People’s Democratic Revolution in India and Land Problem

[Approach Paper of CPI (ML) - New Democracy, Presented at the Convention on 4th July 1997, Hyderabad]

Uphold Great and Glorious Road of Great Telangana Armed Struggle
This year July 4th marks completion of 50 years since Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle. This struggle was the pinnacle of various mass struggles that came in the wake of Second World War. After the Second World War a wave of people’s struggles burst forth throughout the country. The people of Tripura and Manipur states carried on armed struggles. In addition to them, struggle of Warli tribal peasantry in Maharashtra, the Patiala peasants’ struggles in Punjab, the Azamgarh peasants’ struggle in Uttar Pradesh and Tebhaga struggle in Bengal came forward. In the beginning of 1946 armed revolts and revolutionary struggles in India, i.e., RIN Ratings Revolt, Azad Hind demonstrations etc., took place. Telangana’s downtrodden and toiling people, particularly peasants, waged heroic struggles and armed struggle against Nizam feudal state being protected by the Britishers and against the ‘new’ Indian Government led by Jawaharlal Nehru. On this auspicious occasion of the completion of Golden Jubilee Year of the Great and Heroic Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle, it is pertinent to recall that great and glorious struggle. Let us recapitulate in brief how the struggle started, what were its achievements and the relevance of that struggle for us today.
Telangana region, when it was a part of the former Hyderabad State of the Nizam, consisted of ryotwari and jagirdari areas. In both areas, the people were the victims of feudal exploitation and oppression of the Deshmukhs, Jagairdars and landlords. Forced labour, illegal extractions, indebtedness and occupation of peasants’ lands were the important forms of feudal exploitation. The Deshmukhs were also landlords, who received ‘Rusum’ – a form of pension from the government – and enjoyed special recognition from Nizam Government. Communist Party started working in this region from 1940. It could build up a powerful peasant movement within a short period (by 1944) by mobilizing the people for struggle against exploitation by Deshmukhs, Jagirdars and landlords while carrying on a political agitation against Nizam. The peasant movement faced the question of land distribution even by 1944. The peasants demanded back the lands which were occupied by the landlords from the poor and the middle peasants. They realized by 1946, through their own experience, that they cannot get back their lands within the limitations of law. They occupied about 3,000 acres of land by defying the law. They confiscated grain and money from the landlords, who had forcibly snatched them in various forms from the peasants. They elected People’s Committees which were called SANGHAMS which were to help them in administering the day to day affairs. This had put an end to feudal landlords’ domination. This revolutionary programme was implemented in about 150 villages of Nalgonda district. This was how the Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle started in 1946. During 1946 the peasants and agricultural labourers had distributed among themselves the following types of lands:
1. Lands occupied in various forms from the peasantry by the landlords (i.e., in return for loans, mortgages etc.), 2. Grazing lands in the possession of landlords, 3. Waste lands of the government in the possession of the landlords and 4. Forest Lands.
During those days there was an understanding among some revolutionaries that it is possible to distribute the land of the landlords to the peasantry only after the proletariat has seized power. But experience proved that at a certain stage of the struggle, it is not only possible but also necessary to distribute land and that the revolutionary movement can be advanced only when the land is distributed. In the course of their struggle people saw fully well that neither the government nor the armed forces prevented these lands from getting into the hands of the landlords, nor were the same of any use to get them back into their lands. As soon as they occupied the lands, they experienced how the government unleashed terror, with all its armed forces. They came to the decision that they could defend the lands only with weapons.
The Nizam’s Government had dispatched its armed forces to suppress the agrarian movement. Then the people formed volunteer squads and defended themselves with whatever weapons they could get. Women also participated in the self-defence. When the armed police had failed to suppress the resistance, the government sent its military. It selected some important villages, where it killed some of the important young leaders of the movement. One of them was a woman. With intense repression the then Nizam’s Government tried its level best to smother the peasants’ armed struggle. By the end of 1946, it could temporarily prevent the advance of the peasants’ armed struggle. Nevertheless, this fascist repression could not cow down the valiant peasants’ will power and dauntless spirit. Instead of succumbing to the fascist repression, they thought that arms locally available to them were not enough to defend their revolutionary gains. They felt the necessity of firearms. Having acquired firearms and made necessary preparations, they intensified the struggle after a few months.
THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GREAT TELANGANA ARMED STRUGGLE
The Telangana peasantry, after some time, again attempted to occupy lands in the possession of the landlords. After the ‘transfer of power’, the Congress rulers were demanding that the Nizam should subordinate himself to Delhi, whereas the Nizam wanted that the Hyderabad state should be an independent entity. Taking advantage of the rift in the ruling classes, and pending their compromise, the Telangana peasantry, under the leadership of the Communist Party, intensified the armed struggle to overthrow the Nizam’s regime. They distributed among themselves the lands of the landlords. They established Village Soviets, and carried out administration through them. Youth formed themselves into armed squads, fought against the Nizam’s armed forces, and drove them out of their villages. Thus the anti-Nizam struggle and the agrarian revolution went on simultaneously. During the course of their struggle three thousand Gram Rajyas had been established in Telangana. About 10 lakh acres of land were distributed including tenancy lands. In addition to this government wastelands were also distributed extensively.
METHOD OF LAND DISTRIBUTION
The peasants had distributed first the lands of those landlords who were the active supporters of the Nizam. Later a ceiling of about 200 acres of dry land was fixed and the surplus land was distributed to the landless in a good number of villages. The ceiling was implemented for wet land taking 10 acres of wet land equal to 100 acres of dry land. The acreage of black cotton soil was suitably adjusted. The lands thus distributed were not compensated. But they could not quench the thirst of the landless for land. Then the revolutionaries thought of reducing the ceiling first to 100 acres and later up to 70 or 80 acres. In addition to landlords’ surplus lands, the tenants were declared as owners of the tenancy lands, while the entire banjar lands were distributed to the landless. Thus the Communist Party of India, for the first time in India, tried to solve the basic problem of the Indian peasantry i.e., “Land to the Tiller”. The main points observed during the course of land distribution were:
1. A peasant family was given the same land which it had lost to the landlord.
2. The rest of the land was given to other landless poor.
3. Equal distribution of the land.
– The cattle and agricultural implements were distributed to the needy, after they were seized from the landlords. The Gram Rajyas took the lead in carrying out these tasks. All disputes arising out of implementing this programme were settled by the Gram Rajyas. The Gram RajyasGram Rajyas functioned as village courts and justice was free. They gave judgements and implemented them. were elected in open meetings of the villagers. They were responsible for conducting the administrative affairs especially regarding education, irrigation and health, apart from land distribution. They developed irrigation sources (tanks, wells etc.). They dug out canals from riverbeds and converted dry land into wet land. They took special care for rural sanitation. They conducted night schools to root out illiteracy, when it was not possible to have them during daytime due to the constant police raids. The
– It was not considered feasible to abolish usury totally. It was abolished in relation to the big landlords. A reasonable rate of interest was fixed towards small moneylenders. Thus the people continued to enjoy credit facilities to the extent necessary. Youths from the families which got land as a result of the land distribution and patriotic youths joined the armed squads. Besides them, there were the village volunteer squads. While defending their lives and properties during the daytime, the people spent a peaceful night during the period of resistance.
With the abolition of landlordism leading to land distribution and the peasant tilling his own land, and with the free and selfless help of the Gram Rajyas, the people’s economic condition improved within six months’ time. For the first time after hundreds of years, they had two meals a day, whereas earlier they used to have one meal a day or starve for four to six months a year. They had enough of clothing and lived a life of self-respect for the first time.
In Telangana, the struggle was being conducted by the people to solve the land problem by distribution of the lands of the landlords among the landless and to basically change the social system. It was a turning point in their history. It was at such a juncture that in September 1948 the Indian Government sent its troops into the fighting areas of Telangana. While claiming that their aim was to liberate the Nizam’s state from the Nizam’s armed forces, they suppressed the agrarian revolution and restored landlordism. The Indian Government tried to succeed where the Nizam had failed.
FASCIST REPRESSION ON THE PEOPLE AND HELP TO LANDLORDS WAS THE POLICY OF NEHRU GOVERNMENT IN TELANGANA
There was white terror by the Indian forces in the Telangana villages. They were encircled. Men, women and children were tortured. Arrests were made on a mass scale, including of 10 year old children and old men. Practically there were no young men left in the villages, as they were all arrested. There was not a single village left in Nalgonda district which was untouched by the arrests. The state jails were not enough to accommodate all of the prisoners, therefore, the authorities had used the military barracks, and constructed temporary camp jails. Particularly Party leaders, cadres and militants were jailed. There was a military regime in the fighting areas of Telangana. The landlords who had fled away to the towns for fear of the people, particularly armed people, were brought back to the villages by the Nehru Government. The lands of the peasants were re-occupied, and economic assistance was given to landlords by way of rehabilitation.
EXTENSION OF THE MOVEMENT TO FOREST AREAS TO PROTECT AND CONTINUE THE ARMED STRUGGLE
A good number of revolutionaries and armed squads had become victims of repression. The rest left the villages and entered the forests to protect and defend the armed agrarian revolutionary movement, the people and the armed squads. They worked among the people in the forests. They organized them by spreading the message of armed agrarian revolution. Through their organization and struggle, they got rid of the exploitation and oppression by the landlords, money lenders and forest officials. They occupied and cultivated the forest lands which they were in need of. The people in the forests started a new life with the help of the revolutionaries and the people armed squads.
The ‘democratic’ armies of the Indian Union did not leave the people in the forests at that. They entered the forests and set fire to the huts of the villagers whom they killed at sight. The ‘Brigs’ plan was enforced by bringing a number of tribal villagers to one place, where there was a camp of the military to sever the links between the people and the guerrillas. With the intolerable conditions in the camps, the people came out of them and joined the armed guerrilla squads in considerable numbers, to defend their lands and other revolutionary gains. The people’s armed squads could come out of the military encirclement. Thus the armed struggle continued.
