This included big landholders who cultivated their own
land. A powerful class of grantees and intermedi aries was a
distinct feature of the land tenure system prevalent since the
12th century. In spite of the change of rulers, cultivators
suffered impoverishment and tyranny (Bhat 2000).
The rulers in J&K changed many a time, but for tillers,
nothing but the means of exploitation changed (Bhat 2000).
While this misery and oppression sapped any interest left in
the cultivator to improve the land, he continued to cultivate
only due to the pressure of the state and the landlord. The
state appointed kardars (land agents), giving them enormous
powers and made them in charge of circles of villages, which
were formed in 1859. The distribution of land among the cul-
tivators, the choice of crop, and the allotment of area were
decided by the land agents.
The famine of 1877-79 that devastated the Valley of Kashmir
provided the impetus for the British government demanding
an overhauling of agrarian rights and relations in Kashmir and
prompted serious reconsideration of their policy of non-
interference in this princely state (Rai 2004). According to
Lawrence (1967), the death toll from the famine of 1877-79 had
been overwhelming by any standards. Famines in Kashmir
were caused by either early snows or heavy rain occurring at
the time when the autumn harvest was ripening. Of the 19
great famines which took place in Kashmir, there were two ter-
rible famines in the 19th century in the valley, one known by
the name Sher Singh, which was caused by the early, heavy
autumn snow of 1831 and the other which was similarly caused
by continuous rains which fell from October 1877 till January
1878. Sher Singh famine reduced the population of Kashmir
from eight lakh to two lakh (Lawrence 1967). According to
Lawrence, in the famine of 1877-79 there was an enormous loss
of life. One authority has stated that the population of Srina-
gar was reduced from 1,27,400 to 60,000, and others say that
of the total population of the valley only two-fths survived
(Lawrence 1967: 213).
SPECIAL ARTICLE
august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 132
The famine had brought to light the inadequacy of the protec-
tion afforded to Kashmiri cultivators by the agrarian arrange-
ments of the Dogra state. It was pointed out to the authorities
that substantial quantities of rice could have been saved and the
staggering loss of life averted if cultivators had been permitted
to cut their crop before the start of the rains that destroyed the
autumn harvest of 1877. But the rigid adherence to the old
revenue system, in which assessments were made on the stand-
ing crop, delayed the reaping operations (Lawrence 1967: 213).
When Pratap Singh became the new ruler of J&K after the
death of his father maharaja Ranbir Singh in 1885, he was not
only forced to accept the British interference in the state by
stationing a Resident in Kashmir, but also the implementation
of wide-ranging reforms in the Dogra state that included regu-
lar settlements, which was carried out initially by A Wingate
and then by Walter Lawrence. Both these British ofcials were
civil servants of the colonial government.
Sheikh Abdullah, in 1931, launched a movement against the
maharaja of J&K and among other things, he demanded grant
of normal rights to a citizen to hold land as owner. As a result
of this agitation, the maharaja was forced to set a commission
of inquiry called the Glancy Commission, headed by Bertrand
J Glancy, to nd out the legitimate grievances of the people
and make appropriate recommendations.
6
On the recommen-
dations of the Glancy Commission, appointed on 12 November
1931, Prime Minister of J&K Colonel Colvin on 10 April 1933
issued a government order directing that the implementation
of the recommendations be commenced forthwith.
Among many recommendations, the commission had sug-
gested granting of proprietary rights, with the accompanying
right to transfer land, to the cultivators who were till then
tenant-at-will of government-owned lands. This was achieved
at a time when India, including J&K, had not gained Independ-
ence (Beg 1995). In J&K, the demand for restitution of the
ownership of land to the farmers goes back to 1924 when
Viceroy Lord Reading was presented with a 17-point memoran-
dum from prominent Kashmiri Muslims to inquire into
their grievances.
Land Reforms after 1948
One of the main demands of the National Conference
movement,
7
which was launched in 1931, was the transfer of
ownership rights of land from the maharaja to the peasants.
Till then, almost the entire area of the Kashmir Valley and a
substantial part of Jammu province was regarded as being in
the personal ownership of Hari Singh, like the Sarf-e-Khas
lands of the Nizam of Hyderabad. This demand was conceded
as a result of the freedom movement, and lakhs of petty culti-
vators who were till then tenants-at-will got the ownership
over their land (Malaviya 1955).
However, at the same time the jagirdars and chakdars who till then
had the status of tenants-at-will, acquired vast areas of land through
the exploitation of the poorer villagers. The village population
was impoverished and these jagirdars and chakdars, taking advan-
tage of their poverty, manipulated the sale and purchase of land
and accumulated thousands of kanals (8 kanals = 1 acre) of land
(Aslam 1977: 60-61).
