Surinder Sud: On divided ground

FARM VIEW

For a farmer, fragmented land is a disincentive for any investment

Consolidation of holdings is the most crucial land reform needed today to put the country's agriculture back on a high-growth track. As it is, the average size of farm holdings is quite tiny, merely 1.41 hectares, according to the 1995-96 agriculture census data.

For over 61.6 per cent of the farmers, who belong to the marginal farmers category with less than one hectare land, the average size of holding works out to be just 0.40 hectare. And for 18.7 per cent other farmers who are categorised as small farmers (less than two hectares), the average holding size is 1.42 hectares. And worst still, even these mini-holdings, in most cases, comprise of several pieces of small and irregular plots situated at different sites.

As such, many of these plots are too small for even the animal-driven plough to operate, leave alone the use of modern farming gadgets that ensure better yields. A good deal of land is, in fact, wasted in the formation of boundary bunds.

While digging of tubewells for irrigating these plots is unthinkable, even conveying water to them from other sources becomes impractical and uneconomical because of the problems of laying down irrigation channels. Similarly, there is little scope for constructing drainage channels to let the surplus rainwater flow out.

In fact, such a situation acts as a formidable disincentive for the farmers to make any development-oriented investment or go in for costly yield-enhancing inputs. This has, therefore, become a big drag on the Indian agriculture, slowing down the pace of output growth.

Unfortunately, the process of fragmentation of land holdings is going on unabated for several reasons. For one, heirs want a share from each piece of their ancestors' land.

This is partly because the location, quality and, hence, value of each piece of land may be different and partly because of the emotions attached to the ancestral property. The existing inheritance and land laws have no provision to curb this senseless division of land.

Besides, little effort is afoot to reverse the process of fragmentation through state-sponsored drives for consolidation of land holdings. On the contrary, the focus of the land reforms movement has remained on imposition of land ceiling, which leads to further fragmentation without serving much useful purpose.

Of course, on paper, consolidation of agricultural holdings has always been a part of the land reforms policy. Many states had, in fact, enacted legislations for this purpose.

But barring Punjab and Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, nowhere else was this task pursued to its logical end. States like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Gujarat discontinued the land consolidation drive in the early 1990s.

Karnataka went a step further and even repealed its Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1966 in 1991. Uttar Pradesh is the lone state where the consolidation work is currently in progress, albeit at a snail's pace.

The benefits of land consolidation for agricultural development are apparent in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, which became the cradle of the green revolution thanks largely to this. It was the land consolidation that paved the way for mushrooming of tubewells which, in turn, facilitated the introduction of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice.

The previous NDA government had once or twice talked about persuading the state governments to resume land consolidation exercise but with little success. Most states offered the lack of resources as an excuse for not doing so, though lack of political will was the real cause.

The politicians are, perhaps, apprehensive of the backlash it could generate in case this exercise is not carried out with total impartiality. But that should not come in the way of such a vital reform.

There can be various ways of undertaking consolidation work. It would essentially involve evaluation of each separate holding followed by a removal of original boundaries and then reallocation of the consolidated farms after marking out lands required for public purposes, such as roads and community services.

The re-drawn holdings should necessarily keep in view the economic viability of the units. This may involve payment of compensation to some who may get lands of lower value than those acquired from them and charging extra cost from those who may get better land in this process.