are we not peasants too

7/21/2019 Are We Not Peasants Too

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/are-we-not-peasants-too 1/35

Are We Not Peasants Too?Land Rights and Women’s Claimsin India

by Bina Agarwal



Are We Not Peasants Too?Land Rights and Women’sClaims in India

by Bina Agarwal

About the Author

Bina Agarwal is Professor of E conom ics at the

Institute of E conom ic G row th, U niversity of D elhi, and

author of the aw ard-w inning book A Fi eld of One’s

Own : Gender an d Lan d Rights i n South Asi a. H er

w ork has had national and international im pact, w ithin

both academ ic and policy circles, on the neglected

issue of w om en’s rights in property, especially land.



is a pam -

phlet series

d evelop ed

to m eet re-quests from all over the w orld for infor-

m ation about innovative and practical

program ideas developed to address the

econom ic roles and needs of low -incom e

w om en. The pam phlets are designed as a

m eans to share inform ation and spark

new initiatives based on the positive

experiences of projects that are w orking

to help w om en generate livelihoods and

to im prove their econom ic status. The

projects described in this and other

issues of SEEDS have been selected be-

cause they have served not only to

strengthen w om en’s productive roles,

but also to integrate w om en into various

sectors of developm ent, both social and

econom ic. A ll projects docum ented in

the SEEDS series involve w om en in deci-

sionm aking, organize w om en locally, and

address broader policy issues that affect

the econom ic roles of w om en.

These reports are not m eant to be pre-scriptive,since every developm ent effort

w ill face som ew hat different problem s

and possibilities. Rather, they have been

w ritten to describe the history of an idea

and its im plem entation in the hope that

the lessons learned can be useful in a

variety of settings. They are also being

w ritten to bring to the attention of those

in decisionm aking positions the vital

roles that w om en play not only in the

econom ies of their individual households

but also in the econom ic life of every

nation.

This edition of SE E D S is m ade possi-

ble by support of the Ford Foundation,

the R ockefeller Foundation, and the

Population Council.

The Population Council is an international, nonprofit, nongovernm ental institution that

seeks to im prove the w ell-being and reproductive health of current and future generations

around the w orld and to help achieve a hum ane, equitable, and sustainable balance betw een

people and resources. The C ouncil conducts biom edical, social science, and public health

research and helps build research capacities in developing countries. E stablished in 1952,

the C ouncil is governed by an international board of trustees. Its N ew York headquarters

supports a global netw ork of regional and country offices.

Population Council, O ne D ag H am m arskjold Plaza, N ew York, N ew York 10017 U SA

tel: (212) 339-0500, fax: (212) 755-6052, e-m ail: pubinfo@ popcouncil.org

http://w w w.popcouncil.org.

Statem ents m ade and view s expressed in this publication are solely the responsibility of the

author and not of any organization providing support for SE E D S. A ny part of this docum ent

m ay be reproduced w ithout perm ission of the author so long as it is not sold for profit.

N um ber 21, 2002 ISSN : 073-6833

Copyright © 2002 T he Population Council, Inc.

Y E A R S 1 9 5 2 – 2 0 0 2



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 1

Foreword

SE E D S is pleased to publish our tw enty-

first issue, Professor Bina A garw al’s Ar e We Not Peasan ts Too? , exploring the

critical elem ents in securing effective

and independent land rights for w om en.

A lthough the author’s prim ary focus is

South A sia, the analytical fram ew ork and

proposed action plan are of relevance to

Latin A m erica, A frica, the C aribbean,

and eastern E urope—indeed w herever

w om en’s use and control of arable land

are crucial to their econom ic w ell-beingand livelihoods.SE E D S issues 10, 14, and

16 provide readers w ith additional back-

ground to several topics discussed here,

w ith particular reference to N epal, Zam bia,

and India.

Ar e We Not Peasan ts Too? docum ents

the substantial and enduring barriers and

biases obstructing efforts to strengthen

w om en’s relationship to the resource-

generating asset of land. D espite the cen-trality of this issue to reducing rural

w om en’s poverty and im proving their

econom ic status, the author show s w hy

w om en’s independent claim s to land

have been difficult to achieve, even

w here progressive social m ovem ents

and legal reform s have recognized them ,such as in India.

To tackle such obstacles, Professor

A garw al presents a range of cooperative

strategies for enabling w om en to retain

and cultivate the land and show s how

m icro-credit and other program s can be

redirected to increase the am ount and

productivity of land w om en control.

Recognizing that new policies and politi-

cal w ill are required to foster and sustainsuch experim ents, the author ends w ith

a sum m ary of how w om en are organizing

to place w om en’s access to land at the

center of national and global agendas.

In this spirit, SE E D S hopes that Ar e

We Not Peasan ts Too? w ill inspire grass-

roots w om en’s groups, N G O s, innovative

donors, policym akers, and others from

around the w orld to share exam ples of

how they have established strategies thatincrease w om en’s access to this crucial

asset. Let us hear from you!

— Sandy Schilen, SE E D S E ditor



Introduction

In 1979, over tw o decades ago, a group

of poor w om en from W est Bengal m ade

the follow ing dem and of their elected vil-

lage council: “Please go and ask the gov-ernm ent w hy, w hen it distributes land, w e

don’t get a title. A re w e not peasants? If

m y husband throw s m e out, w hat is m y

security?”(personal com m unication, Vina

M azum dar, 1992). This dem and under-

lined these w om en’s clear recognition

that their fam ilies alone could not guar-

antee them econom ic security. W hat they

also needed w ere fields of their ow n.

A Neglected Issue

In largely agrarian econom ies, arable land

is the m ost valued form of property and

productive resource. It is a w ealth-creat-

ing and livelihood-sustaining asset. For a

significant m ajority of rural households it

is the single m ost im portant source of

security against poverty. Traditionally, it

has been the basis of political pow er and

social status. For m any, it provides a senseof identity and rootedness. It is an asset

that has a perm anence that few other

assets possess. In som e com m unities,

ancestral land also sym bolically stands

for continuity of kinship and citizenship.

W hile m any of these links are w ell rec-

ognized at the household level, their im -

portance specifically for women has re-

ceived little attention. Indeed, the issue

of w om en’s rights in land (and m ore gen-erally in property) has been, until recent-

ly,largely neglected in both research and

policy. In fact, in alm ost all developing

countries, large-scale surveys and agri-

cultural censuses collect property-relat-

ed inform ation only by households, w ith-

out disaggregating by gender. N epal is arecent exception w here such data w ill

now be collected in its census. In m ost of

South A sia, including India, therefore,

w e still have to depend on sm all-scale

surveys and village studies to assess

w om en’s access to land. These sources

reveal that typically few w om en ow n

arable land and even few er effectively

control som e.

The social and econom ic im plicationsof this are w ide-ranging. M illions of

w om en in A sia, A frica, and Latin A m erica

depend critically on land for a livelihood.

The typical process of agrarian transfor-

m ation under w hich labor shifts from

agriculture to nonagriculture has been

slow and gender-biased. In m any coun-

tries, those w ho have m oved to nonfarm

w ork are largely m en, w hile w om en have

rem ained substantially in agriculture.H ence a disproportionate num ber of

those still dependent on land are w om -

en. In India, for instance, 58 percent of

all m ale w orkers but 78 percent of all

fem ale w orkers, and 86 percent of all

r u r a l fem ale w orkers, are in agriculture.

Indeed the gen der gap has been grow-

i n g . W om en’s dom estic w ork burden,

low er m obility, lesser education, and

few er investable assets lim it their entryinto nonagriculture, and also their range

of nonfarm options. M oreover, the na-

ture of w om en’s agricultural w ork is, to a

2 • SEEDS

Are We Not Peasants Too?Land Rights and Women’s Claimsin Indiaby Bina Agarwal



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 3

greater extent than for m en, casual in

nature. Relative to m en, w om en also con-

tinue to have low er real w age rates and

low er average real w age earnings in both

agriculture and nonagriculture.

A s m ore m en shift to urban or ruralnonfarm livelihoods, a grow ing num ber

of households w ill becom e dependent on

w om en m anaging farm s and bearing the

m ajor burden of fam ily subsistence. The

percentage of de facto fem ale-headed

households is already large and grow ing.

E stim ates for India range from 20 to 35

percent. These include not just w idow s

and deserted and separated w om en, but

also w om en in households w here them en have m igrated out and w om en are

effectively farm ing the land. These w om -

en w ill shoulder (and m any are already

shouldering) grow ing responsibilities in

agricultural production but w ill be con-

strained seriously by their lack of land

titles.

M oreover, the m ale biases in land

ow nership and transfers that have been

noted in m any developing countries arein danger of being replicated in new land

reform initiatives and property rights

form ulations. For instance, agrarian

reform is a m ajor policy issue in post-

apartheid South A frica; and new private

property rights in land and other assets

are now being constituted in E astern

E urope and the form er U SSR. H ere new

gender inequalities are already being

created (M eer 1997; Verdery 1996).It is therefore tim ely and essential to

exam ine in m ore detail w hy it is im por-

tant for w om en to have effective and

independent land rights, w hat obstructs

their realizing their claim s, and w hat

could be done to im prove the situation.

W hile these issues are discussed here

largely in the Indian or the South A sian

context, m any are also relevant to other

developing regions and to the transitioneconom ies. A nd although the focus here

is on arable land, since that is such a cru-

cial form of property and m eans of liveli-

hood in South A sia, m any of the argu-

m ents and concerns could be extended

to cover w om en’s rights in a dw elling

house or in other form s of property.