At the time when Hari Singh signed the instrument of acces-
sion with India in 1947, the state was like the rest of
the subcontinent of India an agricultural state. The large
majority of the people subsisted in one way or another on the
land. The peasants were still living as though in medieval
times as serfs. The major portion of the produce of the agri-
cultural land was being taken away by the absentee proprie-
tor of the land, leaving very little for the actual tiller to live
on. The result was that these agricultural labourers who
formed the majority of the community had always been living
at a subsistence level.
Sheikh Abdullah, after becoming the prime minister of the
state in 1948,
8
decided to destroy the power of the landed aris-
tocracy, and to take the 1931 movement to its logical conclusion
by fullling the promises made to the peasants of land reforms
in his New Kashmir Manifesto (1944). The document had prom-
ised radical restructuring of the society and economy of the
state. The introduction to the New Kashmir Manifesto says,
Throughout the lean centuries of history, the poor exploited sons of
Jammu and Kashmir have been palanquin bearers of Hindu monarchs,
Buddhist rulers and Moghal emperors. The peasant sons of the valleys
and mountains have scattered only nine inches of top soil and eked out
a bare existence. Now the time has come when they must dig deep into
the bowels of the earth and yoke the technique of modern science to
the task of getting for themselves a bigger and better morsel of daily
bread (Malaviya 1955: 415-16).
According to Korbel (1954), the economic reforms in J&K
were introduced by the Sheikh Abdullah government to coun-
ter the demand of plebiscite made by Pakistan.
For the party which has the more serious reasons to be fearful of the
result of a plebiscite the government in Srinagar has been doing
everything in its power to delay this day of reckoning. It has been
working hard to change the conditions of life under the Maharaja and
to bring some relief to the poverty-stricken masses (Korbel 1954: 198).
In its editorial on 11 January 1948 Peoples Age wrote:
The game of Pakistani reactionaries and of the imperialist war-
mongers can be easily defeated if the peasant masses of Kashmir are
assured that feudal autocracy and jagirdari will be liquidated, land
will be given to the tillers, and the complete right of self-determination
granted to the various nationalities that comprise Kashmir. Kashmir
can be saved only by winning over the peasants, and ending feudal
autocracy and the reactionary policy of the appeasement of the Maha-
raja by the Indian Union government and by really liberating peasants
(quoted in Raina 1988: 159).
Immediately after coming to power, Sheikh Abdullah
declared the abolition of the privileges of muadars and
mukkarraree-khwars (recipients of cash grants). Further, he
gave priority to the reorganisation of agriculture on a modern
and rational basis, through the abolition of landlordism, secur-
ing the land to the tiller, and formation of cooperative associa-
tions. These steps were taken to free the peasant from the bur-
den of the jagirdars and kardars. Besides, waste lands were
granted to tillers for cultivation, a moratorium was declared
on non-commercial debts, and ejectment proceedings against
tenants were stayed for a period of one year.
According to George Mathew (2011), even Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru was envious of the Government of J&K for
its speed and clarity on the issue of land reforms in the state.
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 133
Three months later, on 18 October 1950, the J&K Big Landed
Estates Abolition Act was passed by the J&K assembly, which
superseded most of the preceding temporary measures and
legalised the sweeping land reforms. The Act was aimed at
translating into practice the principle of transferring land
to the actual tillers of the soil. Tiller means a person who
tills land with his own hand (Thorner 1976: 48). Khaliqa, a
Matipura village peasant, was the rst to receive land under
the Act. Under this Act, every proprietor, whether he himself
cultivated land or not, retained only 22.75 acres of land
(besides orchards, grass farms and fuel reserves), and the
right of ownership of the remaining land was transferred to
actual tillers of land (subject to the maximum that the
individual cultivator can possess) free from encumbrance and
without payment of compensation. The tiller-owner was, how-
ever, liable for payment of land revenue and was assessed on
the land that was transferred to him, together with a surcharge
of four annas per rupee of land revenue as land development
cess which was earmarked for use in the rehabilitation of the
cultivators and the improvement of land given to them.
According to this Act, the landlord was allowed to keep not
more than 20 acres of agricultural land, one acre of land for
vegetable gardening, half acre as residential site, and 1.25
acres of orchards altogether 22.75 acres. Also, it was stipu-
lated that the landlord must work on his land; otherwise, it
would be expropriated. Provision was also made for the cons-
cation of the property of enemy agents, these agents being
largely dened as persons who had expressed a desire for
Kashmir to join Pakistan (Korbel 1954). This expropriated land
was to be transferred in full ownership to the maximum of 20
acres to the tenant. All lands which were not under cultivation
or not rented and in excess of 22.75 acres were transferred to
the government for redistribution.