During the Great Telangana Armed Struggle of 1946-51 about 10 lakh people were imprisoned and 4,000 dearest daughters and sons of peasants and labourers were shot dead. There was no limit to the number of people who were tortured. In fact, the entire Telangana area was turned into a concentration camp. People of Telangana and through them the people of India, tasted ‘democracy’ of the Congress brand even before the Constitution came into force.
RESISTANCE TO THE FASCIST REPRESSION OF NEHRU GOVERNMENT AND SQUADS FORMATION IN AP DISTRICTS TO HELP TELANGANA ARMED STRUGGLE
The impact of the great heroic armed struggle of the Telangana people spread not only to Telangana Forest Areas but to coastal districts of AP and Rayalasema areas as well. Armed squads were formed in coastal districts with the available militants in support of Telangana Armed Struggle. Though there were tactical mistakes, these squads and the Party made tremendous sacrifices and laid down their lives in support of that heroic struggle. Squads were being formed to be sent to Nallamala Forest areas in Rayalasema districts.
Nehru Government provided a taste of its fascism even to the people of coastal districts. The fascist repression let loose by it against the people of Katuru and Yelamarru villages in Krishna district in front of Gandhi statues is unforgettable in history.
REVISIONISTS’ BETRAYAL OF THE TELANGANA ARMED STRUGGLE
This was the first historical Armed Peasant Struggle led by a section of leadership in CPI which for the first time tried to apply the Chinese revolutionary path to India i.e., the path of protracted people’s war. Ever since its formation in 1920, the CPI leadership had failed to pursue correct strategy and tactics suited to the Indian conditions. During the period of Great Heroic Peasants’ Armed Struggle of Telangana (1946-51) the leadership of CPI failed to digest and accept the Chinese Path. Instead of pursuing the tactics of retreat and defence in order to intensify and advance the armed struggle when favourable situation arises, the leadership became scared and laid down arms. Some of them shamelessly ridiculed and abused this great, heroic armed struggle. Through this they wanted gentlemen certificates from liberal bourgeoisie and from Nehru Government. Mr. Ravi Narayana Reddy wrote a notorious book slandering that great and glorious struggle. The title of the book was “Telangana Nagna Satyalu” (Naked Truth of Telangana). Some of them became approvers to save their lives. Most of those leaders are now in CPI or CPM. They boasted then that they were laying arms aside for a temporary period and they would restart the armed struggle. Nevertheless, during the long period of last 50 years, they never thought of touching them to wage armed struggle against the Indian state as they had promised the people and cadres at large. However, they also never stopped shedding crocodile tears about that epic struggle. Notwithstanding their crocodile tears and pretensions, both the revisionists and the neo-revisionists thoroughly failed in rekindling the torch of Telangana armed struggle even after 50 years.
Not only this, the revisionists, particularly the CPM leadership, betrayed and crushed Naxalbari and Srikakulam armed struggles as well. Whatever the strength of the movements and higher class-consciousness of the people, the revisionists looked only towards Kerala-Bengal road and not towards the great, heroic and glorious road of Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle. This has been only due to their parliamentary path and pro-ruling class politics. On the other hand, some of the communist revolutionaries who upheld the path of Telangana, Naxalbari and Srikakulam, also failed to catch and carry forward the path of Telangana Armed Struggle due to their left-adventurist tactics. Therefore neither the revisionists nor the left-adventurists can become the real heirs of Telangana armed struggle. None of their paths – parliamentary path of the revisionists and the left-adventurist line – can become the alternative to the Great Telangana Armed Peasant Struggle. The peasants’ armed struggles of Naxalbari, Srikakulam etc. and the Resistance struggle of Godavari Valley once again proved the validity of the path of Telangana peasants’ armed struggle. Taking proper lessons from these historical peasants’ armed struggles, let us (proceed) along the path of Telangana peasants’ armed struggle.
TELANGANA ARMED STRUGGLE THAT DISTRIBUTED LAND TO THE TILLER, FORCED THE RULING CLASSES TO TAKE LAND REFORMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
The armed struggle of Telangana that started for land, food and liberation showed the basic solution for the basic problem of the Indian people i.e. “land to the tiller”. This historic struggle distributed banjar/waste lands, forest-lands, tank beds, lands illegally occupied by the landlords, the lands of the landlords who supported the Nizam Government and the surplus lands of the other landlords while imposing land ceilings and reductions on it. For the first time in India, land reforms were implemented on the basis of land ceilings to provide “land to the tiller” during this great struggle under the leadership of CPI. The impact of this struggle reverberated on the peasantry all over the country. Hence, the Indian ruling classes started fearing that the spread of the influence of that struggle to other areas and other states could endanger their very existence. As a result of this, while imposing fascist repression on the people of AP particularly in Telangana, the Military government of Hyderabad under the aegis of Nehru-Vallabhai Patel, declared a number of land reforms to cajole and divert the Telangana peasantry and their movement. Not only that, it brought Vinoba Bhave into the field and made him start ‘peaceful’ distribution of the lands that were given to him by the landlords as ‘generous’ gifts or charity to divert the armed peasants’ struggles throughout the country particularly in Telangana.
In this paper we propose to deal with the state of the land problem and the ruling classes’ response to it. We shall also analyze the results of these measures by the ruling classes as well as point out the significance of the land struggle in the ongoing revolutionary movement in the country. Thus the ambit of our discussion is limited.
Thus the ruling classes, having sensed the dissatisfaction of the peasants all over the country and impending danger to their rule brought many land reform legislations. The Telangana armed struggle furnished the ruling classes a stunning lesson i.e., the princely states cannot withstand the armed peasant struggles which might arise in those states. Hence Nehru enacted certain reforms like annulment of princely states and land reform acts etc.
The import of these reforms with regard to land question was to abolish certain intermediaries as there were multiple layers of intermediaries. Through this measure the revenue collectors of British regime and princely states were treated as the real owners of the land. Infact they were allowed to retain big chunks of land. Only those intermediaries who failed to take legal possession of their land lost their land. They constituted an insignificant minority. The big intermediaries were able to convert huge tracts into their ownership while extracting big ransom from the government for the revenue collection rights over the rest. The ceiling imposed in this period was individual based and exemptions for homesteads, orchards and similar purposes formed parts of all state acts. Ceiling limit was very high. Land reforms being a state subject, there were differences in the land reform acts of different states. The land reforms of Nehru period failed miserably in solving the problem of land and delivering the land to the tiller.
While the peasantry continued to simmer with dissatisfaction, there was a relative lull in the agrarian struggles. This was largely due to the attitude of the CPI leadership which had embarked on the parliamentary path and had abandoned revolutionary struggle of the people against the ‘progressive’ Nehru Government. Continuing in their betrayal of Telangana, the revisionists in leadership tried to smother and lull the peasant movement into constitutional and ‘constructive’ channels. The section of leadership which had split from the CPI in the course of Great Debate and formed CPM continued with the same attitude towards the revolutionary peasant movement. Nehru Government and his successors obviously forgot about their reforms with the lull in the movement which only proved that their reforms were in response to the revolutionary struggles of the peasantry under the communist leadership.
However, the imperialist dependent Nehruvian model based on protecting and perpetuating semi-feudalism in the vast countryside had led to sever economic crisis. Congress faced decline and splits in several states and suffered serious setback in 1967 elections and non-Congress governments came to power in eight important states in 1967. In these states the revisionists and neo-revisionists participated in the non-Congress governments.
In West Bengal CPM and CPI became part of the united Front Government. They sought to substitute the participation in governments in semi-feudal, semi-colonial system and defence of the same, in place of class struggle and overthrow of the system. In these conditions the revolutionaries inside the CPM led the heroic Naxalbari peasants’ armed struggle which was brutally suppressed by the revisionists and neo-revisionists in power. The armed peasants’ struggle of Naxalbari was followed by peasants’ armed struggles of Mushahari, Debra-Gopiballavpur, Lakhimpur-Kheri, Srikakulam and the resistance struggle of Godavari Valley during 1967-69. These great struggles broke out after a gap of 20 years, since the Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle which was betrayed by the then CPI revisionist leadership. These struggles once again brought up the question of waging armed struggle to resolve the basic demands of the Indian people and their liberation particularly “the land to the tiller”. Naxalbari armed struggle proved to be a turning point in the history of the Communist Movement in India, as it became the dividing line between the revisionists and the Marxist-Leninists. Revolutionaries rallied around Naxalbari and formed CPI(ML) on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought with New Democratic Programme and path of Protracted People’s War. Thus Naxalbari declared the revolutionary movement in India on the question of programme and path.
In the background of the above developments, Indira Gandhi, once again, started singing the tune of ‘land reforms’ to divert the attention of the people from ongoing peasants’ struggles and to silence her opponents who were much senior to her in Congress. To have a socialist garb like her father, she also started internationally moving closer to Soviet social-imperialists; nationally she started giving ‘supremacy’ to public sector over private sector, nationalized the banks and revoked privy purses. In the wake of Naxalbari and other revolutionary struggles, started another round of land reforms. The government itself characterized the land reforms of Nehru period as a failure and laid down guidelines for the states to follow. These included lowering of ceiling, treating family as a unit for the purpose of ceiling and reducing the exemptions from the ceiling. But the lack of political and administrative commitment to carry out these reforms was all too glaring and they were doomed to fail as their predecessors.