Defining Land Rights

Rights (in any form of property) are de-

fined here as claim s that are legally and

socially recognized and enforceable by

an external legitim ized authority, be it a

village-level institution or som e higher-

level body of the State. Land rights can

stem from inheritance, transfers from the

State, tenancy arrangem ents, land pur-

chase, and so on. They can be in the form

of ow nership or usufruct (rights of use),

and can encom pass differing degrees of

freedom to lease out, m ortgage, bequeath,

or sell.

Three additional distinctions are rele-

vant here. First, there is a difference

betw een the legal recognition of a claim

and its social recognition, and betw een

recognition and enforcem ent. A w om an

m ay have a legal right to inherit proper-

ty, but this m ay rem ain m erely on paper

if the claim is not recognized as socially

legitim ate or if the law is not enforced.

Second, there is a distinction betw een

ow nership and effective control. It is

som etim es assum ed incorrectly that

legal ow nership carries w ith it the right

of control in all its senses. In fact, legal

ow nership m ay be accom panied by

restrictions on disposal, as am ong the

Jaffna Tam ils of Sri Lanka and severalcom m unities in Latin A m erica, w here a

m arried w om an needs her husband’s

consent to alienate the land she legally

ow ns. Third, w e need to distinguish

betw een rights vested in individuals and

those vested in groups.

O ur concern here is w ith w om en hav-

ing effecti ve and independent rights in

land, effective rights being rights not

just in law but also in practice; and inde-pendent rights being rights that w om en

enjoy in their ow n capacity and indepen-

dent of those enjoyed by m en.



4 • SEEDS

Why Land Is Importantfor WomenMy ban gles ar e br oken ,

my d ays of sham e are gone.

I have one small son , on e calf, one field.A calf to feed, a son to nu r tu r e

but the field, baiji [sister] this half

acr e of ear th

to feed m e, to r est m y h ead.

—M alli, a R ajasthani w idow

(author’s interview s, 1987)

E ffective and independent land rights

for w om en are im portant on at least four

counts: w elfare, efficiency, equality, and

em pow erm ent.

Welfare

It is w ell accepted that land access can

notably reduce a household’s risk of pov-

erty, but for several reasons land solely

in m en’s hands need not guarantee fe-

m ale w elfare.

First, there are persistent gender in-

equalities and a bias favoring m ales in

the distribution of resources w ithin house-holds,including allocations for basic nec-

essities such as health care, education,

and, in som e regions, even food. Biases

in food and health care are revealed es-

pecially in anthropom etric m easures (e.g.,

w eight and height for age, w eight for

height, etc.), m orbidity rates, and m ost

starkly in fem ale-adverse sex ratios.

In contrast, direct land transfers to

w om en are likely to benefit not just w om -

en but also children. E vidence both fromIndia and from m any other parts of the

w orld show s that w om en, especially in

poor households, spend m ost of the

earnings they control on basic household

needs, w hile m en spend a significant

part of theirs on personal goods, such as

alcohol, tobacco, etc. (D w yer and Bruce

1988). This, in turn, affects child w el-

fare. Children in rural India are found

m ore likely to attend school and receivem edical attention if the m other has m ore

assets (Duraisam y 1992). A m ong m ar-

ginal farm er households in K erala (south

India), the m other’s cultivation of a hom e

garden (the output of w hich she con-

trolled) w as found to have a consistent-

ly high positive effect on child nutrition

(Kum ar 1978). In urban Brazil, the effect

on child survival probabilities w as found

to be several tim es greater w hen assetincom e accrued to the m other, com pared

w ith w hen it accrued to the father, and

the positive effect on the health of daugh-

ters w as especially high (Thom as 1990).

A part from differences in spending pat-

A

n d r e a

B

o o h e r , U

N

D

P



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 5

terns, w om en w ith assets such as land

have greater bargaining pow er, w hich can

lead to m ore gender-equal allocations of

benefits even from m ale incom es. In

short, w om en’s and children’s risk of

poverty w ould be reduced and their w el-fare enhanced if w om en had direct ac-

cess to land, and not just access m ediat-

ed through m ale fam ily m em bers.

Second, w om en w ithout independent

resources are highly vulnerable to pover-

ty and destitution in case of desertion,

divorce, or w idow hood. In parts of w est-

ern and northw estern India, not uncom -

m only, rural w om en even from rich par-

ental and m arital fam ilies, deprived oftheir property shares w hen w idow ed,

can be found w orking as agricultural

laborers on the farm s of their w ell-off

brothers or brothers-in-law . The fate of

deserted and divorced w om en is w orse.

Relatives, including sons and broth-

ers, often do not provide the expected

econom ic security to w om en w ho are

w idow ed or w hose m arriages break dow n.

M any of them end up living on their ow n.In fact, m ortality risks am ong w idow s

tend to be higher am ong those living as

dependents of m ale relatives com pared

w ith those w ho are heads of households,

and w ho presum ably have som e inde-

pendent m eans of subsistence (Rahm an

and M enken 1990). Indeed, for w idow s

and the elderly entitlem ent to fam ily

care can depend critically on w hether

they have property to bequeath. A s theelderly often say: “W ithout property

children don’t look after their parents

w ell”(Caldw ell et al. 1988: 191).

Land can provide w om en both direct

and indirect benefits. D irect advantages

can stem from grow ing not just crops,

but trees, a vegetable garden, or grass

for cattle. Indirect advantages arise in

various w ays: ow ned land can serve as

collateral for credit or as a m ortgageableor saleable asset during a crisis. Land

(w hether ow ned or controlled by w om -

en) also increases the probability of w om -

en finding supplem entary w age em ploy-

m ent, and serves as an im portant asset

base for rural nonfarm enterprises. For

instance, those w ith land are found to

generate m uch higher rural nonfarm

earnings from self-em ploym ent than the

totally landless (Chadha 1992). In short,

women ’s access to even a sma ll pl ot

can be a cr i t i cal element i n a di ver si - fi ed l i vel i hood system , and can si gn i f-

i cantly i mpr ove women’s and the fam-

i ly ’s welfare, even i f the plot i s not lar ge

en ough to pr ovi de ful l fami ly su bsi s-

tence. A nd independent access to land

w ill becom e increasingly im portant for

w om en as m arital and kin support erodes,

and fem ale-headed households m ultiply.

Efficiency

In addition to w elfare gains, m ore gen-

der-equal land rights could also enhance

productive efficiency. First there is an

incentive effect. A lthough it is w idely

recognized that security of tenure can be

critical for m otivating farm ers to m ake

productivity-enhancing investm ents in

their fields,the n eed for si m i lar i n cen -

ti ves wi thi n the fami ly has been lar ge- ly i gnored . Som e recent studies suggest

that incentives could be as im portant

w ithin fam ilies. In K enya, for exam ple,

F o o d a n d

A

g r i c u l t u r e

O

r g a n i z a t i o n



6 • SEEDS

w here m en and w om en often cultivate

separate plots, the introduction of w eed-

ing technology in m aize production raised

yields on w om en’s plots by 56 percent

w here w om en controlled the output, and

only by 15 percent on their husbands’plots, w here w om en also w eeded but m en

got the proceeds (Elson 1995). W hether

sim ilar results w ill obtain in India and

other countries w ill require field testing

and analysis. But the K enya results pro-

vide an im portant pointer to the output-

enhancing potential of secure land rights

for w om en and of their control over produce.

Second, w here land access is in the

form of titles (w hich serve as collateral inm any regions), secure rights for w om en

w ould help increase output by im prov-

ing w om en’s access to credit. This can

prove especially crucial in situations

w here w om en are the principal farm ers,

as w here m ale out-m igration is high, or

w here w idow s (or w ives) are cultivating

separate plots still form ally ow ned by kin.

Third, research from som e other parts

of the w orld suggests that w om en m ightuse land m ore efficiently than m en in

certain contexts. In Burkina Faso, for

instance, due to their choice of cropping

patterns w om en achieved m uch higher

values of output per hectare on their ow n

plots than their husbands did on theirs

(U dry et al. 1995). A lthough w om en’s

yields for given crops w ere low er than

m en’s, this w as due to their lesser access

to inputs such as fertilizers w hich w ereconcentrated on the m en’s plots. The

study estim ated that outpu t cou ld be

i n creased by as mu ch as 10–20 per -

cen t i f su ch i n pu ts wer e r eall ocated

fr om pl ots con tr olled by m en to those

control led by women in the same

household . A literature review of the

effect of gender on agricultural produc-

tivity in several countries of A frica and

A sia also concludes that output could beincreased notably if w om en farm ers had

the sam e access to inputs and education

as m ale farm ers (Q uisum bing 1996).

Fourth, w om en in m any parts of

South A sia are often better inform ed

than m en about traditional seed vari-

eties and the attributes of trees and

grasses. If they had greater control over

land and farm ing, this know ledge couldbe put to better use.

Fifth, tenure security, and especially

titles can em pow er w om en to assert

them selves better w ith agencies that

provide inputs and extension services.

W hile w elfare argum ents for w om en’s

land rights have received som e policy

attention, there is yet little recognition

of the potential positive effects on effi-

ciency. In fact, som e argue that land

transfers to w om en w ill have a negative

efficiency effect, in that such transfers

w ill reduce output by reducing farm size

and increasing fragm entation. H ow ever,

there is no notew orthy evidence of an

adverse size effect on output. In fact, in

India and other parts of South A sia,sm all farm s are found to have a higher

value of output per cultivated unit than

large farm s (Banerjee 2000); and frag-

F o o d a n d

A

g r i c u l t u r e

O

r g a n i z a t i o n



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 7

m entation can arise equally w ith m ale

inheritance. A lso, w here necessary,

farm ers have dealt w ith fragm entation in

various w ays: consolidation through pur-

chase and sale; land leasing arrange-

m ents to bring together cultivation unitseven w here ow nership units are scat-

tered; and joint investm ent and cultiva-

tion by sm all groups. In India, as a result

of these m easures, the num ber of frag-

m ents per farm has declined from 5.7 in

1961 to 2.7 in 1991.