As far as the question of paying compensation to the ex-
proprietors was concerned, the Big Landed Estates Abolition
Act left the matter to be settled by the Constituent Assembly of
the state, and till such time for the expropriated land the gov-
ernment was to pay the former owner for the rst year after
expropriation an amount equal to three-quarters of the land
revenue of the expropriated land, for the second year two-
thirds, and for the third year and subsequent years half of such
land revenue, these sums never to exceed Rs 3,000 per year
(Korbel 1954). With a view to check and safeguard against the
evasion and circumvention of the law, the Act declared all
transfers of land made after April 1948 to be null and void.
This included the transfer of land consequent on partition,
whether the transfer was affected by an order or decree of any
court or an act of the parties, if it was found that such transfer
was made mala de or with an intention to defeat the object of
the enactment (J&K Today nd).
Under the new law, the interest of the ex-proprietor in any
land which was transferred to the tiller was not liable to
attachment or sale in execution of a decree or any other process
of any court, civil or revenue, and any attachment existing at
the date of transfer or any order for attachment passed
before such date ceases to be in force. Similarly, all suits and
Addressing the annual session of the National Conference on
14 June 1951, Nehru said:
But perhaps the greatest reform was in respect of land and agrarian
matters. The abolition of big Zamindari system, which was the ideal
all over India had been given effect to here more swiftly than else-
where...These were achievements of which any country might be
proud ...(Dhar 1989: 242).
This is also a fact that the leadership of the National Conference
opted for India for accession, and not for Pakistan, because
they were sure that their radical agenda of bringing about
reorganisation in the agrarian structure would not have been
possible in a feudal Pakistan.
The governments next measure not only gave economic re-
lief to peasants, but also brought about a fundamental change
in their status. In October 1948, the State Tenancy Act of 1924,
which provided for the maximum rental to be paid by a tenant
to his landlord, was amended and the severities caused by its
operation stopped. The amendment provided tenants-at-will
rights of protected tenancy in respect of 2.13 acres of wet land
or 4.13 acres of dryland in Kashmir province and about double
the size in the Jammu province, and placed restrictions on
ejectments of tenants from land. The amendment xed the
maximum rental payable by a tenant to his landlord, in respect
of tenancy holdings exceeding 12.5 acres, at one-fourth of the
produce (or cash thereof) in the case of wetlands (including
those growing paddy, wheat, maize, sugar cane and linseed)
and at one-third in the case of drylands. Previously, the tenant
had to surrender more than half of his produce to the landlord
as rent. According to the provisions of this amendment, a ten-
ant who had cultivated the land of his landlord for seven
months before the commencement of the Tenancy Act was
entitled to the privilege of a protected tenant.
The tenancy reforms beneted nearly three-fths of the
peasantry, cultivating about 7 lakh acres out of the 22 lakh
acres composing the total cultivated area of the state (J&K
Today nd; Kashmir Marches Ahead 1958). These reforms gave
relief to impoverished peasants of the state but did not bring
about the abolition of the landlord system which was at the
root of their poverty and suffering. In order to bring about a
fundamental change in the production and ownership rela-
tions in agriculture, the Sheikh Abdullah government in April
1949 appointed a Land Reforms Committee under the chair-
manship of Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg, minister for revenue,
agriculture, forests and cooperatives, to prepare a plan for
the abolition of big landed estates and transfer of land
to tiller.
The New Acts
In J&K, there were about 22 lakh acres of cultivated lands
belonging to the maharaja, his jagirdars and chakdars (a class
of landlords). The landlords rented these lands to the
peasants under inhuman feudalistic conditions of tenure. But,
before the committee could prepare and submit its report,
Sheikh Abdullah on 13 July 1950
9
announced sweeping land
reforms in a speech from the National Conference platform
(Bamzai 1973).
SPECIAL ARTICLE
august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 134
proceedings pending in any court of law at the date of the
transfer of land, and all proceedings upon any decree or order
passed in any such suit or proceedings previous to the date of
transfer in respect of any interest in the land so transferred,
were stayed. All holdings between two and 12 acres of self-
cultivating properties were made inalienable. The tiller was
not allowed to transfer the newly acquired property without
governmental permission. No one other than a Kashmiri citi-
zen was entitled to acquire land. If a proprietor or tiller dies
without heir, or transfers the land or any interest therein in
contra vention of the law, or sublets it continuously for two har-
vests, he loses the rights of ownership, which lapses to the
government (J&K Today nd).
In most cases, the government failed to receive the land tax
from the peasants for the simple reason that they had no
money to pay. As a logical consequence, former owners rarely
had any indemnity paid to them for precisely the same reason.
The Constituent Assembly on 6 November 1951 appointed an
11-member committee to examine and report on the desirability
or otherwise of the payment of compensation for lands expro-
priated under the provisions of the Act.
Acting on the report of the committee, on 26 March 1952,
the Constituent Assembly of the state decided to conscate all
landed estates without any compensation (Korbel 1954).
