The Politics Of Land And
The Besieged LotBy Goldy M. George
www.countercurrents.org
28 December, 2003
We are in a crisis. The crisis of life; the crisis of livelihood; the crisis of sustainability and so on. The state is helpless. As this crisis is further intensifying I will talk on people-land-livelihood and some of the conflicts and its co-relation and how the indigenous people of the land is adversely affected.
Land issue has been never free from debates, which continues to this day. In India this debate has taken different forms in different places based on the specific character of the locality. There has been, particularly in the neo-liberalisation era, a noticeable shift both in the tenor and the content of the debate.(1)
In the colonial period, the Zamindar's property rights were conditional; the colonial state honoured the rights of the Zamindars as long as they paid the revenue. Thus the actual tillers were never in the scene. They were only as the tenants of their masters or otherwise worked for their masters in their land. Soon after the independence in most of the areas this land was conveniently appropriated by the Zamindars as their private property.
One of the major questions related with the whole issue is the manner in which the state has approached or responded to it. Even after 54 years of independence the state - despite the fact in change of governments under the auspices of different political parties - has almost failed to address this issue in an absolute way. This raises an array of question on the very character of the state and ruling class towards the poor and the proletariats of the country.
Land is by and large related with the production and distribution of resources on earth. Thus the character of control and management of resources is closely linked with the development of a social system. As relation of property in the means of production drifts, for example land, the nature of relations among people in this process also alters.
On one side the sheer persistence of monumental social, economic and political problems of India, provides attestation to the clear exploitative interests of her ruling class and on the other, perhaps tragically, to the seldom-realised goals of its social justice movements. Currently there is a great euphoria among the upper segments of Indian society regarding the wondrous opportunities being made available by "liberalising" her domestic economy. This opening up of the economy to mostly western capital is nothing but the slow and sure surrender of her economic and political sovereignty.(2)
A close examination of various land reforms laws has shown that the present legislative measures have become so complex that a graduated or phased program of implementation according to priority attached in each problem in various areas was what was really absent in it. Beneath the undercurrents of the dominant landholding system of Zamindari, land reforms and land distribution become more harsh and formidable in the newly arisen socio-political context. One of the classic instances of this is the countrywide struggle on the question of land distribution between the rich landholders and the landless poor across the country.(3)
Gazing into the history with an open eye to cross-examine the man-property relation in India, a major shuffle in the man-property relationship occurred after the influx of Aryans. Ironically this process was endorsed and socially legitimised by the Varna system. The upper caste capitalised it, since they apparently had the upper hold on the social fabric. Further they started deciding the fate of each lower caste community and thus the dispossession or removal of the common people became more easy and feasible. The real owners of the land were ousted or overthrow as garbage.
Slowly it turned out to be individual based than community enterprise, particularly in the hands of the upper caste. Consequently they controlled the agrarian economy for centuries. Thus tension between the resourceful and resourceless, powerful and powerless, have and have not continues till today.
Land in India:
The total area of India is around 32.88 crores hectares out of which details are available for 30.41 crores only. In 1951 the total forest area was 404 lakh hectares, which in 1987 was 667.3 lakh hectares and now it reached 670 lakh hectares.(4)
Agricultural land is 1410.6 lakh hectares or 35 crores 26 lakh, 50 thousand acres. In 1996 the estimated area per person is 0.155 hectare or 0.39 acres. This figure is three times lesser than the average land of people in America and five times lesser than the residents of England.(5) Out of the total land, 70 percent is non-irrigated. Below mentioned table will give further details regarding the increase of pressure on land in India in the last one century.
Table-I
Increase of pressure on land in India
YEAR POPULATION
(in crores)
(in acres)1901 1951 1991 1996 2000 Land holding pattern in India
The beginning of regularly assessed land revenue may fairly be traced to Akbar's settlement, which began in 1571 AD. There had been some earlier attempts, but those attempts were neither systematic not had the details, which could have come down to us. There was another great settlement carried out by the Mohmaden kings of Dakhan (south), but that was almost a replica of Akbar's settlement.