It is thus im portant to contesta pr ior i

negative efficiency argum ents, such as

the fragm entation argum ent, w hich are

typically put forw ard only in relation tow om en’s claim s to inheritance, but not in

relation to m en’s claim s. E qually, the pos-

itive productivity effects of m ore gender-

equal land access, and of greater tenure

security and access to inputs for w om en

farm ers, found in som e existing studies,

need em phasis, even w hile expanding the

base of em pirical analysis. A s noted, these

positive effects could be especially im -

portant in regions of high fem ale head-edness, or w here the fem inization of agri-

culture is m oving apace as m ore m en

than w om en enter nonfarm occupations.

Equality and Empowerment

The equality argum ent is an im portant

one in and of itself, since gender equali-

ty is a m easure of a just and progressive

society. But, in addition, equality in land

rights is a critical elem ent in w om en’seconom ic em pow erm ent. The w ord

“em pow erm ent”is now w idely used in

the literature, usually w ithout being

defined. H ere em pow erm ent is defined

“as a process that enhances the ability of

disadvantaged (‘pow erless’) individuals

or groups to challenge and change (in

their favor) existing pow er relationships

that place them in subordinate econom -

ic, social and political positions”(Agarw al 1994: 39).

Endowi ng women wi th land would

empower them economi cally as well as

str en gthen thei r abi l i ty to challen ge

social an d poli t i cal gen der i n equ i t i es .

A n illustrative exam ple is w om en’s expe-

rience in the B odhgaya struggle in Bihar

(eastern India). H ere, in the late-1970s,

w om en and m en of landless householdsjointly agitated for ow nership rights in

the land they cultivated, w hich w as

under the illegal possession of a M ath (a

tem ple–m onastery com plex). D uring the

m ovem ent, w om en dem anded indepen-

dent land rights, and received them in

tw o villages, w ith m arked im plications.

In the villages w here m en alone received

titles, w om en’s insecurity grew , w ith an

increase in m en’s tendency to threatenw ives w ith eviction in situations of do-

m estic conflict: “G et out of the house, the

land is m ine now ”(M anim ala 1983: 15).

But w here w om en got titles they graphi-

cally described their feeling of being em -

pow ered: “W e had tongues but could not

speak, w e had feet but could not w alk.

N ow that w e have the land, w e have the

strength to speak and w alk”(Alaka and

Chetna 1987:26). (Also see B ox 1.)This sense of em pow erm ent accom -

panying im proved land rights also

enhances w om en’s ability to assert

them selves w ithin the hom e, in the com -

m unity, and w ith the State.

From the preceding discussion it is

clear that land r i ghts can ser ve mu lti ple

fun ctions in r ur al women’s l i ves whi ch

ar e n ot easy to r epli cate thr ough other

means . This is im portant to keep in m indsince the present thrust of m ost nation-

al and international agencies is not on

land rights but on m icro-credit program s

w hich are being prom oted as a panacea,

especially (but not only) for poor rural

w om en. A lthough credit is clearly an im -

portant need for poor w om en, m any indi-

vidualw om en not only face problem s in

retaining control over such loans, but the

privileging of this one form of supportover all other livelihood sources can

prove problem atic and diversionary. A

num ber of evaluations show that such



8 • SEEDS

The Bodhgaya m ovem ent, initiated in 1978 in

the G aya district of Bihar, w as a struggle bylandless laborers and sharecroppers to gain

rights in land w hich they had cultivated for

decades. The land, som e 9,575 acres spread

over 138 villages, w as held by a M ath (a

m onastery-cum -tem ple com plex), m uch of it

in violation of land ceiling law s. M ath officials

exploited the peasants and also sexually

abused the w om en. The struggle em erged

under the leadership of the Chatra Yuva Sang-

harsh Vahini, a G andhian-socialist youth or-

ganization founded in 1975 by Jayaprakash

N arayan (a contem porary of M ahatm a Gan-

dhi) and com m itted to im proving the lot of

the disadvantaged. Vahini m em bership w as

restricted to those under thirty, and includ-

ed w om en in every tier of the organization.

The m ovem ent lasted several years. Its

prim ary slogan w as Jo zameen ko boye jote,

voh zameen ka mali k hai (those w ho sow and

plough the land are the ow ners of the land).

W om en played a crucial role in the m ove-

m ent. In 1980, for instance, the activists

decided to seize the land and cultivate itindependently of the M ath. A bout 3,000

acres w ere captured and ploughed. D espite

police attacks, sow ing w as com pleted. A t har-

vest tim e, the attacks w ere renew ed. Since

w om en usually harvested the crops, it w as

they w ho faced the brunt. A s the repression

intensified, w om en’s involvem ent increased.

W om en also participated in the m ovem ent’s

nonviolent protests, despite threats of beat-

ings and rape by the M ath’s hired ruffians.

O ver tim e, w om en began participating in

equal num bers w ith the m en and also court-ing arrest w ith accom panying children.

In addition, w om en organized sh iv i rs

(cam ps) to discuss their concerns w ithin the

struggle. They focused on w om en’s exploita-

tion, their exclusive responsibility for house-

w ork, discrim ination against girl children,

m en’s verbal and physical violence against

them , and (m ost im portantly) w om en’s need

for independent land rights. R esolutions

w ere passed, including one against w ife-

beating and another dem anding land in

w om en’s ow n nam es.

Finally in 1981, the governm ent identified

1,000 acres of the M ath’s land for redistribu-

tion to the agitating farm ers. The Vahini

drew up a list, giving priority to landlesslaborers, the disabled, w idow s, and sm all

peasants. W om en other than w idow s did not

figure in the list, and they protested their

exclusion: “W e w ere in the forefront of the

fight, carrying our children in our w om bs

and in our arm s. W e w ent to jail and

faced the lathis [sticks]; w e also did all the

housew ork. B ut w hen the land w as distrib-

uted, w e w ere pushed back, w e didn’t even

com e to know by w hat rules the land w as dis-

tributed”(M anim ala 1983: 15).

A fter a prolonged debate on w hy w om en

should have independent land rights, in 1982

it w as decided that w om en too w ould receive

land in their ow n nam es in future distribu-

tion. In tw o villages the villagers unanim ous-

ly approved lists for giving land only to

w om en and w idow ers. But the D istrict O ffi-

cer in charge of registering the titles strong-

ly opposed this, arguing that there w as no

precedent for giving land to persons other

than heads of households, w ho w ere typical-

ly m en. The villagers, how ever, refused totake any land unless it w as given to w om en.

A lm ost three years passed before w om en

w ere finally allocated land. In tim e, all the

M ath’s illegal holdings w ere distributed and

w om en received land in various w ays: indi-

vidual titles, joint titles w ith husbands, as

w idow s, destitute and disabled persons, and

(w ithout precedent) in som e cases as

unm arried adult daughters. A lthough such

w om en w ere few since m ost girls there w ere

m arried before they w ere eighteen, the idea

that unm arried daughters w ere eligible w asan im portant step forw ard. E ach person

received about one acre.

H ow did all this com e about? Initially,

w om en encountered opposition at three lev-

els: from husbands, from the Vahini activists,

and from governm ent officials. W om en’s abil-

ity to overcom e these layers of opposition

depended on several factors: m en’s recogni-

tion over tim e that w om en’s contributions

w ere crucial to the m ovem ent’s success; the

grow ing solidarity am ong w om en and their

articulation of their gender-specific interests

as distinct from those of the m en of their

class and com m unity; the support of som e

Box 1

The Bodhgaya Movement



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 9

credit program s do not reach the poorest

households, let alone change the gender

balance in property ow nership and con-

trol. In fact a recent study for Bangla-desh (cited in IFA D 2001) identified a

lack of access to land and hom esteads as

m ajor factors in the exclusion of the

poorest from credit N G O s.

A n alternative to the existing approach

of prom oting m icro-credit for non-land-

related m icro-enterprises is to link land

and m icro-credit by providing rural w om -

en w ho depend on land-based livelihoods

w ith credit for leasing in or purchasingland in groups (as discussed later). H ere

m icro-credit w ould com plem ent rather

than substitute for efforts to enhance

w om en’s land rights. But this w ould

require a significant shift from the exist-

ing focus of m ost m icro-credit program s.

Women’s Land Accessin Practice

To w hat extent do w om en have effective

land rights in practice? Consider the

three m ajor w ays by w hich w om en can

gain land: inheritance, State transfers,

and the m arket. O f these, inheritance is

the m ost im portant, since in m ost coun-tries arable land is largely privatized. In

India, 86 percent of arable land is pri-

vately held. M oreover, efforts to pro-

m iddle-class fem ale Vahini activists w ith a

fem inist perspective; and the process of

debate in w hich w om en persuasively coun-

tered opposition.

For instance, w hen the w om en protested

against their exclusion from the Vahini’s ini-tial list of land recipients, the m en argued:

“W hat difference does it m ake in w hose nam e

the land is registered?”The w om en respond-

ed: “If it doesn’t m ake a difference, then put

it dow n in the w om an’s nam e. W hy argue

about it?”To the suggestion that w om en’s

dem and w ould w eaken class unity, the w om -

en replied: “Equality can only strengthen,

not w eaken an organization, but if it does

w eaken our unity, that w ill m ean that our real

com m itm ent is not to equality or justice but

to the transfer of pow er, both econom ic andsocial, from the hands of one set of m en to

the hands of another set of m en.”W hen the

m en asked: “H ow can you cultivate the land

on your ow n? W ho w ill plough it for you?”

they replied: “W ell, w ho w ill harvest your

crop in that case? W e are ready to cultivate

the land w ith hoes instead of ploughs, but w e

w ant it in our nam es”(M anim ala 1983).