10
At
the time when the Act was passed, there were 1.5 lakh absen-
tee landlords holding 11% of the land, and cultivating peasants
numbering nearly 8 lakh holding 32% of the total cultivated
area of the state. There were 3 lakh peasants who had no land,
but cultivated 10% of the total cultivated area. All these gures
tell of how large an area was held by the absentee landowners
and how little was with those who themselves cultivated the
land. About 1.45 lakh acres of land was owned by 472 proprie-
tors, and 1,886 owners held 1,40,760 acres of land. There were
about 9,000 proprietors whose holdings exceeded 20 acres of
land, out of which nearly 5,62,000 acres were transferred to
the tillers under the Abolition Act (J&K Today nd).The success
of the Act of 1950 can be very well appreciated from the fact
that out of 9.5 lakh acres of land distributed throughout the
country till 1970, about half (i e, 4.5 lakh acres) was distributed
in J&K alone (Verma 1994: 94).
The National Conference government, in order to review
the working of land reforms in the kandi (dry) areas of the
state, appointed a committee under the chairmanship Justice
Janaki Nath Wazir in 1952,
11
who, in his report, recommended
that the maximum unit for a proprietor in Kashmir kandi
should be xed at roughly 28 acres and for a proprietor in
Jammu kandi at 34 acres, against the present uniform unit of
22.75 acres. The committee also recommended that lands at-
tached to Gumpas (Buddhist religious institutions) in Ladakh
should be excluded from the operation of the Act.
Opposition to the Reforms
Commenting on the issue of paying compensation to the
former landlords, Sheikh Abdullah stated that
neither his government, which had inherited a bankrupt treasury, nor
the penniless tiller was in a position to compensate big landlords for
their land. He related the new measure both to Communist agitation
in the state and to the conict with Pakistan, and suggested that agents
of Pakistan jagirdars in whose grip those areas are at present will not
allow these measures to be implemented, and so it is for the people of
those areas to rise and overthrow their enslavers (Bekker 1951: 328).
When the National Conference government decided to carry
out the land reforms in the state, especially the resumption of
the jagirdari system, the opposition to the reforms came not
only from the head of the state, Hari Singh, in the form of
withholding of assent, but also from the Indian government,
especially Union Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel who did not
trust the leadership of the National Conference (Navlakha
1996). V Shankar, private secretary to Sardar Patel, on 4 May
1948 wrote to Sheikh Abdullah:
Honourable Minister (Sardar Patel) has asked me to request you to see
Panditji (Prime Minister Nehru) about it (withholding of assent to the
resumption of jagirs) inviting his attention in particular to the fact
that these jagirs are being sought to be resumed without any payment
of compensation whatever, which is quite contrary to anything that we
are doing in the Indian Dominion. It is also to be borne in mind that
probably the jagirdars would be mostly non-Muslims (Hindus), and
this measure would probably create a certain amount of discontent
and ill-feeling against the government among the minority community
(Raina 1988: 162).
The credit for the historic decision of the land reforms was
given to the government for their foresight at a time when no-
body in Pakistan and very few in India had thought of making
the experiment. But, the reforms were not above criticism.
According to Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta (quoted in
Kashmir after 9 August 1953 (1955: 13)),
Credit must be given to him and to the National Conference for intro-
ducing land reforms in the State at a time when nobody in Pakistan
and very few in India had thought of making the experiment. But the
reforms in Jammu and Kashmir were introduced in a huff. The Land
Reform Committee of which his policy-maker, Mirza Afzal Beg, was
the chairman, had neither concluded its deliberations, nor had the
committee submitted its report and the recommendations to the
government. Suddenly presumably on account of political exigencies
he thought of abolishing the big landed estates and transferring land
to tillers. The question had not been examined in all its details and no
regular plan had been prepared when one ne morning he an-
nounced the reforms from the National Conference party platform.
The law had not been prepared and the assent of the Head of the
State which was necessary before the reforms of such a far reaching
character could be announced had not been obtained. Though the
announcement was regularised later on, the breathless hurry in
which a time-old system was abolished without even proper obse-
quies, left every one wondering. The result was that the reforms were
not implemented properly. Avenues of corruption were opened and
the the gift was bereft of the benet. The ceiling of holding was put
arbitrarily no matter if the land was irrigated or dry. Some tillers got
less while others got more.
Daniel Thorner (1953), who visited the valley in 1953 noticed
similar grievances from the people of the villages he visited.
He was informed that some of the well-off families in the
village, when they got wind of the impending land reform, had
gone through the legal forms of breaking up their joint fami-
lies. People with money and connections were able to acquire
more land than was due to them under the Act. Those who
already possessed large landholdings were in the best position
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 135
to receive additional allotments. According to him, the bitter-
est complaints were about the governments procurement
policy and the malfunctioning of the cooperatives. Yet,
whatever the defects in implementation, the fact of agrarian
change could not be denied. Many tillers have become
landowners and some land has even gone to the landless
(Thorner 1976: 50).