Despite all the popular gimmicks, she was defeated in the elections held soon after the Emergency was lifted in 1977. The Janata Government that came to power at the Centre with the blessings of Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan kept all the earlier reform programmes and particularly the land problem under carpet. Mr. Jyoti Basu’s Government, which came to power in West Bengal in 1977, announced that it was bringing sweeping laws in agrarian sector to project itself as a better government than Indira Gandhi and others. Again Indira Gandhi came to power in 1981 but this time she kept almost silent on reforms particularly on land reforms despite her announcement on bringing new ‘twenty point programme’. After her murder, her son Mr. Rajiv Gandhi came to power but he was also silent on reforms like land ceiling acts etc. With the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, P.V. Narasimha Rao came to power and started talking about the failure of the earlier land reforms and his government’s resolve to implement those acts seriously. He was hypocritically talking of land reforms while his government was authoring the process of reversal of land reforms.
The problem of land continues to remain unsolved. Out of the total operated area in India of 406.5 million acres only 7.35 million acres was declared surplus and of this 6.4 million acres was taken possession of and only 4.9 million acres was officially distributed. Thus as on December 1993 only 1.8% of the land was declared surplus, 1.6% actually acquired and only 1.2% actually distributed. Hence the overwhelming majority of peasantry – poor peasants, agricultural labourers and middle peasants – residing in Indian rural areas demand basic land reform on the basis of “Land to the Tiller”. They demand that the ruling classes should genuinely implement the land reform acts which they themselves have passed. They also demand the removal of loopholes in the land reforms acts.
POST-1947 LAND REFORMS INTRODUCED BY THE NEW RULING CLASSES OF INDIA UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF NEHRU
The Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle forced the new Indian ruling classes to start land reforms throughout the country. Even earlier, several recommendations were there before the British rulers about the necessity of land reforms to prevent the revolutionary struggles of the peasantry. The very first amendment to the Indian Constitution brought by Nehru Government was, among other things, to validate the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950. The national policy on land reforms including ceiling on agricultural land holdings took shape in the First Five-Year Plan of 1951-56. In Andhra Pradesh, immediately after the transfer of power: Abolition of Madras Estates 1948 was enacted which applies to Andhra regions of the present day AP. In Telangana, Abolition of Jagirdari Act 1949 was enacted. The aims in enacting this act were to provide security to the tenants, to prevent transfer of lands to non-agricultural families, abolition of intermediaries and fixing land ceilings. The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were enacted in 1950 providing for regulation of rent and barring the eviction of tenants. After this an amendment called Section 38E was incorporated to treat the tenants as protected ones. In 1956 AP Tenancy Act was enacted. AP Agricultural Land Holdings Act was published in 1958 and it became an Act only in 1961. According to this Act a unit consisting of 1 person can keep 27 to 324 acres. This Act miserably failed in the course of its implementation.
Why did the enactments contain a number of loopholes and why were they not implemented seriously? This is because, the law-makers largely consisted of landlords who were greatly influenced by other landlords, ex-princes and kings. In addition, a large proportion of bureaucrats were from the landlord class. Hence, these laws naturally failed. It is very necessary to know the aims of the main agrarian reforms of Nehru Government and the loopholes in those acts. Let us look at some of his decisions and their implementation: 1. Amalgamation of princely states, 2. Abolition of Zamindaris, 3. Tenancy Acts, 4. Land Ceiling Acts, 5. Distribution of Banzar lands and 6. Rural Debt Relief Acts etc.
1. The amalgamation of princely states was not directly linked with the land reforms. The rule of Princes used to be run with outmoded methods and hence they were not in a position to withstand people’s struggles. Therefore, to make them withstand the people’s struggles and become part of the central machinery the amalgamation of princely states was taken up. As a result of this some kingdoms which used to be symbols of feudalism became non-existent but not feudalism as such. The ruling classes paid hundreds of crores of rupees as ransom from the budge i.e., from the money collected from the people.
Ex-princes and their children have been occupying the highest positions of the state apparatus like Central and State Ministers, Governors and Ambassadors in accordance with their economic status. They have got ownership rights on lahks of acres which used to be treated as their ‘own lands’ when they were princes. As these lands were fertile, these already millionaires further amassed crores of rupees. These are still among the richest. Though some reforms were brought to reduce or revoke their honours as kings, removing status symbols as kings and facilities provided to them as kings yet no loss at all occurred to their interests as feudal rich and millionaires. Under direct British rule feudalism and semi-feudalism continued in the form of princely states, zamindari, ryotwari and mahalwari systems. Semi-feudalism has been continuing after the ‘transfer of power’. Having seen some changes in the form of landlordism, to think that system itself has basically changed, is wrong.
2. “The Abolition of Zamindari System” was also a part of the Congress policies of so-called abolition of intermediaries. This was also an act intended to facilitate its rule. After the ‘transfer of power’ the new ruling classes abolished zamindaris and extended ryotwari system into these areas as well. This step was also taken very slowly and that too when the threat of people’s struggles existed. For abolishing some of these intermediaries in 40% of the country, the government paid crores of rupees as ransom to these sections from the public exchequer.
These ex-Zamindars kept fertile lands under their control. With the Abolition of Zamindari system, they became owners of these lands and thus they became big-landlords. Though they sold some of these lands and converted them into cash, yet while growing commercial crops, they have been earning lakhs of rupees every year. They have been safeguarding their interests by joining the state machinery at various levels. Thus these forces having joined Indian big landlord class has become the second biggest layer of it after the ex-princes. Many of them developed as bankers and industrialists. Though the new rulers abolished some intermediaries for facilitating their rule, yet by recognizing the ex-Zamindars as landlords overwhelming majority of the peasants lost their ownership rights on land. They are forced to live as tenants under the very same ex- Zamindars.
The landlords have taken big compensation from the government having sold their lands for projects. And yet they continue to occupy and enjoy the fruits of these very lands of project beds through their illegal occupation thus denying these rights to needy landless and rural poor. Landlords and Mafia elements also continue to occupy lakhs of acres of riverbed lands throughout the country.
3. “Tenancy Problem” was there ever since landlordism came into existence. Today’s landlord system in India is the creation of British imperialism. This problem was and has been prevalent not only in ryotwari areas but also in ex-zamindari areas and in ex-princely states. The servitors who used to collect taxes for Britishers and the puppets of British imperialism developed as landlords and intermediaries whereas the ryots cultivating their lands themselves became the tenants. Ex-princes and ex-Zamindars remained as landlords and those who were cultivating their lands have all become the tenants. The statistics being furnished by the Indian Government are not factual, scientific and integrated ones. However, we cannot but depend on their statistics. The number of tenants and the land under tenancy is not only continuing but the feudal system itself is continuing in this form. 37th Round of NSS (1981-82) brought out that share-cropping continues as the main form of tenancy. It showed nearly 41.92% of the leased in area under share-cropping with 10.86% as area under fixed cash tenancy, 6.27% under fixed produce and rest under other terms.
With the advent of tenancy acts, the unrecorded number of tenants and the extent of the land under their control have grown more than the recorded number of tenants. It is reported that the tenants are protected by the tenancy acts without the landlords removing them from the land that they till for years. This is not at all a fact. After the acts came into operation, insecurity of the tenants that till the land has increased because their tenancy agreements are oral in general. Those tenants who were there before the tenant acts came could get some nominal protection. According to the acts the landlord can take back the land from the tenant for his “personal cultivation”. In case tenant fails to pay his rent, landlord can take back his land. As long as these two rights are there for the landlord, the rights of the tenants will remain only on paper. Even when we consider the government statistics, the land given to the tenants was only like a drop of water in the ocean. In many states the tenant could not get even one acre of land. Even the land that was given to the tenant was mainly returning to the landlords. Owing to these tenancy acts innumerable tenants who could not pay their lease were alienated from the lands. Thus they are swelling the army of unemployed. Thus the tenancy acts could not in any way resolve the problem of tenancy. The rights of the tenants remained nominal as it were. Tenants were removed from tenancy lands and tenancy rates increased. The number of oral tenancy agreements has increased. Ownership rights which were given to a small number of tenants also went into the hands of landlords and rich peasants owing to their debts to these forces. In some areas these ownership rights were not actually given to the original tillers but given to the brokers. Therefore brokers, utilizing the acts, vacated the real tenants.
4. “Land Ceiling Acts”: During the 1946-51 Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle, for the first time in India land ceiling was introduced and excess lands of the landlords were distributed to the poor peasants and agricultural labourers gratis. Entire banjar lands were distributed to the rural poor. The tenants that were tilling the landlords’ lands were given ownership rights. The entry of Indian army prevented this great endeavor.
The land ceilings and their implementation by the then Communist Party among the Telangana peasantry became a subject of debate throughout the country after the Telangana People’s Armed Struggle. After this struggle was suppressed, the Nehru Government brought a land ceiling act in 1950 for erstwhile Nizam areas. According to this ceiling rate was fixed at 500 acres and the remaining surplus lands of the landlords can be distributed with some conditions. In 1954 this ceiling rate was reduced. Later on such acts were introduced in various states of the country. But the surplus land distributed was only nominal. Land ceiling acts were enacted in the states of Bihar, Kerala, Mysore (Karnataka), Orissa, Rajasthan and Manipur. However, these acts could not go beyond the Assembly walls of these states. Some of these states even refused to declare the surplus land in those states. Only in Kashmir land ceilings were fixed for the lands of the landlords and 4 lakh 50 thousand acres distributed with a view to reducing the influence of Pakistan and to win over National Conference temporarily as it had long been raising the demand for land reforms. Government paid ransom to the landlords. Some states, in the end, furnished their statistics stating that the surplus land available in their states was too little. These declarations were nothing, but false.
When the problem of land reforms came on the agenda, Sri Mahanabolis had estimated that throughout the country 6 crore 30 lakh acres of surplus land was available if a ceiling was fixed at 20 acres per family. Years passed between the introduction of the act in parliament and its enactment. Big landlord class skillfully utilized this period. Having transferred their lands under various pretexts, they declared that they have little surplus land or nothing at all. In fact, government itself unnecessarily kept a higher ceiling limit. The landlords utilized this time in a nice way to escape even from this higher ceiling limit.