Indeed the significance of the B odhgaya

struggle from w om en’s perspective lies not

just in its being South A sia’s first land strug-gle w here women’s land interests received

explicit attention. It also lies in the p r ocess

by w hich this w as achieved. It is notew orthy

that a largely illiterate peasant com m unity

discussed at length issues such as w om en’s

independent rights in econom ic resources,

dom estic violence, fem ale education, and

postm arital residence, and on several counts

resolved them in w om en’s favor. The debate,

although arduous, brought significant re-w ards. The question of gender equality began

to be seen by m any not as divisive but as

integral to the m ovem ent’s success. A s a

result, w om en’s participation in decision-

m aking also increased, w ife-beating and ver-

bal abuse against w om en w as deem ed sham e-

ful, and m ale villagers began to take care of

cooking and childcare in the w om en’s shiv i rs ,

w hile the w om en participated in discussions.

The B odhgaya w om en w ere also indirect-

ly helped by a grow ing w om en’s m ovem ent

and a spreading fem inist consciousness inthe country in the late 1970s and early 1980s,

w hen issues concerning w om en’s rights w ere

being raised in various forum s. In contrast,

w om en in the Tebhaga m ovem ent of the 1940s

(see Box 2) had not dem anded independent

land rights. A t that tim e, there w as an ab-

sence of cohesiveness am ong w om en on gen-

der questions; a lack of spokespersons am ong

them w ho could articulate a fem inist perspec-

tive;and the absence of a w idespread w om -

en’s m ovem ent in the country. For the Bodh-gaya w om en, the situation w as favorable on

all these counts. They w ere thus able to artic-

ulate their interests overtly. H ow ever, the

Bodhgaya experience still aw aits replication.



m ote gender equality in inheritance are

im portant for ensuring that the land

obtained through the governm ent or the

m arket does not pass solely to m ale

heirs in the next generation.

Inheritance

It is not easy to determ ine how m any

w om en inherit land in practice, given

the noted absence of gender-disaggre-

gated land ow nership data at the all-India

level. To assess ow nership patterns, w e

therefore have to depend on sm all-scale

studies. These can nevertheless be reveal-

ing, such as a 1991 sam ple survey of rural

w idow s by M artha C hen covering seven

states (Table 1; see also C hen 2000).

Chen found that of the 470 w om en w ith

landow ning fathers, only 13 percent in-

herited any land as daughters. (Region-

ally, the figure ranged from 18 percent in

south India to 8 percent in north India.)

For all-India this m eans that 87 percent

of the surveyed w om en did not receive

their legal due as daughters.

W om en as w idow s fared som ew hatbetter. O f the 280 w idow s w hose de-

ceased husbands ow ned land, 51 per-

cent inherited som e. But this still m eans

1 0 • SEEDS

that half the w idow s w ith legal claim s did

not inherit anything. A nd of those that

did, typically their shares w ere not

recorded form ally in the village land

records. O ther studies have show n that

w here the land is so recorded, invariablythe w idow’s nam e is entered jointly w ith

adult sons, w ho effectively control the

land. The popular perception is that the

w idow ’s share is for her m aintenance and

not for her direct control or use. W idow s

w ithout sons rarely inherit. M oreover,

w idow s in India constitute only about 11

percent of rural w om en, 76 percent of

w hom are over 50 years old, m any of

them too old to effectively w ork the land.H ence inheritance as w idow s does not

com pensate w om en for their being disin-

herited as daughters.

Government Transfers

A second potential source of land for w om -

en is State transfers. These transfers can

be part of land reform program s, resettle-

m ent schem es for those displaced by largedam s and other projects, or antipoverty

program s. Irrespective of the program un-

der w hich the transfers occur, typically

A

s s o c i a t i o n

f o r

L a n d

R

e f o r m

a n d D

e v e l o p m

e n t , B

a n g l a d e s h



1 2 • SEEDS

The Tebhaga m ovem ent em erged in 1946–47

in undivided Bengal, in the footsteps of the

great Bengal fam ine of 1943. Sharecroppersin the region had no occupancy rights and

faced a constant threat of eviction. The land-

lords took half the produce w hile bearing no

part of the production costs, levied illegal

taxes, and sexually abused the w om en. The

m ovem ent, spearheaded by the B engal

Provincial K isan Sabha (BPK S), under the

leadership of the C om m unist Party of India,

dem anded a reduction of land rents and an

end to other form s of exploitation. The

w om en’s self-defense league played a critical

m obilizing role am ong w om en.

Prior to the m ovem ent, sexual exploita-

tion w as closely linked to caste and econom -

ic oppression:

Li ke the man goes of the [ shar ecrop-

per’s] tr ees, li ke the bananas of hi s

garden, li ke the gou rds of hi s thatched

r oof, lik e the eggplan t from hi s gar-

den , hi s dau ghter s and dau ghter s-

i n- law w er e the [ land lord’s] pr oper -

ty…. If the [lan dlord ] exp r esses hi s

wi sh, the daughter or the wi fe of the [ shar ecropper ] wi l l be sen t to the

[ lan dlord’s] house. (a w om an activist,

quoted in Cooper 1988: 102)

Both H indu and M uslim w om en partici-

pated in the m ovem ent in large num bers:

Women who r emai ned i n the vi l lages

du r i ng the day…[ war ned] people of

pol ice arr i vals by sou nd i n g alarms,

blowi n g con ch shells, for exampl e.

They pr ovid ed shelter and food for

activi sts. Women who frequen tly w en t to market became responsible in

some ar eas for commun i cation an d

carr yi ng messages between organ i z-

er s. In some vi ll ages there were spe-

cial [ women ’s cor ps] w hi ch guar ded

vi llages. Poor peasan t women par ti c-

ipated i n meet in gs and demonstra-

tions, joined delegations to land-

lor ds, an d occasi onal ly m ember s of

Tebhaga committees, although not

holdin g par t i cul ar posi t ions.

However, women’s mi li tancy w as r e-

member ed mostly because of thei r

acti ons to r esi st ar r ests, when they

di splayed in cr edi ble cou r age, in i t i a-

t ive and her oi sm i n r escui ng people.

(Cooper 1988: 270–271)

W om en’s w eapons of resistance w ere

household im plem ents, the com m onplace ob-

jectsof their daily existence, w ith w hich they

(often successfully) confronted the police:

As the poli ce entered the vi ll ages, bell s

an d conch shells used to be blown

and the echo could be heard fr om one

end to the other.... It w as the peasant

womenfolk w ho or gan i zed thi s n ovel

form of war ni ng. Almost i mm ediate- ly on hear i ng thi s, al l the women-

folk wou ld take hold of br oomsti cks,

lathi s and their hu ski n g pestles...

and for m a barr i cade on the vi l lage

r oad, so that th e poli ce coul d not

enter. (Chakravartty 1980: 90)

In disarm ing police parties, in resisting

arrests, and in rescuing people, w om en’s ini-

tiatives assum ed heroic proportions. O n sev-

eral occasions, attem pts by landlords to

appropriate the harvested paddy from the

peasants’fields w ith police help w ere also

thw arted by the w om en. For instance, in

K endem ari village:

... they least expected th at a m i li tan t

group of [peasan t] w omen ... wou ld

advan ce wi th daos, chopper s an d

broomsticks. Tied to their saree-

ends they carr i ed a han dfu l of du st,

mi xed wi th chi l l i powder. As they

approached the police, they threw

thi s powder i n thei r eyes and the

pol ice r an for thei r l i ves. (Chakra-vartty 1980: 94).

O ften, how ever, the confrontations w ere

violent, and m any courageous w om en w ere

injured or killed in police firings.

D uring the cam paign, several gender con-

cerns w ere voiced, such as w ife-beating. A s

one w om an graphically put it: “[W hen] the

husband and w ife together are dying in the

field, in the battle for Tebhaga; w hen the tw o

together are fighting against the enem y, how

then w as it possible for one soldier to beatthe other after returning hom e?”(cited in

Custers 1987: 177). In som e areas the cam -

Box 2

TheTebhaga Story



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 1 3

0.56 percent of India’s arable land at the

tim e of the E ighth Plan and today it com es

to less than 0.2 percent of the country’s

arable land. E ven in W est Bengal, a state

w ith the largest am ount of area declared

surplus to date, the total ceiling surplus

land cam e to only 8.7 percent of the

state’s arable land, and today virtuallynone is left for distribution.

H ence w hile it is im portant to reduce

biases in governm ent land transfers, and

thereby also to send the m essage that

w om en’s claim s deserve attention, in

term s of actual land area such transfers

can go but a sm all w ay in im proving

Indian w om en’s land status.

Through the MarketThe third source of land for w om en is

through lease or purchase. The w eight of

this option w ill depend on financial, insti-

tutional, and infrastructural support to

w om en. In itself, this is a lim ited option

since individual rural w om en seldom

have access to adequate financial re-

sources for this purpose. A lso, in term s

of purchase, rural land m arkets are often

constrained and land is not alw ays avail-able for sale. For instance, an all-India

study of land sales am ong a sam ple of

landow ning households in the early

1970s found that only 1.75 percent had

sold any land during the survey year

(Rosenzw eig and W olpin 1985). A nother

study, for U ttar Pradesh (northw est In-

dia) that exam ined land sales over a

thirty-year period from the 1950s to the

1980s, found that only 4.1 percent ofow ned agricultural land had been sold

(Shankar 1990).H ence for both sexes,

the possibilities of purchasing land are

lim ited, w ith w om en being especially

constrained. Land purchase through the

m arket thus cannot com pensate for gen-

der inequalities in inheritance or govern-

m ent transfers. There is som ew hat great-

er potential for obtaining land on lease,

since this is m ore readily available.