In the survey settlement of year 1571 AD the land was classified in the following categories:
I. "Pulaj or Pulej" land: The land that was continuously cultivated and did not require fallow.
II. "Phirawati" (rotational) land: The land, which requires periodical fallow.
III. "Chichar"land: That land that lay fallow for three or more years, or rather flooded or otherwise bad, and could only be occasionally dependent upon for crop.
IV. "Banjer" Land: The land that has not been cultivated for five or more years and considered waste.(6)
The first three were again classified into 'best', 'middle' or 'average' and 'worst'. The share of government, as a rule, was one third of the average produce on each of these kinds of land. The average was calculated as one third of the aggregate produce on one 'bigha' sample spot.
Since the collection of revenue was through a chain of intermediaries, know as Zagirdars, the 'record of right' aspect was rather weak. The extensive data in Ayin-i-Akbari gives detailed account of assessment of revenue payment, but was blind towards the actual tillers of land.(7) De facto the extensive record keeping contributed to assessment of land revenue in terms of money at a later stage, and that had become substantial or principal source of state's wealth, even before the British took over.
Till the consolidation of their power and successful expansion, the British government claimed the share in produce of land 'by ancient law'. Gradually the government conferred the right to decide about share upon itself. Between the years 1770-86, some British administrators tried to apply western concepts and definitions regarding land revenue, which miserably failed. (8)
The system that developed in Bengal, as a consequence of the compromise between western concepts and the power of the local elite, had formed the basis of the famous permanent (Zamindari) settlements. This system had formally acknowledged intermediaries between government and the actual tiller for the purpose of revenue assessment and collection.
With the gradual expansion of the British Empire in India, the administration in different parts experimented with different systems through a trial and error method. Finally, by the second half of the nineteenth century, the land revenue system that has evolved in British India, could be categorised as following:
ZAMINDARI SYSTEM:
This system had one person for every estate, with whom government held the settlement for the purpose of revenue collection and in return such person was vested with proprietary interests in the land.
Indeed he controlled the whole bulk of land, including which others were operating or cultivating. This power was extensively used through an unbridled process of expansion of territory by many Zamindars. Thus an individual became the sole proprietor of large area. Always there was an untold or unwritten understanding with the British government on this.
The British supported this expansion to the perimeters of another Zamindari, since it always added unruffled surplus revenue to their treasury. Virtually this was the consolidation of British revenue and reserves and the Zamindars not only acted as mediators but also as mentors too.
The British did little in the beginning to interfere with the existing land holding system. The East India Company's rule recognised all grants before 1765 A.D. in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as valid. (9)
A century before the British rule the Zamindars had developed themselves as practical landlords and the position became hereditary in course of time. It was perhaps the inevitable course of history. But it was during the British rule that in Bengal the private right on law first granted land to Zamindars as a matter of policy and revenue farmers were recognised as owners. This was done with the recourse for the colonial rule in India. The Zamindari land revenue system generally conferred the right of private ownership of land on persons who belonged to the upper strata of the society. Many farmers became owners and the process continued in several ways.(10) Each Zamindar was fully entitled to bring the vast area of wasteland under the plough by his own tenants so that in the course of time he became its owner. Such appropriated areas were called khamar-nij-jot or sir land.
The land purchase and mortgaged in of fresh land went on increasing the size of personal estates. Unpaid rent or arrears of rent was followed by the seizing of the land by the landlord who claimed proprietary right on it. Apart from this each Zamindar got some land exempted from revenue for his private subsistence, which was know as nankar.
There was a marked difference between the old Jagirdari and Zamindari under the British rule. While the former system implied certain conditions of service without giving proprietary right, Zamindari system on the one hand made those conditions obsolete and on the other provided the ownership right to Zamindars.
RAIYATWARI SYSTEM:
This system had evolved from the idea of surveying the districts and dealing with the village and the Raiyat. The underlining principle of this system was that each man was free to hold land, subject to payment of the assessed rent.
In fact, for the purpose of ascertaining the revenue payable from every cultivator every year, an annual account was prepared through a simple process known as 'Annual Zamabandi'.