Keeping in view the total sociopolitical turmoil and post-partition
development throughout the subcontinent the agrarian reforms of
early fties were denitely radical. Smooth transformation, irrespec-
tive of the reasons which made it possible, of agrarian set-up added an
element of uniqueness to it. Number of anomalies in the pattern of
land tenure crept in over the years. For instance, the Big Landed
Estates Abolition Act carried with it certain discrepancies such as uni-
form xation of ceiling without giving due weight to fertility of soil
and geo-physical contiguity. Similarly, no ceiling was imposed on
holding size of protected tenants who illegally sublet their land violat-
ing the spirit of land reforms.
Hence the government in 1963 set up a Land Commission to nd out
the various discrepancies which had crept in over the years in the land
tenure pattern. The recommendations of this Commission formed, by
and large, the basis of Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reform Act, 1972
(Repealed) (Bhat 1989: 102).
This Act ended the rights in land of those who personally never
cultivated, and also reduced the ceiling limit to 12.5 standard
acres of land. With the enactment of this new Act, the old
system of the landlord-tenant relationship came to an end.
Even the new Agrarian Reforms Act of 1972 was found
wanting in many ways. While enforcing the Act, it was found
that many landowners who depended heavily on income from
land and wanted to cultivate the land personally could not
own or cultivate the land. Some tillers had to pay higher rent
than what they were paying before the enforcement of the
Act. In order to remove these discrepancies, the Reforms Act
of 1972 was replaced by the Reforms Act of 1976 (amended)
which, after its enforcement, came into effect on 1 May 1973
(Bhat 1989). The Act of 1976 also xed a ceiling of 12.5 stand-
ard acres including orchards with certain conditions.
It further seeks to bring about the complete peasant proprietorship of
land by eliminating landlord-tenure relationship wherever it exists
within the ceiling limit of 12.5 standard acres. It has kept option for the
petty landlord to resume for his personal cultivation that fraction of
his holdings which is equal to the fraction of that produce which he
was recovering as rent from the tiller. Tiller shall become the owner of
the rest of the land left with him. Unlike the previous Acts tenant
should be deemed to have become the owner of the land right from the
enforcement of the new Act but shall have to pay compensation for the
land which he owns within a period of 10 years from the date of en-
forcement of the Act (Bhat 1989: 103).
The land reforms in the state were made more effective by
taking measures to relieve the distress of rural and poor debtors
by preventing creditors from charging excessive interest.
Along with the Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976, was also passed
the J&K Debtors Relief Act of 1976, and the J&K Restitution of
Mortgaged Properties Act of 1976. These Acts were passed to
provide relief to debtors as it was done in the 1950s. According
to Tara Singh Rekhi (1993), as recommended by the land com-
mission and the subsequent agrarian reforms by the govern-
ment, the absentee landlordism vanished from the state,
tenancy system was abolished and the ownership rights of
land were vested in the tillers. The total number of beneciar-
ies from the transfer of land to the tillers from 1951 up to 1985
stood at 11,22,918 (see Table), whereas during the period from
1980 to 1985, the number of beneciaries was 5,38,000
(Rekhi 1993).
Outcomes of the Reforms
According to George Mathew (2011: 25), land reform
was a watershed in the history of J&K and a measure, the rst of its
kind in the subcontinent, lauded by different sections of society and
people belonging to different walks of life in the country. The land reform
greatly helped the marginalised sections, especially the scheduled
castes to become landowners.
According to another research on land reforms in the state by
Ashish Saxena (quoted in Mathew 2011), during the 1950s-
1970s, out of total surplus land of 84 acres, mainly taken away
from Rajputs and Mahajans, 70.24% was allotted to scheduled
caste tenants. A radical inter-generational shift in the occupa-
tion pattern of the scheduled castes in terms of landless agri-
cultural labourers to landowning peasants from grandfather
(nil) to 47.1% in the present generation has taken place.
However, Verma (1994) has different views on the outcomes
of the agrarian reforms in J&K. For him, the land reforms were
not sufcient to extinguish the class differences between the
higher and lower sections in the farm sector. With the intro-
duction of better irrigation facilities and high yielding crop
varieties, new classes of rich peasants and orchard owners
have become dominant and stied efforts towards equity in
the countryside. The increasing inequalities in the agrarian
sector may be attributed to the defective ceiling laws, circum-
vention of laws by the landed peasantry and exemption of
orchards from the ceiling laws. Dhars opinion on the land
reform is also quite similar to that of Verma.
Land reforms in Kashmir involved a gigantic redistribution of owner-
ship holdings both horizontally and vertically. These reforms led to
the total restructuring of land tenure system. By and large it achieved
its aims but it brought forth new problems. Establishment of peasant
proprietorship in Kashmir, however, led to the concentration of more
land in the hands of rich peasantry. It abolished absentee landlords
but created Kulaks at the site of the land (Dhar 1989: 256-57).