For both lease and purchase, how ev-

er, external support to w om en w ould im -

prove access. For instance, in parts of

South A sia, groups of landless w om en

have been using subsidized credit pro-

vided by the State, for leasing in or pur-

chasing land in groups, and cultivating it

jointly (as elaborated further below ).

Through such collective endeavor, land

through the m arket could w ell prove an

im portant supplem entary m eans forw om en to acquire land, even if not the

prim ary m eans.

paign against dom estic violence m ade a

strong im pact, but in others the culprits got

off lightly. E specially in M uslim areas w hen

m ale peasants objected to w om en attending

the peasant com m ittee m eetings, som e of

the w om en retorted: “It does not hurt yoursense of propriety w hen w e sow or harvest in

the fields along w ith you. H ow does it becom e

objectionable w hen w e w ant to attend kisan

sam iti m eetings?”(cited in Custers 1987:

172). O bjections nevertheless continued,

and the issue w as never resolved.

D espite w om en’s participation, unequal

gender relations persisted both w ithin and

outside the m ovem ent. W hatever gains

w om en m ade w ere ad hoc. Their objections

to dom estic violence led to the boycott of

som e of the m ale activists responsible, but

the issue w as not seen as integral to the larg-

er political struggle to change econom ic and

social relations that the m ovem ent w as

addressing. In particular, w om en’s rights in

land w ere not discussed. W om en also playedlittle role in decisionm aking. A nd w hile dur-

ing the m ost intense periods of the agitation

w om en em erged from their dom estic roles,

they w ere forced to return to housew ork and

largely unchanged gender relations w ithin

the fam ily w hen the struggle ended. It w as

not until several decades later, during the

Bodhgaya m ovem ent, that oppression w ithin

the fam ily and w om en’s rights in land

em erged as significant concerns w ithin a

peasant m ovem ent in South A sia.



1 4 • SEEDS

Obstacles to Women’sLand Access

W hat obstructs w om en from gaining

greater land access? W hile the difficul-

ties that individual w om en face in get-ting land through the m arket w ere indi-

cated above, those relating to private

and governm ent land are m ore com plex.

Privatized Land:Legal, Social,and Administrative Biases

To my br other belong you r green fi elds

O father, whi le I am bani shed afar…

— (H indi folksong)

Always you sai d

Your brother an d y ou ar e the same

O Father. Bu t today you betr ay m e…

My doli leaves you r house.

—(folksong, personal com m unication

Veena D as)

Inheritance laws

In m ost of India, inheritance w as tradi-

tionally patrilineal (that is ancestral prop-

erty passed through the m ale line), w ithsom e lim ited m atrilineal pockets (w here

ancestral property passed through the

fem ale line), as in northern and central

K erala in the south and M eghalaya in the

northeast (Agarw al 1994, 1995). A m ong

the m ajority H indu com m unity, for in-

stance, the com m on pattern w as for

w om en to inherit only in the absence of

m ale heirs, typically in the absence of

four generations of m en in the m ale lineof descent. W idow s had the first claim

and daughters follow ed. W hat w om en

received, how ever, w as only a lim ited in-

terest, that is, they enjoyed the property

during their lifetim e after w hich it revert-

ed to the original source. A lso w om en’s

rights of disposal w ere restricted: they

could not m ortgage, give, or sell the land,

except in exceptional circum stances. In

m ost cases, the rights of M uslim w om enin custom ary practice w ere very sim ilar

to those of H indu w om en in their regions

of location.

D uring the tw entieth century, how ev-

er, through the concerted efforts of w om -

en’s organizations, liberal law yers, and

social reform ers, inheritance law s shift-

ed significantly tow ard gender equality.

A lthough these efforts m et w ith stiff re-sistance from m any opinionm akers and

politicians (including India’s first Presi-

dent), the changes w ere facilitated by

the historic m om ent. It w as a tim e w hen

the idea of building a m odern forw ard-

looking nation w as becom ing part of the

popular im agination. A lso the first elect-

ed governm ent of Independent India had

a notable body of progressive profession-

als in Parliam ent, w ho supported theidea of gender-equal law s. A s a result,

m ost Indian w om en w ere able to negoti-

ate m uch greater rights in postindepen-

dence law than they had had a century

ago. For instance, the H indu Succession

A ct (HSA ) of 1956 m ade sons, daughters,

and w idow s equal claim ants in a m an’s

separate property and in his share in the

joint fam ily property. It also gave w om en

full control over w hat they inherited, touse and dispose of as they w ished. Sim i-

larly, the M uslim Personal Law Shariat

(A pplication) A ct of 1937 substantially

enhanced M uslim w om en’s property

rights com pared w ith those prevailing

under custom .

Yet, in both com m unities som e notable

inequalities rem ain. Both H indu and M us-

lim inheritance law s, for instance, treat

agricultural land differently from otherproperty. The H SA exem pted tenancy

rights in agricultural land from its pur-

view . H indu w om en’s inheritance in ten-

ancy land thus depends on state-level

tenurial law s, w hich in m ost northw est-

ern states specify an order of devolution

that strongly favors m ale agnatic heirs.

W om en com e very low in the order of

heirs, as w as the case under age-old cus-

tom s. Furtherm ore, these inequalitiescannot be challenged on constitutional

grounds because land reform law s com e

under the N inth Schedule of the C onsti-



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 1 5

tution. This constitutional provision w as

m eant to protect land reform law s from

being challenged by entrenched class inter-

ests, but in the process (albeit unw itting-

ly) it also entrenched gender inequality.

Likew ise, the Shariat A ct of 1937,applicable to M uslim s in India, excluded

all agricultural land (both tenanted and

ow ned) from its purview . Subsequently,

som e of the southern states extended

the provisions of this Act to also cover

agricultural land. In all other regions,

how ever, agricultural land, unlike other

property, continues to devolve according

to custom s, tenurial law s, or other pre-

existing law s. In m ost of northw est India,such law s and custom s give w om en’s

property rights very low priority.

A second source of inequality lies in

the differential inheritance shares for m en

and w om en. In the H SA , for instance, al-

though sons and daughters have equal

shares in a m an’s separate property,

there is also the continued recognition of

joint fam ily property in w hich sons but

not daughters have rights by birth. A gainw hile three of the southern states (Andhra

Pradesh, Tam il N adu, K arnataka) and

M aharashtra have am ended this by in-

cluding daughters as coparceners, and

K erala has abolished joint fam ily proper-

ty altogether, all the other states rem ain

highly unequal. In the case of M uslim

law , differential shares arise because

daughters are allow ed only half the share

of sons in any property.In both H indu and M uslim legal sys-

tem s the regional contrast is also strik-

ing. G ender inequality increases as w e

m ove from south India northw ard. A m ong

H indus, for instance, northw est India is

the m ost gender unequal in relation to

w om en’s claim s in both agricultural land

and joint fam ily property, w hile the

southern states provide relative legal

equality on both counts. Central Indiafalls in-betw een. The m ap of w om en’s

legal rights under M uslim law looks

rather sim ilar, w ith a distinct contrast

betw een northw est India and the rest of

the country.

The enorm ity of w om en’s disinheri-

tance (such as that noted in Chen’s sur-

vey, w ith only 13 percent of daughters

inheriting), how ever, cannot be explainedby unequal law s alone. Rather, am ong

the critical factors underlying both the

law and the gap betw een law and prac-

tice are social and adm inistrative biases.

Social bias

Consider first the gap betw een legal

rights and actual ow nership. In m ost com -

m unities that w ere traditionally patrilin-

eal there is strong m ale resistance toendow ing daughters w ith land. A part

from a reluctance to adm it m ore claim -

ants to the m ost valuable form of rural

property, resistance also stem s from so-

cial practices w hich determ ine m arriage

choices and postm arital residence. Tra-

ditionally am ong m atrilineal com m uni-

ties w here daughters had strong claim s

in land (as in K erala and M eghalaya),

postm arital residence w as in or near the

natal hom e. This kept the land under theoverall purview of the natal fam ily, as did

close-kin m arriage. In contrast, in tradi-

tionally patrilineal com m unities, post-

A

s h o k

D

i l w

a l i



1 6 • SEEDS

m arital residence w as patrilocal (the

w om an joined her husband in his natal

hom e) and often in another village. In

addition, in northern India close-kin m ar-

riage w as forbidden am ong m ost com -

m unities, and there w ere social taboosagainst parents asking m arried daugh-

ters for help during econom ic crises.

M any of these custom s continue to-

day, and obstruct w om en’s claim s espe-

cially am ong upper-caste H indus of the

northw est w ho are the strictest in for-

bidding in-village and close-kin m ar-

riages, and in socially restricting parents

from seeking help from m arried daugh-

ters. H ere endow ing a daughter w ithland is seen as bringing virtually no re-

ciprocal benefit, and any land inherited

by her is seen as lost to the fam ily.

D aughters face the greatest opposition

to their inheritance claim s am ong such

com m unities. O pposition is less in south

and northeast India w here in-village and

close-kin m arriages are allow ed, and

parents can, if they need to, seek sup-

port from m arried daughters.M any w om en also forgo their shares

in parental land in favor of brothers. In

the absence of an effective state social

security system , w om en see brothers as

an im portant source of security, espe-

cially in case of m arital breakup, even if

in practice brothers are seldom w illing

to support sisters for extended periods.

