‘National Land Reform Policy - Implications on Gender and Equity’

1. ‘National Land Reform Policy - Implications on Gender and Equity’ By Madhu Sarin Gender and Economic Policy Discussion Forum 29.10.2013, IIC, New Delhi

2. Overview • Laudable in intent for its focus on • The landless poor, • Women’s land rights, • Protecting rights of STs and SCs, • Recognition of the importance of common property resources and • Gram Sabha empowerment • Rich discussion on strengths and weaknesses on Solution Exchange

3. Focus here on overall conceptual framework & operational issues • Land reform without recognition of pre-existing rights? • False notion of ‘wasteland’ – overlaps with the commons, customary lands – similar to ‘forest’ lands • How will a central policy overcome obstacles in implementing existing laws with same objectives?

4. Conceptual confusions • Bottom up, decentralised and democratic land use planning Versus • Top down land use plans based on faulty land use classifications. • Need to deconstruct ownership and classification of government lands to build a sound foundation for rights based land reform

5. Types of Rights Formal: • Private, public/state & common property Customary: • Wide diversity of customary tenures as well as individual and communal resource rights In many areas the two overlap with an uncomfortable relationship between them

6. Historical Assemblage of Public Land - Colonial period • During colonial period, large areas of the uncultivated commons declared state property as: • Reserve or Protected Forests, or • ‘the Wastes’ or Revenue ‘Wasteland’ as they didn’t yield any revenue • But both were under pre-existing multi-functional customary uses and tenures

7. Historical Assemblage of Public Land – Post Independence • During merging of princely states and abolition of Zamindari, most non-private lands were ‘vested’ in the state, either as: • Forests (‘deemed’, Reserve or protected) • Or • Revenue ‘Wastelands’ • With poor acknowledgement of pre-existing rights

8. A 2003 PIL records ‘vesting’ of 9.48 mha of common lands in undivided MP with well recorded rights first to revenue and then to forest dept. A million primarily ST hshlds granted leases, pattas, grants which FD refuses to recognise. • 20,000 sq kms of land in undivided Bihar with extensive rights was notified as PF • FRA provides for recognition of these rights but none recognised. • How will this policy operationalise what a central law has not been able to do?

9. The same applies to revenue ‘wastelands’ (63.85 mha?pg 6) • Large areas of customary pasture and other common lands supporting livelihoods of millions similarly classified as ‘wastelands’ and transferred to ‘land pools’ for bio fuel plantations or industry despite well recorded rights in revenue land codes as in Rajasthan & Gujarat. • Rights and cultures of nomadic communities require equal protection, not settling them on land patches • Distribution of these lands even to landless will generate conflict unless through democratic decision making. Earlier distribution decimated the commons

10. Dismal condition of land records • Forest and Revenue records don’t tally • Accdng to MoEF, RFA = 77 million ha • Accdng to MoA, RFA = 67.87 mha • 9.13 mha ‘disputed’ between them with millions of cultivators caught in the middle • Policy requires this being sorted out but provision for same in FRA remains unimplemented

11. Caution needed in evicting ‘encroachers’ • The basis of FRA was challenging the classification of long standing inhabitants as ‘encroachers’ on their ancestral lands • The same situation prevails in poorly surveyed tribal areas with regard to revenue lands. In many villages in Odisha, none or a tiny minority of households have titles even to the revenue land they have been cultivating • Extremely hazardous to authorise govt authorities to evict – only gram sabhas should be so empowered.

12. Before govt land distribution, need to have an over arching framework for recognizing pre-existing individual and common property rights • The architecture of the FRA, which only applies to forest lands, could be adapted for extension to revenue lands based on gram sabha empowerment as initiating authority. But will state govts be willing? • The policy’s trust in revenue authorities to implement such land reform needs review

13. PESA implementation laudable, but how? • MoPR, NAC, adivasi movements have been demanding PESA implementation but not a single state has amended PR Acts in conformity or framed proper rules • Hamlet level gram sabhas not being constituted even under FRA • Primary focus on Gram Sabha empowerment including women’s empowerment a pre-requisite.

14. Dissonance between tribal and conservation laws • Major violation of constitutional provisions for safeguarding tribal cultures, livelihoods and resource rights • widespread negation of communal tenures & land use systems through rigid application of conservation laws in tribal areas.

15. Inability to facilitate bottom –up planning by PRI institutions based on local priorities remains a major shortcoming of the planning process. • PESA in Schedule V areas and the FRA must form institutional and governance framework for community based natural resource mgmnt.