Abolition of intermediaries

Also called: Zamindari abolition · Topic: Land Reforms, the Green Revolution and Farm Subsidies · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 2 "Indian Economy 1950-1990"

Meaning

Abolition of intermediaries means removing, after 1947, the zamindars, jagirdars and other rent-collectors who stood between the state and the tiller (the person who actually ploughs the land), so that the tiller paid land revenue directly to the state. It matters because it ended the "hated zamindari system" and brought about 200 lakh (2 crore) tenants into direct contact with the government. It was also the most complete of all India's land reform measures [6].

Explanation

Who the intermediaries were

• Intermediary: a person who collected rent from the tiller and passed only part of it to the state as land revenue.
• Zamindars: landlords whom the British made responsible for collecting revenue.
• Jagirdars: people who held land grants, called jagirs.

• Many areas had several layers of intermediaries, one above the other.

• Why the system hurt farming before 1947:

• The profit from farming went to the zamindar, not to the cultivator.
• Zamindars cared about collecting rent. They spent almost nothing on improving the land.
• Revenue was due on fixed dates, and a zamindar who missed a date lost their rights. So zamindars squeezed tenants even harder.
• The result was exploited tenants, low output and stagnant agriculture.

How the abolition worked

• States passed their own laws. Land is a State subject, so the laws differed in timing and in how strict they were.
• Zamindars got compensation. Nehru rejected Soviet-style confiscation (taking land without payment) because it did not suit a democracy.
• After abolition, the tiller dealt with the state directly. Rent to a landlord was replaced by revenue to the government.
• Worked example (made-up numbers, for illustration only):
• Before: a tenant grows produce worth ₹100 and pays ₹50 as rent to the zamindar. The zamindar passes ₹10 to the state. The tenant keeps ₹50.
• After: the tenant pays ₹10 revenue straight to the state and keeps ₹90.
• Each extra rupee of output now stays mostly with the tiller.

Why it raised output, and where it fell short

• Ownership gave farmers a reason to invest.
• Secure ownership meant the farmer kept the gain from any improvement.
• So the farmer invested in wells, bunds (small earth walls that hold water in the field) and better seed.

• Output rose. In NCERT's words, ownership "gave them the incentive to increase output".

• Loopholes let zamindars keep land.

• The laws let zamindars "resume" land for personal cultivation, meaning they could take land back from tenants by claiming they would farm it themselves.

• Their home-farm lands, called sir and khudkasht, were exempt.

• Tenants were evicted.

• Landlords pushed tenants out before the laws came into force, so those tenants could never claim ownership.

• Many tenancies were oral and unrecorded. A tenant with no record could not prove their right.

• The poorest gained nothing.

• Sharecroppers (tenants who pay rent as a share of the crop, often half, usually with no written lease) did not benefit.
• Landless labourers (people who own no land and work on others' farms for wages) did not benefit either.
• So, as NCERT puts it, "the goal of equity was not fully served".

In India

• Timeline of the laws:
• Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was the first law, passed "just a year after independence". Ryotwari is a system in which the cultivator (ryot) pays revenue directly to the state, with no middleman.
• Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and other states passed their own laws from 1950 onwards.
• The UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is formally numbered Act No. I of 1951 [5].

• The Jaunsar-Bawar Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 provided for acquiring "the rights, title and interest of the intermediaries between the State and the tiller of the soil" [4].

• Progress:

• By 1955, Parliament recorded that abolishing the "numerous intermediaries between the State and the tiller" had been "achieved for the most part" [3].

• By 1960, all the laws needed to abolish intermediaries had been passed [6].

• The constitutional fight:

• Zamindars challenged the laws under Articles 14, 19 and 31, which covered equality, freedoms and the right to property as it stood then [2].
• Parliament replied with the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which came into force on 18 June 1951 [2].
• It added Article 31A, which protects laws for acquiring estates from challenge on the ground that they violate Fundamental Rights [2].
• It added Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule. Laws listed in that Schedule cannot be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights, and this validated land reform Acts that states had already passed [2].

• Its stated aim was to end "dilatory and wasteful litigation" [2].

• Place in land policy: the first phase (1950–72) had three parts: abolition of intermediaries, tenancy reform and land ceilings [6]. After abolition, the next goal became fixing ceilings [3].

• Who gained: mainly the upper and middle peasantry [6]. This created a class of owner-cultivators (farmers who own and farm their own land), such as the Jats of Punjab, Haryana and western UP, and the Kammas and Reddys of coastal Andhra.

Don't confuse with

• Tenancy reform: this regulates the tenant–landowner relationship through security of tenure and fair rent. Abolition instead removes the middleman between the tiller and the state.
• Land ceilings: a legal upper limit on how much land one person can own, with the surplus given to others. Ceilings came after abolition [3] and lagged far behind it. Abolition itself set no size limit.
• Ryotwari system: this is a revenue system in which the cultivator pays the state directly. Abolition is the reform that converted zamindari areas into this kind of direct link, as the Madras Act of 1948 did.
• Soviet-style confiscation: taking land without payment. India paid compensation to zamindars.

Prelims Hooks

• The first abolition law was the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is numbered Act No. I of 1951 [5].
• Abolition brought about 200 lakh (2 crore) tenants into direct contact with the government.
• The First Amendment, 1951 (in force 18 June 1951) added Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule. The abolition laws had been challenged under Articles 14, 19 and 31 [2].
• All the laws needed to abolish intermediaries were passed by 1960. It was the most successful part of land reform [6].
• Trap: sir and khudkasht lands were exempt. Sharecroppers and landless labourers did not benefit, because only occupancy tenants (tenants who already had a recognised, lasting right to farm the land) became owners.
• Trap: zamindars were paid compensation. There was no confiscation.

Mains Points

• Efficiency without equity. Ownership gave tillers a reason to invest, and this helped agricultural growth. But resumption for "personal cultivation", the sir/khudkasht exemption and evictions meant equity was "not fully served". The main change was in the relationship between the state and the occupancy tenant, while the poorest in the village were left out.
• The price of a democratic reform (GS-II). Paying compensation and following court procedure kept the reform peaceful and legal. But it strained state budgets, invited legal cases under Articles 14, 19 and 31, and led Parliament to pass the First Amendment (Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule) [2]. This is a good case study on Parliament vs the judiciary and the right to property.
• Link to the Green Revolution and today's agenda (GS-III). The owner-cultivator middle peasantry created by abolition had land and savings. So they were the first to take up HYV seeds (high-yielding varieties), fertiliser and irrigation, and the Green Revolution's gains went first to middle and rich peasants. Unrecorded tenancies and evictions explain why land-record digitisation and land-leasing laws are still unfinished business today.

Read more

• Abolition of intermediaries