The fact of the matter was that the landlords did not include various lands under their control in their surplus land declarations. Important among such lands were grass lands, lands allotted for factories, cooperative agricultural farms, orchards, plantations and private forests etc. And the rest of the surplus lands were made benami transfers to their close relatives etc. Thus at last landlords showed very little surplus lands or nothing at all. Furthermore; the scanty lands distributed to poor peasants and the agricultural labourers also have largely gone back to the landlords and rich peasants as debt payments. As the unremunerative land units were distributed to the poor peasants, they are selling these lands within 3 or 4 years to the landlords and rich peasants to get rid of their debts or first mortgaging their lands and gradually selling them. Thus in rural areas poor peasants have been becoming agricultural labourers.
5. Distribution of Banjar Lands: The government showed the statistics as if during this period it distributed cultivable banjar lands and private forest lands to poor peasants and agricultural labourers. According to it one crore acres of such lands were distributed to the poor and majority of such lands went back into the hands of rich people in lieu of their debts. Thus an enormous quantify of fertile banjar land still remains in the hands of landlords. They had already acquired ownership rights on some of such lands. They have been cultivating the rest of such lands by paying nominal penalties or no penalties at all. Since the governments belong to the landlords, they are protecting the landlords and giving all facilities to them. On the other hand, the governments are imposing repression when the poor peasants occupy such lands.
The distribution of banjar lands could be useful only when the lands of the landlords and the banjar lands are combined and distributed to the village poor in a systematic manner. It could be useful only when the government provides necessary help for cultivating such lands and gives protection to the poor so that the land could not go back into the hands of the rich. “Land to the Tiller” could be available only when the people could organize an apparatus that could rebut the atrocities and attacks of the landlords, their goondas and the state apparatus. Protection to the lands of the poor can come only when the landlordism is eliminated. If we distribute the tenancy land and banjar lands while keeping landlordism intact, the same will go into the hands of landlords and rich ones within a short span of time. Now the same is happening just before our eyes.
6. Government introduced certain schemes to reduce the debt burden of the rural areas. Nevertheless, the village poor have not benefited through these schemes in a big way. In the rural sector the landlords and the rich peasants remain as the creditors. The middle class, poor peasant, agricultural labourers and handicraftsmen remain as debtors in villages. In rural areas usury is not only continuing in the form of cash but it also continues in kind (Nagu system). Though acts were passed reducing the interest rates, these acts are implemented nowhere in the country.
ONCE AGAIN, INTENSIVE PROPAGANDA ABOUT LAND REFORMS DURING MRS. INDIRA GANDHI’S RULE
Under the leadership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Indian ruling classes, once again, started a chain of reforms to pacify the growing discontentment of the people and divert the people’s struggles. Indira Gandhi pursued stick and carrot policies. On the one hand, she resorted to fascist repression against the mass movements and, on the other hand, she started announcing a number of reforms. To project themselves as progressive the ruling classes started these reforms. They enacted a law revoking privy purses. Instead of paying privy purses every year, they paid them a lumpsum amount all at once. Utilizing this as a source the ex-princes started their industries. In the name of bank nationalization government paid thousands of crores of rupees to all those banks which were running on losses. They shifted this burden on to the shoulders of the people. She, once again, started enacting land reform acts and land ceiling acts.
Indira Gandhi and her followers announced that in the past land reforms were not implemented properly and the poor could not get the benefits of those land reforms, as there were reactionary elements inside the Congress itself. They declared that this time they would take all precautions so that the fruits of these reforms reach the common man. They announced the scheme of “Green Revolution”. Nevertheless the dissatisfaction of the people did not cool down. Economic crisis turned into political crisis. It led to political instability and emergency rule was imposed in the country by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. While imposing emergency rule in the country, she on the other hand, announced welfare schemes for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, schemes for the removal of poverty and as a climax of all these schemes she announced the 20 point programme. Her government also announced that they would strive for achieving socialism. Hence they incorporated a clause in the constitution of attaining ‘Socialism’. The ruling classes announced that their aim was to attain “land to the tiller” by eliminating landlordism altogether. Notwithstanding her pompous statements, like her father, she also resorted to suppressing the people’s movements through fascist repression. She took such administrative steps that cajole and kill the people.
Just as the reforms brought by Nehru failed, the reforms brought during Indira Gandhi period also failed. Their boasts notwithstanding, the basic problems of the people particularly “land to the tiller” was not solved. Though the land reforms of Indira Gandhi apparently appeared radical yet their implementation was confined only to papers. They pretended they would dig out a large amount of surplus land. However, the amount of land distributed was a pittance. The surplus lands of the landlords distributed during Indira Gandhi period also was very little. To some extent, they distributed the banjar lands. But most of these lands again reached landlords and rich peasants as debt repayments. Though in the wake of economic crisis leading to political crisis and political instability, Indira Gandhi brought certain reforms and implemented them to some extent to attract the people, yet they were not fundamentally different from the reforms brought by the ruling classes earlier either in implementation or in bringing results. The reforms of Indira Gandhi could help only to win over the vocal sections among the downtrodden classes but not solve the problems of these downtrodden classes. In the process the ruling classes have made certain reforms even in Andhra. Let us see what these were and how they were implemented.
Indira Gandhi could show some more surplus land by reducing land ceiling limit. Nevertheless, on this occasion also the big landlords like ex-princes, ex-Zamindars, ex-Jagirdars, Desmukhs etc. could take all precautions not to show their surplus lands for distribution. For this they utilized the government machinery in various ways. Still they have been keeping and using hundreds and thousands of acres in their possession by dividing their family into different units and resorting to benami transfers. Indira Gandhi also continued the same exemptions in her land reforms as her father, Nehru, did to orchards and grasslands etc.
The land reforms in AP were implemented in the same fashion as they were in other states of the country. Look at the style of Indira Gandhi’s implementation of land reforms: During Nehru’s period the land ceiling limit in AP was fixed as between 27 - 324 acres and in accordance with this ceiling limit government announced that 73 thousand acres of surplus land was available for distribution. In fact, when the Land Reforms Bill was introduced in the Assembly the then Revenue Minister Mr. Kala Venkatrao declared that 30 lakh acres of land was available for distribution. AP government distributed only 54,709 acres out of the 73 thousand acres it had declared as surplus land. And that too the land distributed was not surplus land. It was surplus forest land from the districts of Adilabad, Medak and Karimnagar. The very same ruling classes announced during 1975-76 that throughout the country 40 lakh acres surplus land was available and out of it 10.5 lakh acres surplus land was available in Andhra Pradesh alone. Out of this the actual distributed surplus land was only 2.18 lakh acres. At the outset when Indira Gandhi brought the Reforms Act, it was declared that 20 lakh acres surplus land was available. After that they reduced that quantity to squarely half. As pointed out above the actual land distributed was only 2.18 lakh acres. 1,250 lakh acres surplus land was still under the occupation of the family units consisting of above 25 acres ceiling limit.
The land ceiling limits were not applied to coffee, tea, coco, clove, rubber etc., gardens even when Indira Gandhi amended the Land Ceiling Act in 1973. It was not applied to factory lands as well. The Acts were made null and void by the ministers themselves. The ex-minister Mr. Sagi Suryanarayana Raju preserved 1,800 acres while declaring 118 acres as surplus. Another minister Mr. Venkata Krishna Murthy Raju preserved 1,000 acres while declaring only 18 acres as surplus. The sugar factory lands of Challapalli Zamindar were exempted from land ceiling according to 1961 Land Ceiling Act. In 1973 these lands were also brought under the purview of Land Ceiling Acts. Nevertheless, Mr. Vengalarao himself declared in 1978 that Challapalli Zamindar had got 3 thousand acres surplus land. These were the very few incidents that came to light. It is a hard fact that if we go deep into the matter, we can find a great many such big landlords both in AP and in other states of the country. Finally we may say that the land distributed was not the surplus land of the landlords but the banjar land. According to the Central Agricultural Ministry Report of 1976-77, throughout the country 160 lakh acres of banjar lands were distributed. Mr. Chenna Reddy declared that the government has given pattas for 22 lakh acres of such land. It is estimated that there are still 5 crore acres of banjar lands available in the country. Likewise in AP alone about 4.5 lakh acres of endowment lands are available. In 1982 the Supreme Court declared that in AP alone about 8 lakh acres of benami lands were available. The World Agriculture Census declared that 83.12 lakh hectare surplus land still remains in the hands of landlords i.e., above the Indira Gandhi Land Ceiling limit.
The big bourgeois and big landlord governments enacted various ‘land reform acts’ in different phases owing to the mass movements particularly the Great Telangana Peasants Armed Struggle conducted during 1946-51. Thanks to the acts passed during 1948-51 some tenants became patta holders in areas where Jageers, Izaras, Mokhasas, Sarphakhas, Zamindars etc. used to be. The government paid ransom to the landlords for having taken their lands to distribute among the tenants. This burden was thrown on the shoulders of the people. In addition to this, landlords were provided with personal pattas for lands like the land under their personal cultivation, waste lands and banjars in those areas. Thus lakhs of acres of land still remained under the control of the landlords even after the enactment of these laws.
Even after the implementation of the tenancy acts and removal of intermediaries in AP, thousands and lakhs of acres of land still remain under the control of Visnoor Ramachandra Reddy, Jannareddi Prathapa Reddy, and small and big Deshmukhs, Desh Pandeys and Raos. Though these areas became, for name sake, as ryotwari areas but 80% of the land remained in the hands of these landlords. These tenancy acts were most useful where powerful mass movements took place. Brokers entered into the field where such mass movements were not strong enough and played a disruptive role. Though owning to the protected tenancy acts some tenants could get land yet thousands of oral tenants lost their lands and became agricultural labourers. Till today thousands of such oral tenants are living depending on the mercies of landlords and the evil gentry.