Cultural constructions of gender, such

as how a “good sister”w ould behave,and practices such as fem ale seclusion in

som e areas also discourage w om en from

asserting their rights. W here w om en do

not “voluntarily”forgo their inheritance

claim s, m ale relatives have been know n

to file court cases, forge w ills, or resort

to threats and even physical violence.

The gender gap betw een the ow ner-

ship and effective control of land is as

striking as that betw een law and prac-tice. H ere too social practices and

notions of m ale entitlem ents play an

im portant role. For instance, m arriages

in distant villages m ake direct cultiva-

tion by w om en difficult. In m any areas

this is com pounded by illiteracy, high

fertility, and social restrictions on

w om en’s m obility and public interaction.W hile the practice of veiling is geograph-

ically restricted, the i deology of fem ale

seclusion is m ore w idespread and oper-

ates in com plex w ays. E ffectively, it

restricts w om en’s contact w ith m en by

gendering form s of behavior, and gen-

dering public and private space. Indeed

in m any north Indian villages, there are

identifiable spaces w here m en congre-

gate w hich w om en are expected toavoid, such as the m arket place.

This ter r i tor i al gen der i n g of space

reduces a w om an’s m obility and partici-

pation in activities outside the hom e,

especially m arket interaction; lim its her

know ledge of the physical environm ent;

and disadvantages her in seeking infor-

m ation on new agricultural technologies

and practices, in purchasing inputs, and

in selling the product. These restrictionsare strongest in northw est India (and

especially in the plains) and virtually

absent in the south and northeast. O f

course, the cultural construction of gen-

der, w hich defines appropriate fem ale

behavior, is not confined to northw est

India; it also restricts w om en in southern

India. But the strong ideology of purdah

in the northw est circum scribes w om en

in particular w ays.This regional difference in the social

restrictions w om en face is also reflected

in w om en’s labor force participation rates,

w hich are am ong the low est in the north-

w est. A lthough this does not im ply lesser

w orkloads for w om en in aggregate term s,

it does indicate lesser w ork m obility,

low er econom ic visibility, and som etim es

lesser exposure to the range of agricul-

tural tasks.O ther difficulties facing w om en farm -

ers include their lim ited control over



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 1 7

cash and credit for purchasing inputs,

gender biases in extension services, ritu-

al taboos against w om en ploughing, and

dem ands of advance cash paym ents by

tractor or bullock ow ners for ploughing

w om en’s fields. (N o such dem and is usu-ally m ade of m ale farm ers, w ho, even if

they are sm all ow ners, are assum ed to be

creditw orthy.) Taboos against ploughing

increase w om en’s dependence on m ale

help and reduce yields if ploughing is not

done in tim e.

Administrative bias

Com m unity- and fam ily-related social

constraints are com pounded by the un-helpful approach of m any governm ent

functionaries w ho typically share the pre-

vailing social biases and often obstruct the

im plem entation of law s favoring w om en.

The bias is especially prevalent in the re-

cording of daughters’inheritance shares

by village officials. In the northw estern

state of Rajasthan, for instance, a num -

ber of village officials told the author

that although they encouraged w idow s

to claim their shares, they discouraged

daughters from doing so. Village coun-

cils also tend to favor m en on this count.

*

A t one level, all these constraints—legal, social, and adm inistrative—appear

form idable. Yet, as noted throughout,

there is a striking regional variability in

the strength of the constraints (Agarw al

1994). This provides potential entry

points for change. South India has the

few est obstacles. H ere legal rights are

relatively m ore equal, in-village and

close-kin m arriage is allow ed, there is

virtually no purdah, and fem ale laborforce participation is m edium to high.

N orthw est India is the area of m ost diffi-

culty on all these fronts. N ortheast and

central India com e in-betw een. South In-

dia could thus provide an im portant start-

ing point for furthering the goal of gen-

der equality in effective property rights.

D em onstrated achievem ents in one re-

gion could help subsequent attem pts in

other regions.

Government Transfers

W hile m ale bias w ithin fam ilies can to

som e extent be explained in term s of

conflicting interests and social attitudes

in relation to private land, w hy do gov-

ernm ents also transfer public land m ost-

ly to m en? There appear to be several

reasons for this bias.

To begin w ith, there is the com m onassum ption that m en are the prim ary

cultivators and breadw inners and w om en

are the helpers and dependents. There

is also a w idespread social perception

regarding w om en’s appropriate roles and

capabilities. H ere patrilineal biases have

influenced even m atrilineal com m unities.

In M eghalaya, for instance, w hen govern-

m ent officials w ere asked by the author

in 1989 w hy, even in a traditionally m a-trilineal society, they did not allot land to

w om en, they responded: “W om en can-

P

h o t o

D

i v i s i o n , U

n i t e d

N

a t i o n s , N

e w

Y o r k



1 8 • SEEDS

not com e to our office to fill out papers.”

Yet in nearby streets there w ere num er-

ous w om en traders selling their w ares.

M ore generally, land-related policy

continues to be form ulated largely on the

assum ption of a unitary household w ith-in w hich resources transferred to m en

are seen as benefiting the w hole fam ily.

H ow ever, the substantial evidence of

unequal intrafam ily resource allocations,

noted earlier, indicates otherw ise. Inter-

estingly those w ho m ost vociferously op-

pose such resource transfers to w om en

often im plicitly recognize that fam ilies

are far from harm onious or altruistic

institutions. Rather they fear that w om -en w ill leave the fam ily if they have the

fallback option that property ow nership

w ould provide. For exam ple, during the

Constituent A ssem bly debate on the re-

form of inheritance and m arriage law s

suggested in the H indu Code B ill in 1949,

one Congress legislator from W est Bengal

argued: “[If the daughter inherits,] ulti-

m ately the fam ily w ill break up”and

queried: “Are you going to enact a codew hich w ill facilitate the breaking up of

our households?”(GO I 1949: 1011). For-

ty years later, in 1989, follow ing m y pre-

sentation on gender and land rights at a

land reform sem inar at the Indian

Planning C om m ission, the then M inister

of A griculture from northw est India ex-

claim ed: “Are you suggesting that w om en

should be given rights in land? W hat do

w om en w ant? To break up the fam ily?”Ironically, neither legislator need have

feared this if indeed households w ere

m odels of harm ony and altruism , or if its

m em bers had the sam e interests and

preferences.

A concern w ith fam ily unity also lim its

the nature of transfers to w om en in the

rare cases w hen such transfers do take

place. For instance, there is a long-

standing assum ption in public policy thatfarm s w ill be cultivated on a fam ily basis.

A s a result, the em phasis has been m ost-

ly on giving w om en joint titles w ith hus-

bands, and allotting titles to w idow s only

in the absence of adult m en in the fam ily.

In fact, it is fallacious to assum e that

im proving w om en’s econom ic situation w ill

lead to fam ily break-up. The likelihood is

that greater econom ic equality betw eenm en and w om en w ithin the Indian fam i-

ly w ill help imp rove intrahousehold

resource allocation and gender relations

and strengthen fam ily relationships. For

instance, husbands w ill be less likely to

desert or divorce w ives w ho ow n proper-

ty or have other m eans of access to

assets such as land or hom esteads.

What Should Be Done?

G iven their entrenched nature, how can

the noted obstacles to w om en’s land

rights be overcom e? To enhance gender

equality in land and livelihoods, changes

appear necessary on at least five counts:

conceptual, legal, social, institutional,

and infrastructural (see B ox 3).

Conceptual and Empirical

For a start, it appears necessary to chal-

lenge the conventional m odel of a har-

m onious m ale-headed fam ily in analysis

as w ell as policy, and to recognize the

fam ily for w hat it is: a unit of both coop-

eration and conflict, of both sharing and

selfishness, w here w om en and m en can

have different interests, preferences, and

m otivations, w here self-interest alsoenters, and w here allocations are often

unequal and affected by differential bar-

gaining pow er. Indeed, there is an

em erging consensus am ong gender-

aw are econom ists about the validity of

the bargaining approach to understand-

ing intrahousehold dynam ics. But ideo-

logically the unitary household m odel

holds strong. If w e are to think of radical

and effective interventions, it appearscritical to shift to m ore realistic assum p-

tions about intrafam ily behavior w hen

form ulating policy.



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 1 9

It is also im portant to gather system -

atic gender-disaggregated inform ation

on land ow nership and use, both for bet-

Box 3

What Needs to Be Done?

For Improving Women’s Claims

in Private Land1. G ender equality in inheritance law s

2. Legal literacy and legal support serv-

ices

3. Village-level recording of w om en’s

shares

4. Social and econom ic support for w om -

en from outside the fam ily, including

through an effective social security

system

5. C hanging social attitudes

For Improving Women’s Accessto Public Land

G ender equality in public land distribu-

tion in:

1. Land reform schem es

2. R esettlem ent schem es

3 O ther schem es, such as those initiated

under poverty-alleviation program s

For Improving Women’s Accessto Land Via the Market

1. Subsidized credit for land purchase or

lease

2. Land purchase or lease via group form a-

tion, and group cultivation of such land

For Improving the Viability of Women’s Farming Efforts

1. A gricultural extension services and

other infrastructural support for

w om en farm ers2. R esource pooling and group invest-

m ent in capital equipm ent; coopera-

tive m arketing

3. W om en’s effective presence in village

decisionm aking bodies

4. G ender sensitizing through the m edia,

educational institutions, etc., for chang-

ing social norm s and social perceptions.

ter understanding the existing situation

and for effective m onitoring. The A gri-

cultural Census of India and the N ational

Sam ple Surveys (NSS), w hich both carry

out periodic data collection on land ow n-

ership and use, collect only household-level inform ation. There is a case here

for incorporating, in the next N SS round,

a special m odule of questions for obtain-

ing gender-disaggregated intrahouse-

hold inform ation. If necessary, this could

initially be tried on a pilot basis, and sub-

sequently extended to the full survey.

