Vol. 1 · pages 471–475

456 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Adam Smith it is the adoption of the law of primogeniture chiefly due to the exigencies of a military life that leads to the creation and preservation of large holdings. While it is the adoption of the law of equal sub-division necessitated by the comparatively peaceful career of a nation that gives rise to small holdings. He says : — “When land like moveables is considered as the means only of subsistence and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides it like them among all the children of the family ; of all of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may be aupposed equally dear to the father, [thus tending to have small holdings]. But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times……. to divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be opposed and swallowed up by its neighbours. The law of primogeniture, therefore came to take place in the succession of landed estates [thus tending to preserve large holdings]” 1 England is, therefore, a country of large holdings. Post-Revolutionary France is a country of small holdings. So are Holland and Denmark. Turning to India, we find holdings of the following size held separate and direct for the years 1896-97 and 1900-01 : Average area of holdings in acres Years Assam Bombay Central Provinces Madras 1896-97 .. 3.37 24.07 17 7 1900-01 .. 3.02 23.9 48 7 Data, more recent, more exact, though from more restricted area, is available from the Baroda State. 2 Statistics of land holdings in the State are summarised in bighas in the following table : 3 Name of the District Total Agricultural land Survey No. into which it is divided Number of Khatedars Average under Khatedar Average area per Survey No. Baroda .. 17,17,319 4,30,601 107,638 15—19—2 4 Kadi .. 25,13,982 5,89,687 141,145 17—16—5 4¼ Naosari .. 10,46,176 2,16,748 52,652 19—17—8 4 Amveli .. 9,72,040 55,635 17,214 36—9—7 3¼ Total .. 82,49,517 12,92,671 318,649 17—10—10 3 7/8 (8 bighas = 5 acres) 1.Wealth of Nations. Bk. III Ch. 11. 2.Report of the Committee appointed to make proposals on the Consolidation of Small and Scattered holdings in the Baroda State, 1917. This will be throughout referred to as R.B.C. 3. ibid., p. 3

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES 457 Another investigation conducted by Dr. H. S. Mann and his colleagues indicates more specifically the fact of small holdings in the village of Pimpala Saudagar near Poona. The size of holdings in that village is indicated by the table below 4 : Over 20 acres 10 to 20 acres 5 to 10 acres 3 to 5 acres 2 to 3 acres 1 to 2 acres 30 to 40 gunthas 20 to 30 gunthas 15 to 20 gunthas 10 to 15 gunthas 5 to 10 gunthas Below 5 gunthas Number of plots of each size. 1 7 21 25 67 164 75 116 71 57 59 25 (40 Gunthas = 1 acre) In this table the model holding is between 1 and 2 acres. A mode is a statistical average indicating the point of largest frequency in an array of instances. From these tables it can be easily seen that the average size of holdings varies from 25.9 acres in the Bombay Presidency to an acre or two in Pimpala Saudagar. This diminutive size of holdings is said to be greatly harmful to Indian Agriculture. The evils of small holdings no doubt, are many. But it would have been no slight mitigation of them if the small holdings were compact holdings. Unfortunately they are not. A holding of a farmer though compact for purposes of revenue is for purposes of tillage composed of various small strips of land scattered all over the village and interspersed by those belonging to others. How the fields are scattered can only be shown graphically by a map. Herein we shall have to remain content, since we cannot give a map, with knowing how many separate plots are contained in a holding. The number of separate plots in each holding will show how greatly fragmented it is. We have no figures at all for the whole of India bearing on this aspect of the question. But the Hon’ble Mr. G. F. Keatinge in his note5 submitted to Government in 1916 has collected figures of typical 4. Land and Labour in a Deccan Village 1927, p. 48. 5. The author is thankful to him for a copy of this valuable note.

458 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES cases from all the districts of the Bombay Presidency. The following table is constructed to present his data in an intelligible form : Case II V. Shirgaon T. Ratnagiri D. Ratnagiri Case V V. Badlapur T. Kalyan D. Thana Case VI V. Kara T. Mawal D. Poona Case VII V. Althan T. Ghorssi D. Surat Case IX Surat District Case X Kairs District Case XII V. Lhasurna T. Koregaon D. Satara Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots Area of a holding No. of separate plots A. g. A g. A. g. A. g. A. g. A. g. A. g. 34½ 3 48 6 53 60 0 27 0 9 1 0 14 62 13 27 38 6 33 2 67 0 38 2 27 8 85 0 8 13 0 18. 65 34 23 23 7 20 3 1 9 6 2 31 5 26 9 8 22 0 20 36 16 16 36 3 1 14 5 6 30 8 16 6 7 .. .. 3 6 4 7 9 5 22 10 1 30 5 24 0 17 2 35 6 .. .. 5 0 7 5 26 5 .. .. 1 10¾ 4 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 26 9 13 16 6 .. .. 6 33 9 .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 26 9 28 4 15 .. .. 3 29¾ 7 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 10 8 .. .. 2 20½ 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 7 3 .. .. 35¾ 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 26 5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 34 5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 39 3 .. .. (A = acre g = guntha V = village T = taluka D = district) These small and scattered holdings have given a real cause for anxiety regarding our great national industry. Comparative Statistics go to swell this feeling by laying bare two very noteworthy but equally sad facts regarding economic life in India; (1) that it is largely an agricultural country ;* and (2) that its agricultural productivity is the lowest†— * (1) Occupational Statistics England and Wales Ireland Austria Belgium Bulgaria Denmark France Germany Holland Hungary Italy Russia Switzerland India U.S.A Percentage of Agricultural Population. 15.3 44.7 60.9 20.7 82.6 48.2 42.7 35.2 30.7 69.7 59.4 58.3 30.9 71.5 33.3 †(2) Produce in Lbs. per acre U.K Canada New Zealand Austria Egypt France Germany Hungary Japan U.S. A. Turkey Indian ProvincesUP. N.WP. Punjab Bombay U Burma Wheat .. 1973 1054 1723 1150 1634 1172 1796 1056 1176 .. 1318 850 555 555 510 322 Maize .. .. 3487 3191 1135 2059 1097 .. 1489 1525 .. 1372 1100 735 766 .. ..