The land ceiling acts brought by Indira Gandhi in 1972 appear radical in nature, but if we deeply analyse them there is no big difference between these acts and the old ones. In these acts, having taken all precautions in favour of landlords, ceiling limits were decided. By keeping a number of loopholes in these acts, the government has provided an opportunity for the landlords to preserve their lands in various forms. Nowhere is there a match between the surplus land declared by the government and what it actually distributed. Even the land so distributed was infertile and uncultivable. Upto now the government has repeatedly been marking statements about the distribution of surplus land but not distributing the same. In a nutshell, the land reforms acts of 1972 also became nothing but a hoax.
The Central Government has been trampling underfoot the rights of the tribal people by passing the Forest Bill. The state governments have been creating disputes between the poor people belonging to tribes and non-tribes while protecting the landlords and their properties.
The Central Government brought the Forest Bill while talking loudly about the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thereby it revoked the traditional rights of the Girijans over the forest. It banned podu cultivation which comes as the birth right of the Girijan people for generation after generation under the pretext of protecting the environment, without providing them with proper alternative arrangements. Government is giving hundreds and thousands of acres of forest to the timber contractors and they have also been dismantling large tracts of the adjacent forests for their smuggling purposes to earn enormous profits. In these nefarious deals the government and forest officials are hand in glove with the timber contractors. This deforestation of the timber contractors is the main reason for the environmental problems and not the podu cultivation of the Girijan people. However, the government has been accusing the tribal people as if their podu cultivation is responsible for the environmental problems.
BIHAR: LAND REFORMS GROUNDED
Bihar, which had witnessed the Bakasht Movement and other peasant struggles, got the attention of the Indian ruling classes. It was the first state of Indian Union to enact land ceiling law as Bihar Land Reform Act 1950, also called the Zamindari Abolition Act. Parliament passed the first amendment of the Constitution to validate this Act after it was annulled by the Patna High Court. This Act did not impose any ceiling and allowed the landlords to keep land in ‘khas’ possession as occupancy rights. It only meant that Zamindars assumed legal possession of most of lands. Patna High Court held that ‘khas’ possession included constructive possession through hired servants. Only in 1964, Supreme Court held that ‘khas’ meant personal possession.
Bill providing for land ceiling was introduced in 1955 and passed by the legislature in 1959. It received Presidential assent only in 1962, a good seven years after its introduction which gave enough time for landlords to effect transfers to avoid the Act. This Act imposed ceiling on individual as a unit, and ceiling was fixed ranging from 20 to 60 acres of land, allowed landowners to transfer excess land to the family members. It imposed graded levy on landlords with surplus – a provision which was not implemented. Act also provided wide exemption for health and educational purposes, for trusts and other charitable institutions and for public and private plantations. Landlords could retain 15 acres as orchard and 10 acres as homestead in addition to ceiling land. The Act allowed landowners to resume personal cultivation and therefore to evict the tenants.
On proclamation of Bihar Ceiling Act, the State Government had claimed that it would collect 17.77 lakh acres. But no administrative work had begun till 1965. Upto 1966, only 1790 returns were filed which declared 1197 acres as surplus. By 1968 the number of returns had increased to 10,000 but not much land was declared as surplus. Till July 1970 no action was taken against recorded 416 landlords holding 3.26 lakh acres of land. Report of the Task Force on Agrarian Relations in 1970 says that surplus declared was nil.
After the spread of the fire of Naxalbari peasant armed struggle and flaring up of Mushahari peasant armed struggle, 125 large landlords were listed in 1970. Starting with 5 big landlords in every block the stated target was to distribute 1 lakh acres by September, 1970. But there was no progress on this.
In 1973 Land Ceiling Act of Bihar was amended with retrospective effect. Power to take cognizance was transferred from judiciary to executive from 1st April 1973. The Act took family as a unit, provided ceiling from 15 acres to 37.5 acres in five categories and provided exemptions for land of certain educational institutions, universities, research bodies, hospitals, orphanages, public and charitable bodies and religious bodies of public nature. Amending Act of 1973 created a sixth category providing 45 acres as ceiling and also provided that specified landlords cannot hold orchards and homestead in excess of ceiling. An amendment in 1976 provided for “voluntary surrender” which resulted in landlords surrendering the land not in their actual possession thereby bringing a big gap between ‘acquired’ and distributed land. Another amendment in the same year increased the executive’s power of intervention and created appellate jurisdiction of Board of Revenue. Yet another amendment of 1976 took away the right of parties other than landowners (i.e. landless and poor peasants) to file objections thereby debarring their involvement in these disputes.
The performance of land reforms in Bihar since 1970 too has been dismal. According to the Commissioner of Land Reforms Task Force (1992) only 1% of the land in Bihar is distributed. 1973-74 was declared Land Reforms Year. Yet till 1979 Bihar Government claimed to acquire only 2.36 lakh acres out of which 1.31 lakh acres were “voluntary surrenders”. In November 1990 Bihar Government claimed that it has acquired 3.85 lakh acres and distributed 2.62 lakh acres. Of the rest, 71,542 acres were disputed, 19,948 acres unfit, 24,288 acres debarred by courts and only 6,749 acres pending distribution. Even this figure is 2.5 times the estimate of the Planning Commission. The situation till 1992 is virtually the same when the State Government claimed to have declared 4.75 lakh acres as surplus of which 3.92 lakh acres were taken possession of and 2.68 lakh acres distributed. And on top of it, 23% of the land assumed surplus was released back to landlords on various grounds. According to agricultural census figures (and these figures are generally pro-landlord) the land acquired by the Government is just 21.7% of actual surplus disclosed by its own records.
The land concentration in some districts is very high particularly in districts of Purnea, Katihar, East and West Champaran. Official Surveys in 1991-92 disclosed that in Purnea 210 landlords had more than 200 acres of land each (9 of them having more than 1,000 acres each) while in West Champaran 11 landlords had more than 500 acres of land each. The survey also found that of the 16,121 acres allotted land the landlords have not allowed occupation to the allottees.
Bihar land reforms present a picture of total administrative and political apathy of the rulers. The state has one of the poorest records in maintaining land records. First Act for maintenance of land records was enacted in 1973 under the pressure of agrarian movement but it was notified in only 9 anchals out of total of 587 in the state. Bihar Government maintained that implementation of this law was deferred for fear of ‘disturbing agrarian peace’. In 1977-78 Janata Party Government launched “Kosi Krant” Project to update land records and records of share-croppers. Later the Project was transferred to Rural Development Department and eventually scrapped, again for the fear of ‘disturbing agrarian peace’. Original Register II was prepared on the basis of information given by the landlords with no details of plots. Field bujharat at the time of ‘abolition of Zamindari’ was never completed.
Tenancy poses a very difficult problem with most of the tenancies being informal. Even otherwise Bihar Tenancy Amendment Act defines “personal cultivation” as “cultivation by one’s own labour, or by family labour, or by hired labour or by servants on wage payments in cash or kind”. Agricultural census shows ‘leased in’ areas as only 0.4% of total operated area. But the NSS records ‘leased in’ areas as 14.5% in 1971-72 and 10.7% in 1981-82. And this variation is in official records while most of the tenancies do not come on the records at all.
A discussion on the land problem in Bihar is grossly incomplete without discussing the lands with religious institutions and charitable trusts. It is estimated that 40% of total land area is with religious institutions and trusts. It is mostly Hindu mutts which have agricultural land while Muslim and Sikh setups have urban land. These bodies were largely able to defy all land reform measures due to exemptions granted by the Acts and in good number of cases these are the lands of the landlords and in their occupation with these bodies acting only as a camouflage.
Land Reform measures have suffered from the protection extended to the landlords by the political-administrative machinery and judiciary. It has been true of the successive Congress Governments and Janata Party Government and later JD Government. The present JD Government – which had been projecting itself as the benefactor of dalits, backwards and minorities, i.e. the section which stand to gain the most by land reforms and which had been widely praised and supported by revisionist and neo-revisionist parties – has performed dismally in this field. They too have protected the landlords and unleashed fascist repression on peasant struggles, particularly on struggles for land. A study of the implementation of land reforms in Bihar is a clear exposure of the JD and its supporters.
LAND REFROMS: REVISIONISTS IN POWER – PERFORMANCE BELIES PROMISES
It is important to deal with the performance of ‘Left’ parties which have been ruling in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala on this question. Hence let us take the case of West Bengal, where they have been ruling continuously for last twenty years. It is necessary not only from the point of exposing the loud claims of CPM leaders about their having carried out land reforms in these states but also this oft repeated myth obviously not contested by other ruling class parties, being taken as a reality by a number of intellectuals.
CPM General Secretary Harikishan Singh Surjeet in his book “Land Reforms in India: Promises and Performances” has claimed “States of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura where due to the strength of the revolutionary peasant movement and the formation of left and democratic governments, within the constraints of the present constitution, land reforms have been by and large carried out and the monopoly of landlords on land has been broken. Land does not remain the key slogan to mobilize the peasantry so far as these states are concerned.” CC of the CPM in the same vein has said “WB, Kerala and Tripura, where due to the revolutionary strength of the peasant movement and the formation of left led governments, land reforms have been by and large carried out within the constraints of the present constitution.” (Review of the work on Kisan Front and Further Tasks, 16-18 August, 1993)
This claim of the CPM does not stand the trial of facts. Before going into the performance of their Government let us see what their leaders had said or estimated as the surplus land. Their PBM and ex-Land and Land Revenue Minister, Mr. Binoy Krishna Chowdhary, had stated “In the 1950s at the time of Estate Acquisition Act and Land Reform Act, estimate was that the amount of ceiling surplus land will be 18-20 lakh acres. At that time ceiling was quite high and ceiling was individual based. After 1972, when the ceiling was lowered and ceiling made family based, then estimate was that the amount of total vest land will be 30-35 lakh acres.” After five years of LF rule in 1982 at the time when they moved the 2nd amendment to Land Reform Act, they claimed that by virtue of that amendment another 10 lakh acres of surplus land would be available. So according to their own pronouncements the total surplus land should be 40-45 lakh acres.