MAHALWARI SYSTEM:
In this system, the government dealt with ' Estate' held under one title consisting of the whole of one village or portion of several villages. Such estates were popularly known as Mahals and were quite different from western concepts of estate in terms of ownership and possession. In a way under this system the unit of assessment was estate or the group of holdings under one title. The Mahals can be of various types. For example:
(i) Local area held under a separate agreement for the payment of revenue, and for which a separate record-of-rights has been framed.
(ii) Any local area of which the revenue has been assigned or redeemed, and for which a separate record-of-rights has been framed.
A third clause empowers the government to constitute any grant of land under 'waste land rules', a separate Mahal. In British India of early twentieth century 57 percent of privately owned agricultural land was covered under Zamindari system; 38 percent by the Raiyatwari system; and 5 percent by the Mahalwari system. (11)
It is important to understand these categories of land revenue systems because, as noted earlier, the revenue system had direct bearing on land records. While the Zamindari system continued to be based on intermediaries, the records maintained in Zamindari areas remained silent about record of rights of the actual tiller. In Raiyatwari areas, due to attempts for state's direct contact with the actual holder through 'Annual Zamabandi', the records did have the mention of 'record of rights' of the cultivators. In the Mahalwari system, however the community's customary practices provided security to individual landholders in the context of a 'record of rights'.
Land & People:
Land, as I perceive, is of two types. One is the plain land and other is the forestland. Both these have vital significance in the life of the dalits and adivasis of the country. As we have already dealt with the land situation of the country, I am not going into much elaborate manner. But to mention about the adivasi land, except in the case of nomadic tribes or primitive tribes, it was mostly recognised as princely states or given a status of Zamindari within a specific periphery during the British regime.
Land is a productive asset but people are more emotionally attached with the land in many ways. For many it is the symbol of their freedom. To some it is the image of their fight against the upper caste. It also represents the mark of reiterating the lost identity. To many it is the icon of self-determination, co-existence and community feeling. But to the corporate sector and agents of development it is a commodity to be consumed. The state also takes side with these so-called think tanks. Land can be purchased and sold for commercial purpose. Or even it could be acquired forcefully. The common man of the country sacrifices himself for the relish and enjoyment of the elite.
The draconic appearance of globalisation has seized everything from them. Today agriculture has become agri-business. Multi-national corporations are into this in a big way in different forms of agricultural production. Similarly land acquisition for developmental projects is at rampant pace.
The contribution of the new statehood of Chhattisgarh is that, within one year itself two farmers have committed suicide. In fact the state needs resources, which it is unable to extract and hence according to its convenience they want the acts and laws to be altered. Chhattisgarh government has already started a process of resource mapping.
In Karimnagar district of Andhra Pradesh itself 6600 crores of rupees were profited by MNCs by selling chemicals, fertilisers, pesticides, etc. And it is in this district only the largest number of farmer's suicide case erupted. So we can imagine the clandestine agenda.
As the earth itself is in deep crisis due to environmental problems, now the rich nations are humming the hymn of sustainable development. Sustainable development is not just sustainable environment but economically and politically sustainability. So the labour needs work and farmer needs land and this is the basic struggle for sustainability. On the contrary the Bhilai Steel Plant is retrenching the workers to save the industry. This is contradictory to each other.
Sustainability means security. Today there is no security. The national employment generation rate has drastically gone down to 0.3-0.5 percent. Under this conditions people are bound to acquire land forcefully. So far the poor are concerned land acquisition is not for leisure and pleasure. It is for their security. This is mainly because a proper land reform has not taken place in any part of India. But for the MNCs it is to make profit.
On the other hand the condition of farmers are not very good. Small farmers are entangled in the debt trap. They don't have water for their fields. However land is the only security and livelihood for farmers. In Uttar Pradesh, the farmers burnt the harvested sugarcane in protest of betrayal of demands to the support price by Rs. 2/- per quintal. UP and Maharastra together produce more sugarcane than that of Cuba, which exclusive is a sugar-based economy.