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES 459 Both these truths are painful enough to have startled many people into inquiring the causes of this low productivity. As a result, attention has now been concentrated on the excessive sub-division and fragmentation of agricultural holdings. Enlarge and consolidate the holdings, it is confidently argued, and the increase in agricultural productivity will follow in its wake!! III CONSOLIDATION Consolidation of holdings is a practical problem while the enlargement of them is a theoretical one, demanding a discussion of the principle which can be said to govern their size. Postponing the consideration of the theoretical question of enlargement, we find that the problem of consolidation raises the following two issues:—(1) how to unite such small and scattered holdings as the existing ones, and (2) once consolidated how to perpetuate them at that size. Let us consider them each in turn. Sub-division of land need not involve what is called the fragmentation of land. But unfortunately it does, for, every heir desires to secure a share from each of the survey numbers composing the entire lands of the deceased instead of so arranging the distribution that each may get as many whole numbers as possible, i.e. the heirs instead of sharing the lands by survey numbers, claim to share in each survey number, thus causing fragmentation. Though fragmentation does subserve the ends of distributive justice it renders farming in India considerably inefficient as it once did in Europe. It involves waste of labour and cattle power, waste in hedges and boundary marks, and waste of manure. It renders impracticable the watching of crops, sinking of wells and the use of labour saving implements. It makes difficult changes in cultivation, the making of roads, water channels, etc., and it increases the cost of production. These disadvantages of fragmentation arc to be recounted only to lend their support to the process of restripping or consolidation. The methods of “restripping” are many, though all are not equally efficacious. Voluntary exchanges can hardly be relied upon for much. But a restricted sale of the right of occupancy may be expected to go a good deal. For, under it, when survey numbers are put to auction on account of their being relinquished by the holders or taken in attachment for arrears of assessments, only those may be allowed to bid in the auction for the sale of the right of occupancy whose lands are contiguous to the land hammered out. Again as further helping the process of reunion, the right of pre-emption may be given to farmers whose neighbour wishes to sell his land. These methods, it must be admitted, can achieve the desired result in a very small measure. The evils of fragmentation are very great and must be met by a comprehensive scheme of consolidation. It is, therefore, advocated* that if two-thirds of the Khiatedars, dealing more than half of *RBC, p. 38.

460 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the village lands, apply, Government, should undertake compulsorily to restrip the scattered fields of the village. This compulsory restripping is to be executed on two principles, (1) of “Economic Unit” and (2) of “Original Ownership”. Regarding the merits of these two principles the Baroda Committee observes. 6 “In the first the value of each holding is ascertained, then the original boundaries are removed, roads are marked out, lands required for public purposes are set apart, and the rest of the land is parcelled out into new plots. Each of these new plots must be of such a size as, having regard to the local conditions of soil, tillage etc. to form an economic field, i.e., a parcel of land necessary to keep fully engaged and support one family. These new plots may be sold by auction among the old occupants, restriction being placed on purchase so as to prevent a large number of cultivators from being ousted. The purchase, money may then be divided in a certain proportion among the original owners of pieces, a portion being reserved for expenses, in which Government would also contribute a share. Another mode would be to acquire all the land of the village then to sell it in newly constituted plots by auction as is done by City Improvement Trusts or by Government when laying out new roads in Cities or when extending a town. But we do not recommend its adoption in the improvement of agricultural land. It may result in land speculation and the small holders may be ousted in such numbers as to cause a real hardship.’’ “According to the second method when the restripping has been decided, a list of Khatedars and their holdings is made and the latter are valued at their market price by Panchas. Then the land is redistributed and each Khatedar is given new land in proportion to his original holding and as far as possible of the same value, difference to be adjusted by cash payment. In this method no Khatedar is deprived of his land. Each is accommodated and in the place of his original small and scattered fields gets one plot of almost their aggregate size. It is only a few people whose holding may be very small and whom it would not be expedient to keep on as farmers, that may have to lose their small pieces. But they too would benefit as they would get their full value in money.” The Baroda Committee prefers the second method because: “It takes as its starting principle, that nobody (except perhaps a few, holding plots of insignificant sizes) is going to be driven off the land. It will give even the smallest man, chance to better his condition. Each land holder receives a new compact piece of land proportionate to the 6. R. B. C, p. 35