But from 1950s up till now the total amount of vest land under the possession of various governments is 12.47 lakh acres and amount distributed is 9.95 lakh acres. And out of this also the bulk of the land vested and distributed was before 1977 when the present LF Government came to power.
Upto June 1977 After LF Govt. coming to power in
June 1977 till now
Taken Possession 10.80 lakh acres 2.39 lakh acres
Distributed 6.12 lakh acres 3.83 lakh acres
So CPM has only distributed only 3.83 lakh acres and taken possession of only 2.39 lakh acres of land in its 20 years of uninterrupted rule. As against their claim of taking 10 lakh acres of land through 2nd amendment, according to the present Land and Land Revenue Minister Surya Kant Misra, they have acquired only 95,000 acres of land. Up till now distributed land constitutes 7.31% of total cultivable land area of 1 crore 36 lakh acres.
From this it is clear that performance of the CPM is not only far below the promises they made but that whatever ‘reforms’ occurred were mainly prior to the fortification of their ‘red’ fort in West Bengal. It also makes clear that it was the strength of revolutionary peasant movement that was the primary reason for distribution of land to whatever extent it has occurred. The other contributory factor was the struggle by the immigrants from the then East Pakistan due to partition. Their ‘Left’ government’s contribution is not worthy of mention in positive terms. Rather by lulling the peasant movement, they have harmed the peasants’ struggle for land. In fact having been party to the violent repression and suppression of revolutionary peasant movement after Naxalbari, CPM and other revisionist parties have pitted themselves against the genuine land reforms. All their talk of the performance of their ‘Left’ Government is but a humbug to deceive the people.
It is the stark reality that under their rule 50% of people at the bottom own only 2.90% of land, while 10% top people have 48.66% of land. Moreover, the real wages of the agricultural labourers have been continuously declining since 1993 with nearly 2.54 crore of people living below the poverty line. These figures pour cold water over their tall claims.
CPM leaders quote the statistics of 38th Round of National Sample Survey in support of their claim of land reforms. According to this round, 60% of the total land is in the hands of small and marginal farmers and it becomes 70% if land of share-croppers is also added. How much reliance can be placed on the government surveys which are unreliable and only take into account the size of holdings, is open to question. And even these statistics belie the claim of CPM leadership.
Marginal Holdings Small Holdings
Household Area Household Area
1953-54 52.93% 15.90% 12.61% 18.60%
1961-62 56.69% 17.55% 16.81% 25.97%
1971-72 67.84% 27.28% 12.65% 25.68%
1982 74.39% 30.33% 11.50% 28.77%
The statistics simply show that under the ‘Left’ Front rule the number of small and marginal holdings increased only from 55% to 59% i.e. by 4% and that too if it is taken that there was no increase during 1972 to 1977, which can not be a fact. In fact this would be roughly 2% only.
Another big propaganda is about “Operation Barga” that they have by and large solved the problem of share-croppers. CPM has turned its back on the demand of AIKS all along that share-croppers are to be given not only share-cropping rights but ownership rights. LF Govt. in West Bengal has done nothing in this regard. Even with regard to recording of bargadars, what is the true picture? CPM Govt.’s own admission is that total number of bargadars is 30-35 lakhs and upto now number of bargadars recorded is 14.73 lakhs. This amounts to less than half of the number of bargadars.
These facts demonstrate the hollowness of the claims of the revisionists and neo-revisionists. They have only tried to bring about pitiable reforms in the present structure in line with ruling class policies. It should be no surprise that the government run by them has been among the first to dilute the land reforms. We shall discuss this elsewhere.
PUNJAB: RULING CLASSES IGNORED LAND REFORMS
Contrary to perceptions in some circles, Punjab has had a dismal record in implementing land reform measures. Ceiling acts were passed both in Punjab and PEPSU. The Punjab Security Land Tenures Act was passed in 1953 and PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in 1955. Punjab act applied land ceiling only to the land under self-cultivation and not to the total amount of land. Ceiling permitted under Punjab Act was 30 acres for local landlords and 50 acres for displaced landlords. PEPSU act provided for ceiling on land ownership and permitted 30 acres for local landlords and 40 acres for displaced landlords. Well managed farms and orchards were exempted. Exemption of 10 acres could be taken for the plan for an orchard. Later the two acts were unified on the PEPSU pattern. Later in 1972, Land Reform Act was passed by the Punjab Assembly lowering the ceiling to 17.5 acres dispensing with the distinction between local and displaced landlords. Separate ceiling was provided for an adult son.
By 1968, 60,333 acres of land was distributed. By January 1992, 1.38 lakh acres were declared surplus. Out of this 1.05 lakh acres were taken possession of and 1.02 lakh acres were distributed. Total area under cultivation was 75.53 lakh hectares in 1985-86. The present situation is that 56.64% households owing upto 5 acres have 15.03% of land. Among them, those owning less than 2.5 acres constituting 37.63% households own only 5.67% of land, while 5% of households owning from 25 to 125 acres and above have 26.97% of land. It is clear from this that the land concentration of landlors has not been broken by various land ceiling acts. Infact, Malwa region of Punjab has quite bit land holdings. D.C., Parte, ex-Governor of Punjab has commented “Due to loopholes in the land ceiling acts, there is still land concentration in the hands of landlords. 500 families are such in the state who own from 200 to 1000 acres.” His comments are in sharp contrast to beliefs of some that in Punjab there is no land problem or that landlordism does not exist there.
HOAX OF BHOODAN
One of the responses of the ruling classes to the Telangana Movement was launching of Bhoodan by Vinoba Bhave in 1951. Not to leave anybody in doubt about his intentions he launched this movement from a village in Nalgonda district. He propagated that land problem could be solved by peaceful persuasion of the landlords thereby trying to dissuade the fighting peasantry of Telangana from the path of armed struggle and preventing the peasants in other states and regions from taking the path of armed struggles. His efforts were supplementary to the land reform legislations of the Nehru Govt. and like them failed miserably to solve the problem. Many decades later, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao was forced to admit in a Conference of Revenue Ministers in 1992: “The landlords are so clever, most of them disposed off their useless land, all kinds of rocky soils and so on where nothing grows and they put it in the khata of Vinoba Bhave.
Vinoba Bhave had vowed to collect 50 million acres by the year 1957. Of this he aimed to collect 3.2 million acres from Bihar alone. Sarva Sewa Sangh, which spearheaded Bhoodan land distribution, admitted that of 41.94 lakh acres of total land collected, only 12.86 lakh acres was distributed and 18.07 lakh acres was unfit for distribution, of that 13.15 lakh acres from Bihar alone. Classic case was of Raja of Ramgarh (Bihar) who ‘donated’ 5,00,000 acres, all forest and legally contested land.
Figures released by the Govt. of India in 1992 about the Bhoodan lands show the dismal failure of the objectives of the campaign. But their real objective was to douse the fire of the raging peasant struggles. His close comrade Mr. J.P. Narayan was to repeat the same feat in case of Mushahari peasant armed struggle in Bihar.
State Donated (in lakh acres) Distributed (in lakh acres)
AP 1.96 1.00
Bihar 21.18 6.95
UP 4.37 4.21
MP 4.10 2.43
Orissa 6.39 5.80
Rajasthan 6.02 1.41
Maharashtra 1.10 0.83
Assam, HP, J&K, Punjab, West Bengal, Kerala, Haryana and other states – Negligible

Bhoodan movement failed not only in respect of total land collected, their own figures being only about 8% of the target set by Vinoba Bhave. And of that only about one fourth could be distributed i.e. roughly 2% of the target. And that too is the land unfit for cultivation. Moreover, several field studies especially in Bihar have shown that parts are yet uncultivated and not in the possession of the allottees. In any cases, the lands donated by the landlords to Vinoba Bhave were kept by them in their own legal occupation. Records at many places have illustrated this gimmick. A DM in AP was transferred for bringing to light this fact which is uncomfortable to the rulers. The movement died its natural and gradual death while the land problem has all along continued to stare in the face of the ruling classes.
REVERSAL OF LAND REFORM MEASURES
With the changed international and national situation the ruling classes have embarked on moves to formally abandon land reforms. We have seen above that their land reforms have yielded little in terms of actual redistribution of land and now they plan to abandon even the pretence. The imperialist drive to intensify loot and plunder of third world countries in the background of their ever deepening economic crisis and absence of any socialist country in the world, has provided the driving edge to these moves. Imperialist countries seek to annul the gains registered by the people’s movements throughout the world particularly in third world countries. They wish to turn the wheels of history back albeit under new conditions.
The protagonists and apologists of these moves are arguing in favour of abandoning land Lands Act in 1955. Punjab act applied land ceiling only to the land under self-cultivation and not to the total amount of land. Ceiling permitted under Punjab Act was 30 acres for local landlords and 50 acres for displaced landlords. PEPSU act provided for ceiling on land ownership and permitted 30 acres for local landlords and 40 acres for displaced landlords. Well managed farms and orchards were exempted. Exemption of 10 acres could be taken for the plan for an orchard. Later the two acts were unified on the PEPSU pattern. Later in 1972, Land Reform Act was passed by the Punjab Assembly lowering the ceiling to 17.5 acres dispensing with the distinction between local and displaced landlords. Separate ceiling was provided for an adult son.