Here one could observe a lot of conflicts. The jargons like ecological democracy and ecological equality in the context of globalisation and market won't go together. Both are diametrically opposite to each other.
In a period of 20 years from 1970-1990 and from 1990-2001 we could observe that all laws and acts being framed are anti people. This is a major conflict.
Another conflict is that the state needs resources whereas people need their livelihood. It is a conflict between surplus vs. survival. Thus the subsistent economy is transferred into market economy.
An average American consumes ten times more energy then an average Indian. So the carbon filtration produced by the over consumption of the American is done through our forests. Hence the state should demand for royalty for this global service from the excess consumers of energy. Similarly Japan has grown into a powerful economy by destroying the forest of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. (12)
90 percent of the total workforce depends upon land; the remaining 10 percent only depend on industries. If we look at the dominant development model, i.e. America, only 4 percent people depend on land. If we follow this pattern then only 4 percent of our population will survive. So this doesn't match to our situation. We need to emphasis that we don't need the USA formula of security, we need food sovereignty and we have to assert it.
Land & Dalits:
The owners of the land are today landless; that is dalits. Historically they are one of the long persecuted humanities betrayed of rights over land and any form of resources. In an age of globalisation and marketisation, the life values sustained through the community life and love are constantly diffusing and substituted with competition. Globalisation is nothing but the spreading of capitalistic regimes all over the world controlled by a few.(13) This will end-up the remaining space of dalits within the existing system.
In most part of the country dalits are either small or marginal farmers or landless. Analysing it from the historical viewpoint they are the first plebeian community of the country. Due to the obvious paucity of land or resources or employment the largest number of migrants from one state to another is dalits. Sizeable numbers among them are bonded labourers too. Their life condition is wretched and extremely inhuman. Women and children are subjected to atrocious harassment and torture, particularly in the migrated workplace.
Looking back at the land struggles in the past the participation of dalits in land movement quite sizeable in various parts of the country, particularly in the violent movements. In fact the character of the ruling class towards the dalits was the same in almost every part of the country. One of the principal reasons of the Naxalbari march, by hundreds of rustic poor and landless peasants taking up arms in their hands, was the growing unrest among the dalits against the upper caste Hindus in West Bengal.
This process was very attractive bringing rural dalit youths under its fold and therefore it had a heavy replication in various parts of the country, where the masses were brought under the banner of Marxist-Leninist movement towards the end of sixties. Hundreds of youths came under its fold, as it entered the scene as the only alternative to the dominant crisis. Thus in Bengal, Bihar and in parts of Andhra Pradesh the Marxist-Leninist movement became a movement of dalits. However the ideology of dalit as the lowest social strata and original inheritors of the land could neither be recognised nor gain any momentum within the movement.
In Bihar Musahari and Bhojpur were the first places where the silence of the peasants was decisively broken. Heroic dalit figures like Jagdish Mahto, Ram Naresh Ram, Bhutan Musahar, Rameshwar Ahir, and Dr. Nirmal Mahto were some of the early leaders struggling to ignite the single spark that would light the prairie fire. By late seventies many central and some northern districts of the erstwhile Bihar (now in Jharkhand) were raging with the peasant struggles.
Four reasons have come to dominate the armed struggles in Bihar. The first and perhaps the most successful reasons has been the relentless struggle on social issues. 64 percent of Bihar's population is composed of the backwards and dalits,(14) the majority of whom have nursed a justifiable historical grievance against the upper caste (13 percent), who dominated the economic, cultural and political structures. The constant battle waged by the rural dalits in acquiring social dignity or "Izzat" against the bloodthirsty and avaricious behaviour of upper caste landlords and rich farmers has been indefatigable and quite measurably successful.
However non-of these movements emerge into a dalit land movement with a perspective of social change in the basic fabric of the structure. One prime factor of the failure of the Indian working class movement was that upper caste bourgeoisie who never wanted to change the basic social frame mostly led it. Therefore the realisation of change in the Brahminical social order could not be internalised.