For Thorner (1953: 1002),
Land reform in Kashmir has clearly done away with the jagirs, and has
weakened the position of all the great landlords. It has distinctly ben-
eted those individuals who, at the village level, were already the more
important and substantial people. It has done the least for the petty
Table: Land Transferred to Tillers in J&K from 1951-52 to 1980-85
S No Year Land Transferred Number of Number of
(in Acres) Tillers Beneficiaries
1 1951-52 92,927 30,418# 2,98,922
2 1952-53 66,755 50,189 1,70,165
3 1953-54 36,619 32,260 1,15,831
4 1980-85 1,06,000 3,08,000 5,38,000
Total 3,02,301 4,20,867 11,22,918
# However, Aslam (1977: 62) puts this figure at 80,418 quoting Economic Development in
Figures (Jammu and Kashmir), Director of Information, Srinagar.
Source: Rekhi (1993: 127).
SPECIAL ARTICLE
august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
136
tenants and landless labourers, these two categories being the largest
in the countryside. By not paying the compensation to the dispos-
sessed absentee landlords, Kashmir has escaped the nancial burden
which several of the states of India have found so onerous.
Sheikh Abdullah, being a far-sighted leader, knew from his
experiences since 1931 that bringing radical change in the state
and ghting the Dogra Maharaja would not be an easy task
without active support of the entire Kashmiri society. For Rai
(2004) agrarian reforms in Jammu and Kashmir were not as
radical as they were made out to be. She nds indications of
the compulsions to placate a variety of special interests within
Kashmiri society, including Pandit concerns, under which
Abdullah had to operate (Rai 2004: 281-82) while implement-
ing land reforms. According to her, the radical promises made
in the New Kashmir Manifesto (1944) were diluted by the
ruling party so that there was no social instability in the coun-
tryside. Corruption in the National Conference machinery
mitigated the harsher aspects of the reforms for the big land-
owners. Smelling a nexus between the National Conference
government and Kashmiri Pandits, Rai asks how come Pandits
did not oppose the agrarian reforms.
It is said that over 30% of the land in the valley belonged to (the Pandits)
prior to the reforms, much of which had been obtained at the time of
the rst settlement of the 1880s. An equally large proportion was
obtained through purchase after 1934, when proprietary rights were
granted to Kashmiri cultivators following the agitation of 1931-2.
Considering that the Pandits comprised approximately 5% of the
Kashmiri population, their control of over 30% of the land speaks
for signicantly large holdings. However, Pandits did not resist
the abolition of big landed estates quite as shrilly as did their Dogra
counterparts (Rai 2004: 283).
According to her,
an arena in which the National Conference made conspicuous conces-
sions to Pandit privileges was in administrative employment. Their
primary vocation...being employment in government service, 10% of
the state jobs were reserved for Pandits. While it is true that a much
larger proportion of 50% was reserved for Muslims, the smaller num-
bers of the Pandits made this an impressively generous allowance.
Indeed the Pandits were getting much more than their proportion of
the population entitled them to and, through the liberality of the
National Conference, were said to be better represented in the state
services than they had ever been before (Rai 2004: 284).
Conclusions
As expected, Indias most-publicised land reform became a
success. This achievement has been attributed largely to the
political will of the leadership of J&K, especially that of Sheikh
Abdullah, and the special status granted to the state under
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This Article of the
Indian Constitution, originally intended as an interim meas-
ure, gave exemption to J&K from the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles. Sheikh Abdullah, to whom Maharaja Hari
Singh had handed over the reins of the state after signing the
Instrument of Accession to India, had sought such an exemption
so that his government could implement the promises made in
his New Kashmir Manifesto.
As expected, there was also a strong reaction against the
land reforms because majority of the beneciaries were poor
The Problem of Caste
Edited by
SATISH DESHPANDE
Caste is one of the oldest concerns of the social sciences in India that continues to be relevant even today.
The general perception about caste is that it was an outdated concept until it was revived by colonial policies and
promoted by vested interests and electoral politics after independence. This hegemonic perception changed irrevocably
in the 1990s after the controversial reservations for the Other Backward Classes recommended by the Mandal Commission,
revealing it to be a belief of only a privileged upper caste minority for the vast majority of Indians caste continued
to be a crucial determinant of life opportunities.
This volume collects significant writings spanning seven decades, three generations and several disciplines, and discusses
established perspectives in relation to emergent concerns, disciplinary responses ranging from sociology to law, the
relationship between caste and class, the interplay between caste and politics, old and new challenges in law and policy,
emergent research areas and post-Mandal innovations in caste studies.