By 1968, 60,333 acres of land was distributed. By January 1992, 1.38 lakh acres were declared surplus. Out of this 1.05 lakh acres were taken possession of and 1.02 lakh acres were distributed. Total area under cultivation was 75.53 lakh hectares in 1985-86. The present situation is that 56.64% households owing upto 5 acres have 15.03% of land. Among them, those owning less than 2.5 acres constituting 37.63% households own only 5.67% of land, while 5% of households owning from 25 to 125 acres and above have 26.97% of land. It is clear from this that the land concentration of landlors has not been broken by various land ceiling acts. Infact, Malwa region of Punjab has quite bit land holdings. D.C., Parte, ex-Governor of Punjab has commented “Due to loopholes in the land ceiling acts, there is still land concentration in the hands of landlords. 500 families are such in the state who own from 200 to 1000 acres.” His comments are in sharp contrast to beliefs of some that in Punjab there is no land problem or that landlordism does not exist there.
WRONG UNDERSTANDING ON LAND REFORMS
Through her reforms, Indira Gandhi could not bring the upliftment of the tribal people. Though she could win over the vocal sections among the tribal people through some of her schemes, yet her reforms failed to solve the fundamental problems of the tribal people. Those who came to power after her death are failing even in bringing social reforms, hence are trying to divert the people’s attention from their issues particularly on land problem. They have been giving diversionary slogans for mobilization on caste and communal lines. In the process of their reforms the ruling classes have made certain reforms even in Andhra. As a result of those reform acts, landlords could preserve hundreds and thousands of acres in accordance with the law itself. The government, showing the family units in accordance with the land ceiling acts, is propagating that it has reduced the land concentration in the hands of the landlords. Revisionist parties like CPI and CPM and some people believe this innocently as gospet truth and start feeling that due to these land reforms considerable changes took place in landlordism itself. This is not a correct approach. Treating removal of some of the intermediaries as the elimination of landlordism is contrary to facts. Whomsoever it may be, to think or propagate in this manner at a time when the ruling classes themselves are declaring that land reforms have failed would be harmful. If we recognize that still hundreds of acres of surplus land is in the hands of ex-Prime Minister Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, we can understand that surplus land was not distributed in a big way due to land reforms and most of the land that was distributed to the poor also came back to the landlords. The land that was distributed during Indira Gandhi period was also not the surplus land of the landlords but mainly banjar land. Either in essence or in practice there is no big difference between the land reforms of Nehru and that of Indira Gandhi. It was and has been the policy of the ruling classes that whenever people resort to struggles they pretend to bring land reforms and throw them into the dustbin as soon as the struggles decrease. Therefore, the progressive and revolutionary forces should not view like the CPI and CPM leaders that the land reforms of the ruling classes were meant to eliminate feudalism and introduce capitalism in agriculture.
Recognizing “the land to the tiller” as the central task remains the key for new democratic revolution. Recognizing the importance of this problem is closely linked with the understanding that we should concentrate our work in rural areas and build volunteer and resistance squads to resist the attacks of landlords and their goondas and resist police repression and violence. It is also closely linked with the understanding that we should first liberate the rural areas and finally capture the towns and cities. It is linked with the understanding that while co-ordinating secret and open activities, we should give prominence to secret organizational and illegal activities. It is also closely linked with the understanding of the path of protracted people’s war. This understanding is opposed to the understanding of parliamentary path and the understanding of Junker Path of the development of capitalism in agriculture. The Junker path treats the land struggles particularly “land to the tiller” as secondary ones. In its place it keeps the issues like remunerative prices etc. It gives more prominence to legal and parliamentary struggles. The policies, understanding and practices of CPI and CPM are only the living examples for this. Therefore, it is not out of place to recall the internal struggle waged during 1969-78 by Sri P. Sundarayya who was then General Secretary of CPM. The struggle being waged by Sri B.N. Reddy who came out from CPM very recently is also note worthy.
STRUGGLE AGAINST LOOPHOLES IN THE LAND REFORM ACTS
We should mobilize the poor peasants and agricultural labourers against loopholes in the Land Ceiling Acts and for their implementation. We should mobilize the people with the understanding that even if we get these acts sincerely implemented, the problem of ‘land to the tiller’ in the country cannot be resolved. We should always be educating the people that only people’s democratic revolution (NDR) can solve this problem. We should organize the people for land struggles while constantly exposing the preaching of CPI and CPI(M) i.e., development of capitalism in agriculture.
Land to the tiller can be accomplished mainly through resorting to illegal methods. To prepare the people for such tasks we should mobilize them utilizing all the opportunities provided for in the Constitution or in Acts. We should find out the loopholes in the acts and fight against them so that, at least, we can seriously get the implementation of already passed enactments. Co-ordinating the legal and illegal activities, we should mobilize the rural people for the accomplishment of Land Reforms.
1. Many lands classified as dry lands at the time land reforms were introduced are today provided with irrigation facilities. Today they are wet lands. There are crores of acres of such land throughout the country. Therefore, we should demand distribution of the surplus land thus available in accordance with the law, treating these lands as wet land. We should mobilize the rural people against the attitude of the government on this problem.
2. The lands that were declared then as fallow or grasslands have now turned into fertile cultivable lands, s wet lands, as orchards, fishery tanks. Such lands are also in lakhs of acres. We should build pressure on the government to re-classify such lands and distribute the surplus.
3. We should build movements to bring pressure on the government to bring Coffee, Tea gardens, orchards and co-operative agricultural farms etc. which were exempted in the past under the purview of Land Reform acts. We should demarcate such surplus lands and get them distributed. This kind of lands are also available in lakhs of acres in the country.
4. Considering the divorce certificates of wife and husband, separate family units were granted. 99% of such certificates were only means to preserve their land and properties. Hence we should demand such pseudo divorces should be revoked and the surplus land thus available be distributed among the poor. When the Land Reforms Act was in the offing, landlords depicted their minor children as major ones to preserve much of their land because then government treated the family as a unit. We should demand the government re-investigate such units and distribute such surplus lands.
5. In joint families parents were given separate land unit. Hence after their expiry government should take back such land units as surplus ones. Only cash should be given to their heirs. However, in case heirs do not have lands, such lands should be given to only their heirs.
6. At the time of previous Land Reform Acts surplus land was not demarcated considering the facts regarding benami transfers and benami sales. In this regard the Verdict of Supreme Court is very useful. According to that Verdict benami lands and benami sales made after the enactments should be counted as part of the landlords’ own land. Thus surplus land should be demarcated from it and distributed to the poor people. Such lands exist in every state in lakhs of acres.
7. Inspite of landlords’ resorting to a number of illegal acts disregarding the land ceiling acts, not a single landlord was punished. Two years punishment should be there for such violations. Taking this as a sign of weakness the landlords are still continuing their illegal acts: A) The landlords are still either cultivating or selling the lands which the government declared surplus and for which it paid ransom to them. B) In many places, the surplus lands are being kept in Court Litigations by the landlords. Nevertheless, the government supports the same landlords. C) In many places surplus lands were announced on papers. But the government neither paid ransom for such lands nor distributed them to the poor. Therefore, the government should immediately take steps to distribute all types of surplus lands. The courts should not be permitted to take up surplus land issues and benami transfers issues of various kinds and the issues of tribal land. In this regard both Central and State governments should make necessary enactments.
8. The quantity of family unit in Kashmir and Kerala was kept much less compared to other states. Hence rural people should be mobilized for agitations and struggles demanding the reduction of land ceiling rate.
9. On the one hand, already the distribution of surplus land is proceeding at snail’s-pace. However a new situation is emerging today before us. As a result of new economic policies hundreds and thousands of acres of government lands are given to individuals for orchards, social forestry, coffee plantations and even for growing food and commercial crops. Governments are taking steps to revoke even the existing land ceiling acts. They are theorizing that small land units are not remunerative. We should mobilize the village people against these steps.
PRESENT SITUATION IN RURAL AREAS
The Land Reforms Acts that the comprador big bourgeoisie and big landlord ruling classes have brought ever since 1947 (including the 1972 Land Ceiling Act of Indira Gandhi) have thoroughly failed in giving ‘land to the tiller’. The ruling classes feverishly trumpeted their land acts day in and day out but their implementations is the worst compared to other countries. In China 43% agricultural land re-distribution took place. In Taiwan it is 37%, in South Korea it is 32% and in Japan it is 33%. Statistics show that in India land re-distribution rate is 1.25%. for this ruling classes brought land ceiling acts, they were amended a number of times and ‘implemented’. However many land reform acts were passed by the Central and state governments, thanks to the loopholes in the acts, illegal family units and benami transfers, landlords are still able to keep that huge surplus land under their control. According to estimates there is 5 crore cultivable banjar lands in the country. Apart from this, there is lakhs of acres of endowment and Matt lands in the country. In addition to this there are lands of Bhoodan Movement which were distributed to the poor peasants but have gone back to landlords’ fold. If the government reduces the ceiling limit and applies the same to dry land, grass lands, orchards etc. crores of surplus land can be distributed to the landless and poor peasants. There is a situation where undeclared slavery of the tenants for the landlords is continuing because of oral tenancy. Tenants and poor peasants are becoming agricultural labourers, the number of agricultural labourers is growing in areas of ‘green revolution’ and where market oriented agricultural production is taking place. The facilities of the governments are mainly gobbled up by the landlords and rich peasants. These cooperative facilities remain only nominally available to the village poor. They are still being stifled under the stranglehold of the usurers in the rural areas despite banking facilities.