At present a strategic method of further seizure of their land and property is lucid and visible. In many places the land occupied by them is deliberately targeted under different guise such as rural development programs, building schools, road construction, etc. Another method is through the intervention of middleman, who provides them with loans during the occasion of marriage, death, birth, festivals and celebrations, and in return mortgage the land. Many such cases have come into light.
With the arrival of privatisation policy, the employment facility under reservation is wiped-off the surface. Battering the growing consciousness among the dalits is the primary agenda of this. It is by all means to put the dalits into more and more trouble. If we look at the rate of migration of dalits, it has gone up to alarming heights.
As globalisation and fascism compliments and strengthens each other, it also affects the land-property relationship. Caste polity is corroborating its grip in new forms and the people stand without much of options. Outbreak of communal tensions is also aimed to make the dalits realise that they are Hindus; thereby to bring them under the Hindutava fold. This will divert the dalits from the core issues of being powerless, landless, resourceless, etc.
The lingering hope is the alternative methods of protest against oppression. Cultural means is a powerful device to combat the Hindu chauvinists. This is where we see a possibility of an alternative for the dalits to fight against the forces of globalisation and fascism.
Land & Adivasis:
Both land and forest have indispensable part in the wholesome life of adivasis. In the past few decades there has been a gradual "weaning" away of adivasis from the forest.(15) Adivasi culture and economy, in addition to being intimately linked with forests, have also a close relationship to land. Hence land was not a private property, it was the common or community property. As Dr. Ram Dayal Munda puts it, the spirit among adivasis was that the land does not belongs to an individual, neither a woman nor a man; its transference by an individual will be illegal. (16)
In the wake of these enforced changes in their culture and economy, most of the adivasi communities are faced with a whole spectrum of problems, land alienation being the major one among them. (17)
The spectrum of issues faced by the adivasis, specifically related to the land and forests, cannot take any concrete remedy unless there is a serious intervention. In a nation where thousands are landless and only a few handling the chunk of land resources, the equitable distribution of land seems impossible. True socialism cannot be practised under the existing circumstance. Land Ceiling Act has not been properly implemented in India, specifically in adivasi areas.(18) The gravity of the problems of adivasi land alienation has again underlined the need for renewed and vigorous efforts to intervene on various fronts in order that adivasis are not alienated due to the so-called development. This calls for serious measures, legal, administrative and socio-economic to effectively deal with the problems of alienation of adivasis and protection of their interests and rights in such lands. (19)
Analysing the issue of adivasi land alienation, they were never a working class community. Classes are groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labour, owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy. So what basically determines the difference between classes is their relationship to the means of production.(20) Based on this analysis of a class society adivasis cannot be classified simply as the working class by virtue of them owing some land, which puts them into the category of small farmers and mostly they do not sell their labour power to the bourgeoisie.
But recent adivasi history testifies to the fact that a sizeable number of them are being dispossessed of their land by mega projects (dams, industry, and mines). At the national level, although they are only 8 percent of the population, 40 percent of the total displaced are adivasis. In terms of numbers, out of about two and quarter crore displaced persons since 1950, 85 lakhs are adivasis, of them only about 30 lakhs have been offered some type of compensation, and the remaining 55 lakhs have been left by the wayside.(21) This is the proletarianisation process-taking place through which an ethnic group is being transformed into an exploited class.
Land & Women:
This is one of the most crucial issues in the whole question of land. Historically women's rights have been determined by the patriarchal social system. The caste system substantiated it to the greatest extend. Indian women constitute one of the most vulnerable and exploited sections of people in the world. The country has one of the lowest sex ratios in the world; 1000 males to 923 females. Only 39.5 percent of women are literate. There is one dowry death every 102 minutes, a rape every 54 minutes and kidnapping or abduction every 43 minutes. Indian women on an average have 8-9 pregnancies, of which six live births can be expected, with 4-5 children surviving.(22)
Violence on women is at alarming heights in all parts of the country. They are neither a part of the decision making process nor have any say in the existing power structure. Hence it is a conscious, organised and strategic way of pushing them into the abyss of poverty by refuting them the right to property and right to access and control over livelihood resources.