Authors: Satish Deshpande Irawati Karve M N Srinivas Dipankar Gupta Andr Bteille Rajni Kothari Kumkum Roy Sukhadeo Thorat
Katherine S Newman Marc Galanter Sundar Sarukkai Gopal Guru D L Sheth Anand Chakravarti Carol Upadhya Ashwini Deshpande
Meena Gopal Baldev Raj Nayar Gail Omvedt Mohan Ram I P Desai K Balagopal Sudha Pai Anand Teltumbde Surinder S Jodhka
Ghanshyam Shah Susie Tharu M Madhava Prasad Rekha Pappu K Satyanarayana Padmanabh Samarendra Mary E John Uma Chakravarti
Prem Chowdhry V Geetha Sharmila Rege S Anandhi J Jeyaranjan Rajan Krishnan Rekha Raj Kancha Ilaiah Aditya Nigam M S S Pandian
Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd
www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai

Chennai

New Delhi

Kolkata

Bangalore

Bhubaneshwar

Ernakulam

Guwahati

Jaipur

Lucknow

Patna

Chandigarh

Hyderabad
Contact: [email protected]
Pp xi + 425 Rs 595
ISBN 978-81-250-5501-3
2014
NEW
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 2, 2014 vol xlix no 31 137
Notes
1 The chief minister in J&K was earlier designat-
ed as prime minister. However, this was
changed when the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1965 was
passed on 10 April 1965.
2 According to Alastair Lamb, Sheikh Abdullah
became head of the J&K Emergency Govern-
ment on 29 October 1947 (with the title of Chief
Emergency Administrator), with Bakshi Ghulam
Mohammed as his deputy and Mirza Afzal
Beg as a minister. This Emergency Government,
however, continued to operate under the
general supervision of the prime minister or
Diwan, who until March 1948 remained Mehr
Chand Mahajan (Lamb 1992: 144-45). Accord-
ing to Khushwant Singh, Sheikh Abdullah was
appointed Director General, Administration
the rst Kashmiri Muslim to hold this post
(Abdullah 1993: 97).
3 Muas were land revenue assignments, and
there were two types of muas: religious and
non-religious. In religious muas, one-third of
the amount of the land revenue was received
by the muadar in cash and two-thirds in kind.
In the case of non-religious muas, the whole of
the assigned land revenue was received either
in cash or kind, or both. The government totally
abolished the non-religious muas and also
terminated the right to receive the assigned land
revenue in kind, in respect of religious muas.
To receive grain in the name of religion, and
that too at exploitative rates, was absolute per-
version of the spirit of religion (Malaviya 1955).
4 According to Mirza Afzal Beg (1995), who held
the revenue portfolio in Sheikh Abdullahs
government, there were 396 jagirdars and
muadars in the state and they annually appro-
priated an amount of Rs 5,66,313 out of land
revenue, whereas J&K Today (nd) puts this
amount at Rs 5,56,313.
5 In 1834, Ladakh was annexed by Maharaja Gulab
Singh with the help of his general Zorawar Singh,
and it was nally incorporated into the Dogra
state in 1842 after crushing a Ladakhi rebellion.
6 Apart from Bertrand J Glancy, who was a
senior ofcer in the Political Department of the
Government of India, the other members of the
commission included Khawaja Ghulam Ahmad
Ashai (Muslim nominee from Kashmir),
Chaudhari Ghulam Abbas (Muslim nominee
from Jammu), Pandit Prem Nath Bajaj (Pandit
nominee from Kashmir), and Pandit Lok Nath
Sharma (Pandit nominee from Jammu).
7 In October 1932, Sheikh Abdullah founded the
All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference.
On 11 June 1939, it was renamed as the All
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference.
8 According to Alastair Lamb (1992), Sheikh
Abdullah on 5 March 1948 was appointed
prime minister as head of an Interim Govern-
ment of the state of J&K.
9 13 July is celebrated every year in Kashmir as
Martyrs Day in the memory of those who died
following a clash with the police in 1931.
10 However, according to Jammu and Kashmir
Today, the date on which it was decided by the
Constituent Assembly was 13 March 1952 (J&K
Today, nd: 15).
11 Justice Janaki Nath Wazir was a former judge
of Lucknow High Court and subsequently Chief
Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court.
References
Abdullah, Sheikh Mohammad (1993): Flames of
the Chinar: An Autobiography, abridged and
translated from the Urdu by Khushwant Singh
(Delhi: Viking).
Aslam, Mohamed (1977): Land Reforms in Jammu
and Kashmir, Social Scientist, 6(4): 59-64.
Bamzai, Prithivi Nath Kaul (1973): A History of
Kashmir: Political, Social, Cultural, from the
Earliest Times to the Present Day (Delhi: Metro-
politan Book).
Beg, Mirza Afzal (1995): Land Reforms in Jammu
and Kashmir in Verinder Grover, The Story of
Kashmir: Yesterday and Today, Volume 2 (Delhi:
Deep & Deep Publications), 406-10.