Already, on the one hand, the rural poor have been facing a grave situation and are burning with land hunger thanks to the non-implementation of land reforms. On the other hand, the Central and State governments are hatching conspiracies to bury the land reforms altogether in the name of new economic policies. Karnataka government has already passed such an act. The WestBengalState government under the leadership of CPM is also going to advance along the path shown by the big bourgeois and big landlords’ Karnataka government. Ever since 1947, howsoever many land reform acts and schemes of green revolution are implemented, this is briefly the existing agrarian situation in the country.
In Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura, where the revisionists have been in power for a long time, they are boasting that they have implemented land reforms in a better way. This is not a fact. Both after Tebhaga and Naxalbari movements, the Congress government, while suppressing the peasant struggles led by the communists with fascist repression, implemented land reforms to divert the people from the peasant movement. After that, to withstand the Naxalites’ influence on the on hand and to contain the influence of ruling class parties on the other, the revisionist parties also continued to implement land reform acts to some extent. Compared to the land distributed by Congress government in WB both before and after Naxalbari, the CPM’s land distribution is not significant. Congress distributed 8.5 lakh acres whereas in its 20 years of rule CPM distributes 1.5 lakh acres. Also, we cannot deny the existence of semi-feudal land relations and land problems even in these states. Of course, in addition to the land problem, there exist a number of other problems concerning agrarian sector. The task of fighting for the removal of loopholes in land reforms is also there. Here also the problem of “land to the tiller” remains unsolved. Therefore, the claims of CPM that it has implemented land reforms and the land problem is solved expose its class collaborationist policy. There are no hard and fast laws that prevent the changes in ruling. Class land reform acts. We should continue our struggle for the reduction of land ceiling limit. This is the only path of class struggle. Otherwise, it becomes class collaborationist path.
In Bihar, East and Central UP, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh and in majority areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, vagaries of semi-feudal relations are more crude and apparent. In these states the intensity of contradiction between the landlords and agricultural labourers and poor peasants is continuing. Here large land units are continuing either in the benami or illegal forms. The rights of tenants and share croppers are denied. Correcting the land records also poses a big problem. There is no security even for the time limit of the cultivating tenants. Landlords are throwing out the tenants. Here ‘land to the tiller’ remains as the main issue of struggle. In addition to this, the task of immediately fighting for the implementation of land reforms of the ruling classes is also on the agenda of agricultural labourers, poor peasants and middle class peasants. Huge number of tribal people are exploited in several ways.
Punjab, Haryana, Western UP, Delta areas of AP, some areas in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra Gujarat are called as Green Revolutionary Belt. These areas have distinctive characteristics. Compared to other areas, here irrigation facilities and Ryotwari system is more. Due to historical reasons, in these areas the above mentioned type land concentration cannot glaringly be seen. Land units have been divided, only a small number of big land units are visible. In these areas the growth of commercial crops in taking place. We have to take up the surplus land issue by picking up the loopholes in dividing the land units. The problem of large land units and banjar lands is present even in these areas. Even in these areas, we can certainly find semi-feudal land relations as well. We should keep in mind that here land concentration is camouflaged owing to the loopholes provided in the land reform acts and in various benami methods. Nevertheless, here, the land problem is not the main issue for the immediate mobilization of the peasantry. Other issues remain as the main ones for the immediate mobilization of the peasantry. In a process we have to take up other land issues and the basic issue i.e. “land to the tiller” even in these areas.
IMMEDIATE TASKS
1. We should demand the reduction of present land ceiling rate. Mobilize the people on this demand.
2. State governments should bring necessary changes in accordance with Supreme Court Verdict of 5/3/82 on benami transfers. The poor people should occupy such lands (whether ransom paid or unpaid and whether the government hands them over or not) that are declared as surplus ones.
3. The poor should move to occupy the lands that are under court litigations. Prevent the landlords from cultivating such lands. Government should be forced to resolve such disputes forthwith. Poor people should make self-defence arrangements before they enter into such lands.
4. We should trace out the lands to be re-classified and occupy them. Pressurize the government to resolve the disputes forthwith. In the same way pressurize the government to resolve the disputes belonging to other category lands and make necessary changes in the act itself.
5. During the Bhoodan Movement some landlords ‘generously’ donated their lands but again these lands are being cultivated by the same landlords. We should mobilize the poor and agricultural labourers to occupy such lands. In AP such lands amount to 96,000 acres.
6. Throughout the country there are lakhs and lakhs of acres of land belonging to endowments, Maths, churches and charitable trusts etc. These lands are given for rent. 80% of such lands are in the hands of landlords and rich people. They are not paying even the nominal rents and their dues are piling up. We should demand from the government that such lands should be given to the poor people either freely or for nominal market rates. We should mobilize the peasants and agricultural labourers i.e. Rytu-coolies, to occupy these lands.
7. The Banjar land of the government and forest department should immediately be distributed to Rytu-Coolies. Such lands as are under the occupation of landlords should be vacated forthwith. We should mobilize the people for occupying these lands. Government should provide necessary monetary help to develop the lands that it distributes.
8. Central and state governments should withdraw all their forest bills and acts which prevent the tribals from utilizing forest produce, lands etc. government should stop the banning of Hill and Shifting cultivation of the tribal people in the name of environmental protection without providing alternative sources to them. Government should extend monetary help to grow orchards in hilly lands (Kondapodu) to replace foodcrop cultivation using rotation system. Instead of issuing tree-pattas for podu lands including Kondapodu, government should issue permanent land pattas to the poor. Apart from that government should also extend its help and co-operation to grow orchards and other crops in such areas. The tribal people in GodavariValley have been cultivating forest lands (lakhs in acres) for many years. Government should give land pattas to all those lands.
9. 1/70 Girijan act in AP should be implemented after amending it. Ceiling limit should be fixed to the properties and lands of the poor non-tribal people and their rights should be protected. Government should take over the lands and properties of the landlords in the forest areas and distribute the same to the poor tribal people. We should mobilize the people in forest areas with a view to safeguarding the unity of Tribal and Non-tribal poor people. Government should provide alternative resources to all those non-tribal people who came to the forest areas after 1980 and settle them in the plain areas. New influx of non-tribal people to forest areas should be actively prevented.
10. Small landlords and rich peasants are taking lands from the small peasants by either buying or giving them higher rents to grow commercial crops i.e., Cotton, Chilies, Tobacco, Fish, Floro Culture etc. We should mobilize the village poor on this issue to get increased rent rates.
COMRADES,
Today our country is in the stage of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism. 50 years are going to be completed since the transfer of power in 1947. Nevertheless, the comprador big-bourgeois, big landlord ruling class have thoroughly failed to provide food, shelter and clothing to the poor who are 90% of the people. From Nehru to Indira Gandhi, from Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi and PV Narasimha Rao, and from PV Narasimha Rao to Mr. HD DeveGowda, each govt. has brought a number of reforms. But still the above mentioned issues could not be resolved. On he other hand, as a result of the alliance between big-bourgeois, big landlord classes and imperialism, their assets are piling up like anything.
The intensity of imperialists’ neo-colonial exploitation has grown. The rulers of our country are not in a state to do anything without the permission of imperialists. Let alone self-reliance and its development, the stranglehold of imperialist over our economy, political and other sectors has grown in an unprecedented manner. It has never before reached such heights after 1947.
Before 1947 the patriotic forces, democrats, revolutionary forces fought against imperialism, comprador big-bourgeoisie and big landlord classes. The same fighting task is arising before our country. We have to mobilize broad masses of the people particularly 75% of the people residing in the rural areas to conduct such a struggle. To mobilize the people on such a vast scale, there is no alternative but to base ourselves on “land to the tiller” and on worker peasant alliance. The purchasing power of our people grows when the people achieve their basic demand i.e. “land to the tiller”. This provides economic strength for the development of our industries. To create such a situation we have to mobilize the peasantry basing ourselves on the basis of “land to the tiller” instead of depending on ruling class reforms particularly its land reforms.
Upto now we have explained in what background the ruling class brought land reforms, what were their aims, how they threw their land reforms into the dustbin immediately after the struggles receded. We have also explained the fighting tasks of the people particularly the peasantry and the attitude of CPI(ML)-New Democracy towards these tasks. CPI(ML)-New Democracy ardently believes that conducting the people’s democratic revolution (NDR) alone taking agrarian revolution as its axis is the real and correct road for the liberation of Indian people. It believes that NDR, which takes agrarian revolution as it axis and “land to the tiller” as the basis, alone can liberate the Indian people. CPI(ML)-New Democracy has been striving to fulfil its beliefs.
CPI(ML)-New Democracy opines that the leadership of CPI, CPM betrayed the Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle. It firmly stands to fulfil those aspirations, the great traditions and to safeguard historical achievements of Indian peasantry. It solemnly appeals to all CRs to come forward to unitedly fulfil the unfinished goals of Indian peasantry along the road furnished by the Telangana armed struggle 50 years ago. We appeal to other CR organizations to understand our orientation and come forward to conduct joint struggles on the problems of the peasantry particularly on the key issue of the peasantry i.e. “land to the tiller”. In case we fail to join hands to wage such struggles, let us discuss the other related issues and try to jointly wage struggles to the extent possible. Today the country’s political and economic situation demands the importance to the practical struggles on mass issues. Let all of us prepare to fulfil this task! Let us on this occasion, once again, dedicate ourselves to fulfil the unfinished tasks of the Great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle! Let us once again pay our heartfelt red salutes to all those heroic martyrs who laid down their precious lives in that great and glorious armed struggle.
Uphold and continue the great and glorious traditions and road of great Telangana Peasants’ Armed Struggle of 1946-51.
Strive to fulfil the basic demand of the people i.e. land to the tiller!
Long live Agrarian Revolution! Long live New Democratic Revolution!
Long live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought
Long live CPI (ML)-New Democracy!

With revolutionary greetings,
Dated 4th July, 1997
Central Committee, CPI (ML)-New Democracy