Ironically this has not come-up impulsively in any of the prominent land movements in the country. Non-of the movements have raised the issue of women's right over land, property or livelihood resources. Perhaps one of the only movement during which the women within the movement raised their voice for land rights was the Bodhgaya movement.
In fact there was an ongoing struggle on one hand under the profound leadership of Vahini, and on the other hand a serious debate on women role and women's participation in resource management was on prairie within the movement. While the Vahini activists conceded the male bias in their approach, there was a prolonged debate on why women should have independent land rights, before the perspective of the male peasant activists underwent a change.
The role of women in Vahini could be seen from two ends one is their overwhelming role and participation in the land movement in Bodhgaya and another is their fight against male domination within the organisation. The former is significant since it was perhaps the first time that a large number of women came out into the street to fight for their rights.
In a traditional feudal society like Bihar where women are only destined to remain mute and almost fear to open their mouth in any decision making process, it was a revolutionary step for the women to get into such a tremendous act. The second one is more important as the overall leadership in Vahini reflected the dominant patriarchy in practice. Even within a movement women had very little space to speak and join in the decision making process. As usual the male chauvinists were vibrant and the protest of women for their space within the movement and also for their crucial rights as human beings. In other words it was a profound affirmation of women both inside and outside the movement.
The Bodhgaya women's ability to ultimately overcome these multiple layers of opposition appears to have depended on the interactive effects of several variables. One, the strength of women's participation in and their considerable contribution to the struggle, which over time was recognised by the men as not merely supportive but crucial for a movement's success. Two, the growing solidarity among women and their articulation of their gender specific interests as distinct from those of the men of their class and community. Three, the involvement of some middle class women activists with a feminist perspective in Vahini and four the process of discussion in which women insisted on their demands and persuasively countered opposing arguments. (23)
One of the crucial part of it was the Bihar state conference of Vahini in February 1982, attended by some Bodhgaya activists (both peasants as well as Vahini members) a decision was taken that women should be given land in their own names in any future distribution. Subsequently, in two villages, lists were drawn up to give land only to women and widowers, with the unanimous approval of the villagers. However, the district officer in charge of registering the titles was no precedent for this and that land could only be given to heads of households, who in India were usually men. The villagers, however, adamantly refused to take any land unless it was given in the names of the women. It took a while before land was finally allocated in the names of women in two villages. (24)
However this is not the same in the case of other land struggle in the country. From this one cannot make a general conclusion that women's land rights struggle has won the battle. Hence this can be only taken as a model of women's land struggle for further study, reference and analysis. However in this present context the whole process of globalisation-liberalisation is battering the women to the greatest extend. They are the first victims of poverty. Hence it has to be called the feminisation of poverty.
Quoting to Dr. Marry Pillai, poverty is deprivation and degradation. Deprivation of basic needs and degradation of human values. Women are the first victims of both deprivation and degradation.(25) Globalisation enlarges these gaps and substantiates poverty. And it escalates. The breathing space that existed on land rights within the existing structure has erased. Hence a new strategy needs to be planned on women's land rights movement.
Conclusion:
It is under this context that we need to develop a wider understanding and proper perspective about the diverse dynamics of this issue. The multifaceted struggle will veritably succeed only when there is a serious intervention in policy matters as well as by building pressures from the ground. Both these have to go side by side for an effective change in the living standard of the masses. Unless enough attempts to bridge between these two phenomena are initiated sincerely, the situation will slip from bad to worse. Land reforms, decentralised resource control, regeneration of soil and water as well as rights to housing, work, education and health are to be at high priorities. The determination to abide non-violence is the true consciousness and syndrome of the affirmative spirit in the non-violent battle.
Land reform, broadly conceptualised as a corrective measure to ensure equitable man-land relationship, implies changes in laws, rules and procedures governing the rights, duties, and liberties of individuals and groups in control as well as utilisation of land. In this process we are definite to get some backfires. But that won't denude our enthusiasm. This is the lesson that we learn from the people who shed their blood in the past. Certainly many of us have to sacrifice our life, in the building-up the process of the new community.