Bekker, Konrad (1951): Land Reform Legislation in
India, The Middle East Journal, 5(3): 319-36.
Bhat, M S (1989): A Prole of Agrarian Science in
Jammu and Kashmir in M L Sharma and
R K Punia (ed.), Land Reforms in India: Achieve-
ments, Problems and Prospects (Delhi: Ajanta
Publications), pp 99-111.
(2000): Land Distribution in Rural Jammu
and Kashmir: An Inter-temporal Analysis in
B K Sinha and Pushpendra (ed.), Land Reforms
in India: An Unnished Agenda, Vol 5 (New
Delhi: Sage Publications), pp 139-69.
Dhar, D N (1989): Socio-Economic History of Kashmir
Peasantry (Srinagar: Centre for Kashmir Studies).
J&K Today (nd): Jammu and Kashmir Today, Minis-
try of Information and Broadcasting, Jammu
and Kashmir.
Kashmir after 9 August, 1953 (1955): Kashmir
after 9 August 1953 (Srinagar: Lalla Rookh
Publications).
Kashmir Marches Ahead (1958): Kashmir Marches
Ahead: A Review of Progress (Srinagar: Lalla
Rookh Publications).
Korbel, Josef (1954): Danger in Kashmir (New
Jersey: Princeton University Press).
Lamb, Alastair (1992): Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy,
1946-90 (Karachi: Oxford University Press).
Lawrence, Walter (1967): The Valley of Kashmir
(Srinagar: Kesar Publications).
Malaviya, H D (1955): Land Reforms in India (New
Delhi: Economic & Political Research Depart-
ment, All India Congress Committee).
Mathew, George (2011): Land Reforms: Jammu
and Kashmir Shows the Way, Yojana, October,
55: 24-26.
Navlakha, Gautam (1996): Invoking Union: Kashmir
and Ofcial Nationalism of Bharat in
T V Sathyamurthy (ed.), Social Change and
Poli tical Discourse in India: Structure of Power,
Movements of Resistance, Volume 3: Region, Reli-
gion, Caste, Gender and Culture in Contem porary
India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press),
64-106.
Rai, Mridu (2004): Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects:
Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (Delhi:
Permanent Black).
Raina, N N (1988): Kashmir Politics and Imperialist
Manoeuvres: 1846-1980 (New Delhi: Patriot
Publishers).
Rekhi, Tara Singh (1993): Socio-Economic Justice in
Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Study (New
Delhi: Ideal Publications).
Thorner, Daniel (1953): The Kashmir Land Re-
forms: Some Personal Impressions, The Eco-
nomic Weekly, 5(37): 999-1002.
(1976): The Agrarian Prospect in India, second
edition (New Delhi: Allied Publishers).
Verma, P S (1994): Jammu and Kashmir at the
Political Crossroads (New Delhi: Vikas Publi-
shing House).
Muslims, and those who lost their lands were powerful
Hindu landlords having strong ties with the erstwhile ruler
and other important political leaders in New Delhi. There
were also reports of an anti-reform movement launched by the
Praja Parishad, but it cut no ice. Needless to say, these
reforms were not only extremely popular in the Muslim-
dominated areas of the state, but were also equally popular in
the areas dominated by Harijans (scheduled castes) and
lower-middle-class Hindus.
Owing to post-Partition developments, particularly the in-
ternational conict over Kashmir and immense popularity of
Sheikh Abdullah, the opposition to the agrarian reforms could
not even nd any outside patronage. Involving all Kashmiris in
a nation-building programme and the articulation of the
notion of Kashmiriyat were some of the strategies adopted
by the state government to not just deect the rising opposi-
tion to the reform programmes, but also to strengthen its pop-
ularity and acceptability in the post-Dogra regime and tighten
its hold over the state.
Although reforms in the land relations in the state continued
even after the removal of Sheikh Abdullah from power
in 1953, his successors in Srinagar were not accepted by
the people as their own leaders, rather they were seen as
rulers who were imposed on them by New Delhi. The
people of Kashmir were neither anti-Pakistan, nor pro-India;
they were, in fact, pro-Sheikh Abdullah because of his
untiring implementation of the radical agrarian reforms.
So, the people of Kashmir were ready to go anywhere Sheikh
Abdullah would take them. This is where the leadership of
Sheikh Abdullah becomes crucial as someone who fought for
social, economic, political and cultural rights since 1931,
whereas his successors lacked his strength, charisma and,
above all, the legitimacy.
Prime Minister Nehru knew the importance of Sheikh
Abdullah as far as Indias relations with J&K were concerned.
The governments in New Delhi, over the years, in their eager-
ness to integrate the state with India and do away with the
interim measure of Article 370, eventually separated the
people of the state from India. New Delhis relations with J&K
could have become an example of a true federal system in
practice, but it is presented more as an example of asymmetry
in the Indian federation.