N epal, as noted, has already redesigned

its census to gather such inform ation.

Researchers collecting land-related datain other projects could also be encour-

aged to collect gender-disaggregated in-

form ation on land ow nership and use.

Legal

The legal aspects should include at least

three elem ents.

Amending the inheritance laws:These

w ould include a num ber of changes, such

as bringing agricultural land on par w ithother form s of property in the law s ap-

plicable to H indus as w ell as those ap-

plicable to M uslim s; abolishing the joint

fam ily property provision in the H SA , as

done in K erala; and so on. E ven though

legal changes are not a sufficient condi-

tion for ensuring w om en’s ow nership and

control over property, legal equality pro-

vides an essential tool in the hands of

gender-progressive groups, w ho could thenw ork forde facto equality. Progressive leg-

islation also underlines the State’s com -

m itm ent to the idea of gender equality.

Legal literacy: This is essential to

m ake law s effective and needs to reach

both adults and near-adults. For the lat-

ter, legal literacy could be m ade part of

the curriculum in the senior years of

school.

Recording women’s shares: Villagew om en need support to ensure that their

land shares are correctly recorded by the

relevant village official, and need legal



2 0 • SEEDS

advice and help if they w ish to contest

their claim s w ith either the fam ily or the

adm inistration.

In all these efforts, gender-progres-

sive groups could play a significant role.

Social

U nless and until w om en’s claim s begin to

be seen as socially legitim ate, parents

w ho have a m ale bias are likely to use

the right of m aking w ills to disinherit

daughters, even if the law s are m ade

fully gender-equal. Sim ilarly, efforts are

needed to change conservative or nega-

tive perceptions about w om en’s appro-

priate roles and abilities, and to chal-

lenge social norm s that restrict w om en’s

public m obility and interaction.

For instance, the problem posed by

w om en’s m arriage outside the natal vil-

lage arises only partly from the distances

involved and m ostly from social strictures

on w om en’s m obility, and social percep-

tions about w om en’s lesser abilities and

deservedness. M en are seldom denied

their property rights even if they m igrate

to distant parts (as m any m en, especially

younger ones, do to seek jobs in cities).

A lthough social attitudes, norm s, and

perceptions are not easy to alter, certain

types of interventions could further the

process. For instance, governm ent initia-

tives to transfer land titles and infrastruc-

turalsupport to w om en farm ers w ould

have a notable dem onstration effect. In-

terventions to strengthen extrafam ily

econom ic support for w om en, including

through a governm ent social security

schem e, w ould help reduce w om en’s de-

pendence on relatives and especially on

brothers in w hose favor w om en often

forgo their claim s. O verall, econom ic sup-

portw ould also enhance w om en’s ability

to challenge inequalities in the fam ily

and com m unity. In so far as the popular

m edia is one of the arenas w here genderroles and relations are both projected

and constructed, m edia interventions in

a gender-progressive direction w ould

also help transform social attitudes.

Institutional

Reform s in this area need to be holistic

and innovative. For instance, policym ak-

ers generally assum e that farm s w ill be

cultivated on a fam ily basis. H ence to the

extent that the governm ent is beginning

to recognize that w om en farm ers too

have legitim ate claim s in land, joint titles

(titles held jointly by husbands and

w ives) are m ostly favored. Such titles

have both positive and negative im plica-

tions. O n the positive side, clearly get-

ting som e land is better for w om en than

having none. But on the negative side,

joint titles also present w om en w ith sev-

eral potential problem s. W om en often

find it difficult to gain control over the

produce, or to bequeath the land as they

w ant, or to claim their shares in case of

m arital conflict. A s som e rural w om en

explained: “By being tied to the land w e

w ould be tied to the m an, even if he beat

us”(author’s interview s, 1989). A lso

w ith joint titles w ives cannot easily exer-

cise their priorities in land use if these

priorities happen to differ from those of

their husbands. M ost im portantly, joint

titles constrain w om en from exploring

alternative institutional arrangem ents

for cultivation and m anagem ent.

Individual titles, by contrast, give

w om en greater flexibility and control

over the land. A t the sam e tim e, individ-

ual w om en often lack funds for equip-

m ent or inputs, and w here holdings are

very sm all individual investm ent in

equipm ent can prove uneconom ical.

Individual w om en also face considerable

pressure from m ale relatives w ho w ant

to acquire or control the land.

H ow ever, i nsti tut i onal solut i ons to

these pr oblems can be foun d , provided

w om en’s land claim s are not tied to theirspouses, and i f the un i t of in vestment

and cul t ivat ion is not lim ited to the



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 2 1

household, indeed i s n ot defi n ed by the

household at all. Table 2 sum m arizes

these alternatives.

O ne alternative w ould be to help

w om en w ho ow n individual holdings

(w hether obtained through inheritance,

purchase, or from the governm ent) to

invest in capital inputs jointly w ith other

w om en, w hile m anaging production indi-

vidually. M ale farm ers have done this in

several regions,by jointly investing, say,

in a tubew ell w here they have contiguous

plots. This reduces the individual cost of

m ajor investm ents. W om en ow ners of

plots could be encouraged to do the

sam e. In fact, in Bodhgaya, a governm ent

schem e provided funds to groups of five

farm ers each to invest in pum psets. Tw o

such groups w ere constituted of w om en

farm ers alone. A lthough there are no fol-

low -up reports on how w ell this w orked,

it w as a step in the right direction.

A second type of arrangem ent could

be for w om en to purchase land jointly

w hile ow ning it individually and farm ing

it collectively. O ne of the m ost interest-

ing exam ples of this is the D eccan

D evelopm ent Society (D D S), an N G Ow orking w ith poor w om en’s collectives

in som e 75 villages in M edak district—a

drought-prone tract of A ndhra Pradesh

(AP) in southern India. D D S has helped

w om en from landless fam ilies establish

claim s on land, through purchase and

lease, using various governm ent schem es

(for a detailed discussion, see M enon

1996; Satheesh 1997; and A garw al 2001).

O ne such schem e of the Scheduled

Caste D evelopm ent Corporation in A P

provides subsidized loans to landless

scheduled caste w om en for buying agri-

cultural land. Catalyzed by D D S, w om en

form a group, apply for the loan after

identifying the land they w ant to buy,

and divide the purchased land am ong

them selves, each w om an being registered

as the ow ner of about an acre. Cultiva-

tion, how ever, is done jointly by each

group. Today 24 w om en’s groups in 14

villages are jointly cultivating 474 acres

of purchased land. In the process of

w orking together, they have learned to

survey and m easure land, hire tractors,

travel to distant tow ns to m eet govern-

m ent officials, obtain inputs, and m arket

the produce. M oreover, D D S has system -

atically prom oted organic farm ing in all

its crop cultivation schem es. W om en alsogrow a com bination of crops (rather than

a single crop), w hich reduces the risk of

Table 2 Women Managing Land Under Various Institutional Arrangements

Examples of actualForm of control Source of land Investment Cultivation Use practice

Conventional approach

I ndividual women I nher ited or purchased I ndividual I ndividual Crops Typical

Alternatives 1. I ndividual I nher ited, purchased, Joint (w ith I ndividual Crops Bodhgaya (Bihar )

w omen or government t ransfer other w omen) (government promoted)

2. I ndividual ow nership, Group purchase of Joint (w ith Joint Crops Deccan Developmentgroup management pr ivate land by women, other w omen) Society (DDS) inby w omen divided into individually Andhra Pradesh

owned plots

3. Group of Group lease of pr ivate Joint Joint Crops DDS, BRACw omen land Vegetables Kerala

4. Group of Male ow ners; cult ivat ion I ndividual I ndividual Crops DDS’s Communityw omen overseen by women’s Grain Fund Scheme

groups

5. Group of Government t ransfer Joint Joint Crops Untr ied so farw omen to w omen’s groups



2 2 • SEEDS

total crop failure and provides a m ore

balanced diet.

Joint purchase and cultivation of land

by w om en’s groups could now be encour-

aged in other states as w ell, on the basis

of other governm ent schem es. For in-stance, a 1995–96 central governm ent

schem e in India provides loans to the

poor for land purchase as part of the In-

tegrated Rural D evelopm ent Program m e.

A third possibility lies in w om en leas-

ing land as a group and cultivating it

jointly. U nder one of DD S’s program s,

w om en in A P lease in land from private

ow ners. Initiated in 1989, the program is

now said to cover 623 acres across 52villages. U nder another of D D S’s efforts,

w om en’s groups have used loan m oney

available via the governm ent’s poverty

alleviation schem e, D W A CRA (Develop-

m ent of W om en and C hildren in R ural

A reas), for leasing in land. Com m ittees

of w om en exam ine the lease proposals,

assess land quality, keep records of each

w om an’s w ork input, and ensure equi-

table distribution of w ages and produce.W om en w ho fail to turn up for collective

labor are subject to fines (such as tw o

days’w age equivalent) decided by the

w om en in their w eekly group m eeting.

Persistent default can lead to exclusion

from the group (author’s interview s,

Septem ber 1998). Several w om en’s groups

have used the revolving fund provided

under this schem e to collectively lease

in and cultivate land. A n assessm ent in1995 show ed that each w om an partici-

pant received enough cereal and pulses

to feed the w hole fam ily for a m onth, in

addition to receiving harvest w ages.