In all way land reforms is an unfinished task and land struggle is an ongoing phenomena. A lot of serious effort needs to be put into this. De facto it is only possible with the development of a new culture of change in the mindsets of the masses. No measure could be enforced properly without a cardinal change in the overall attitude of the society.
Stringing this past process is very essential and has vital significance. All these historical processes had derived the various facets and impediments in the process of change, how Herculean is the task of any sort of transformation or substitution to the contemporary rotten system. Embracing this truth, people being the core of the process, it is essential to organise and mobilise them time and again and by and by to keep their spirit alive. This is the power of sustenance, mutuality and transformation.
The question of land is also a question of a change in attitude from the dominant one, which in other words could be termed as social transformation. The task of social transformation in general and land reforms in particular is too important that it cannot be left to the mainstream political parties or even to the current social structure. The kind of political culture they have created over the last 54 years is absolutely anti-people. Further it has nurtured the barbaric and brutish forms of organised and structural violence against the common man. Hence the need of the hour is the transformation of politics through social action and developing a non-violent counter movement, an alternative to the present one the one which will storm the citadels of power, not only political power but also social power. And this is the quintessence of people's polity.
1. Sinha B.K. & Pushpendra edited "Land Reforms in India - An Unfinished Agenda" Vol. 5, Sage Publications, New Delhi, "Editor's Introduction", page 17.
2. Jha, Shishir K. "Prospects of Radical Change in Bihar: Recuperating the Diseased Heart of India", page 1.
3. Mohan, Surendra "Arthaarth", in "Zameen Kiskhi Joote Uske", by Prabhat.
4. Chandra, Nirmal "Bhoomi Samasya Aur Bhoodan", Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, page 18. All the figures mentioned here are up till 1996 only.
5. Ibid.
6."Land Record", Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi, page 9.
7. Ibid., page 10.
8. Ibid. page 10.
9. Ojha, Gyaneshwar "Land Problems and Land reforms-Study with reference to Bihar", page 32.
10. Kotovsky, Grigory, "Agrarian Reforms in India".
11. "Land Record", Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi, page 10-11.
12. Raina, Vinod from his talk during the CEE meeting on 25th January 2002 on "Environment and Development Concerns"
13. George, Goldy M. "Cultural History and People's Search for Alternatives", in People's Reporter Vol. 11 No. 15 August 1-15 1998, Bangalore.
14. Jha, Shishir K. "Prospects of Radical Change in Bihar: Recuperating the Diseased Heart of India", page 3.
15. Viegas, Philip "Encroached and Enslaved - Alienation of Adivasi Land and its Dynamics". Published by 'Indian Social Institute', New Delhi.
16. Munda, Dr. Ram Dayal "Adivasi Identity: Crisis and Way out", in Rising Fascism published by Update Collective, New Delhi, page 57.
17.George, Goldy M. "Turning Tides", page 1.
18. Ibid., page 8.
19. Saxena, K.B. "Tribal Land Alienation and Need for Policy Intervention". Published in 'The Administrator', April-June 1991.
20. Lourdusamy, Stan "Recent Jharkhand History Ethnicity & Class Perspective", in Rising Fascism published by Update Collective, New Delhi, page 43. For further details also refer "A Dictionary of Political Economy", Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1985, page 43
21. Ibid. page 43-44.
22. "National Perspective Plan for Women", 1988, Department of Women and Child Development, New Delhi.
23. Agarwal, Bina "A Field of One's Own Gender and Land Rights in South Asia", Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, page 446.
24. George, Goldy M. "The History of Land Issue & Land Struggles: The Case Study of Bihar", page 29-30.
25. Pillai, Dr. Marry "Impact of Globalisation on Women", paper presented during the 1st Chethana get-together at Marthoma Education Centre, Charalkunnu, Thiruvalla, Kerala from 18th to 21st April 2001.
Goldy M George is a social activist working on dalits-adivasis human rights in Chhattisgarh. He is the convener of Dalit Study Circle in Chhattisgarh.