D W A CRA loans have seldom been used

in such innovative w ays.

D D S is not the only N G O encouraging

land leasing by w om en’s groups. In K er-

ala, som e w om en’s groups are leasing

land during the off-season for vegetablecultivation. In B angladesh, w om en’s

groups belonging to the B angladesh Ru-

ral A dvancem ent Com m ittee (BR A C)

grow crops on leased-in land.

A fourth type of institutional arrange-

m ent is of w om en’s groups m anaging and

overseeing cultivation on land ow ned by

m en. A gain D D S provides an illustrativeexam ple. H ere w om en are jointly over-

seeing the cultivation of privately ow ned

land that had been lying m ostly fallow .

M ost of this w as ceiling surplus land of

poor quality distributed by the govern-

m ent to landless m en. The land rem ained

largely uncultivated, w hile the fam ilies

depended heavily on the public distribu-

tion system (PD S), w hich w as w oefully in-

adequate for providing food security. Sup-ported by the M inistry of Rural D evelop-

m ent, D D S initiated this program to bring

fallow land under the plough, by extend-

ing subsidized loans to the ow ners. U n-

der the schem e, each participating farm -

er can enter tw o acres, and get loans in

installm ents over three years. In return,

over five years, the farm er gives a speci-

fied percentage of the grain he harvests

to a Com m unity Grain Fund (CG F). Com -m ittees of w om en m ake sure that the

farm ers use the loans for cultivation and

collect the harvest share for the C G F.

This grain is sold at a low price to the

poorest households in each village. The

CG F thus serves as a form of alternative

PD S. This project is now w orking in 43

villages, covering 3,263 acres and 2,247

m arginaland sm all farm ers, and is esti-

m ated to have produced enough extragrain to provide 3 m illion total extra

m eals or 1,000 extra m eals per fam ily.

A fifth type of arrangem ent, untried

to date, is one w here poor rural w om en

could hold gr oup r i ghts over land dis-

tributed by the governm ent, or otherw ise

acquired by w om en (A garw al 1994). E f-

fectively, the w om en w ould be stakehold-

ers in a kind of land trust. E ach w om an

in the group w ould have use rights butnot the right to alienate the land. The

daughters-in-law and daughters of such



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 2 3

households w ho are resident in the vil-

lage w ould share these use rights. D augh-

ters leaving the village on m arriage w ould

lose such rights but could re-establish

them by rejoining the production efforts,

should they return, say on divorce or

w idow hood. In other w ords, land accessw ould be linked form ally w ith residence

and w orking on the land, as w as the case

under som e traditional system s w hen

land w as held collectively by a clan.

In these various institutional alterna-

tives, w om en are not just adjunct w ork-

ers on fam ily farm s; they have direct

control over production and distribu-

tion. Cooper ati on i s between w omen

w i th common i n ter ests, and n ot be-

tween households . The arrangem ents en-

able w om en to gain access to land

through the m arket or through the com -

m unity—access that w om en rarely have

as individuals. W here linked w ith land

pooling, joint investm ent, and collective

m anagem ent, these arrangem ents can

also help overcom e any problem s of

sm all size and fragm entation.

M oreover, a collective approach toland m anagem ent helps w om en m obilize

funds for capital investm ent on the farm ,

take advantage of econom ies of scale,

and cooperate in labor sharing and pro-

duct m arketing. In addition, if the land is

held under a system of group rights (as

in the fifth alternative) it w ould strength-

en w om en’s ability to w ithstand pressure

from relatives and retain control over theland; and it w ould circum vent the prob-

lem of inheritance, since the w om en w ould

not have rights of alienation (see Box 4).

It w ould also circum vent the issue of

outside-village m arriages, since w om en’s

rights w ould be based on residence. In

1995, w hen the author asked a num ber

of w om en elected to village panchayats

in M adhya Pradesh w hich arrangem ent

they felt m ight be of m ost advantage tow om en—individual titles, joint titles

w ith husbands, or group rights w ith

other w om en—m ost strongly supported

the idea of group rights (M adhya

Pradesh Chief M inister’s consultation

m eeting in 1995 on the state’s proposed

Policy for W om en).

Som e policym akers and scholars ar-

gue against cooperative farm ing by point-

ing to India’s failed efforts of the 1950sand early 1960s. H ow ever, the focus then

w as on households, and on m ale heads as

V i k s a t , G

u j a r a t



2 4 • SEEDS

efforts from disparate village households

to disadvantaged individuals w ith com -

m on interests. Focusing on the effects on

poor w om en could open an im portant w in-

dow of opportunity to revive land reform ,

com m unity cooperation, and joint farm -ing in a radically new form .

For trying out som e of these institu-

tional arrangem ents the southern states

representatives of households. N ot only

did gender receive no m ention, but inad-

equate attention w as paid also to socio-

econom ic inequalities betw een house-

holds, w ith the result that cooperatives

w ere often large-farm er dom inated. Acrucial difference in the approaches out-

lined here is that the institutional form s

discussed shift the focus of cooperative

The follow ing quotes capture the changesw om en have experienced:

Our hu sband s used to dri n k and beat

us. Now the buffal oes ar e ou r s, the

land i s our s and they ar e worki ng

too. Nobody i s taki n g advan tage of us

women. (Ratnam m a, A lgole village, cited

in H all 1999)

Now [ wi th land ] we have the cour age

and confi dence to come ou t an d deal

with people and property by our-

selves. (Chilkam m a, K rishnapur village,cited in H all 1999)

Now w e are self-su ffi cien t. [We ar e]

able to get food an d clothi n g…. Pr e-

vi ously we had nothi ng and had to

say yes to everythi ng; now we have sta-

tus because we have the lan d. (Pasta-

pur w om en’s group, cited in H all 1999)

Ini t ial l y the men sai d: If women go to

meeti n gs, what shoul d w e men do—

wash th e di shes? We sai d, men an d

women should w ork equall y… Ar e

we the only persons bor n to work?

Earli er we ate half a r oti , now w e eat

one. (Sharifabi to author 1998)

[Wi th group cul t ivat ion] women can

shar e the pr ofi t and the responsibi li -

ty. In i ndi vidu al cult i vat ion, di f fer-

ent women have different levels of

agr icu l tura l knowledge and re-

sour ces for i npu ts. In collecti ve cu lti -

vation they can make un equal con-

tr i buti ons. Those wi th l ess can com-

pensate the others by taking a reduced share of the harvest, or by

r epayi ng them i n i n stallments. Di ffer -

en t levels of con tr i buti on ar e fi n e, because the women al l kn ow what each

other’s resour ces are. (Chinanarsam m a,

Pastapur village, cited in H all 1999)

They [ the hi gh-caste peopl e] u sed to

call u s wi th the caste name wh i ch

was very derogatory. They would

also cal l u s i n the si ngul ar for m.

Now they pu t the mother ly [ r espect-

ful ] su ffix and gi ve us equal seats….

It i s onl y because we hav e an orga-

ni zat ion that they [ the land lords] won’t touch us—that th ey ar e scar ed

to cr oss u s. (Ratnam m a, A lgole village,

cited in H all 1999)

[We] foun d that du r i n g the cou r se of

meeti n g, we became a ki n d of mu tu -

al su pport group. If any w oman fel l

i ll or had a pr oblem, the other s woul d

tr y an d help. So it became a habi t to

meet, and w e were not afrai d of fam-

i ly di sapproval . Gradu al ly the fami -

ly r eali zed the importan ce of our

meeti n gs to us and fell si len t. (Singlew om en’s group to author, 1998)

The fir st sense of empowermen t came

to women and men i n the comm un i -

ty when the women star ted leasi ng in

lan d. Men , and especial ly power ful

men i n the vil lages, had the per cep-

ti on that women wer e useless, that as

agr i cultur al labour er s they coul d only

work u nder super vi si on. Thi s per -

cepti on was sli ghtly i ntern ali zed by

the women . The land leases compl ete- ly debun ked this view. (P.V. Satheesh,

D irector of D D S, cited in H all 1999)

Box 4

The Deccan Development Society:Impact ofWomen Acquiring Land and Farming Collectively



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 2 5

could be starting points, since here both

law s and the social context (as noted)

are relatively less gender-biased than in

the northern states.

Infrastructural

The success of w om en’s farm ing efforts,

w hether as individuals or groups, can

depend crucially on their access to infra-

structure. A s noted earlier, there are sig-

nificant gender (in addition to class) in-

equalities in access to credit, labor, other

production inputs (including hired equip-

m ent), and inform ation on new agri-

cultural technologies. Poor w om en culti-vating very sm all plots have the m ost dif-

ficult tim e in this regard.

Prevailing gender biases in the delivery

of governm ent infrastructure thus need

to be rem oved. To som e degree, this could

be done by em ploying m ore w om en in

agricultural input and inform ation del-

ivery system s (w om en extension agents

are often recom m ended for this purpose),

but such system s also need a reorien-tation of m ale functionaries so that they

too contact and assist w om en farm ers.

A lso, dependence on the State alone

m ay not be enough, or have the sam e

potential for success in reaching w om en

as nongovernm ental initiatives. For in-

stance, in credit delivery to poor w om en,

N G O s such as the G ram een B ank in B an-

gladesh and the Self E m ployed W om en’s

A ssociation (SE W A ) in India have beenm ore successful than governm ent agen-

cies. The role of N G O s could sim ilarly be

im portant in providing technical infor-

m ation, production inputs, and m arket-

ing facilities to groups of w om en farm ers.

BRA C in Bangladesh is a case in point:

although it does not focus only on w om -

en, it provides a range of relevant infor-

m ational, technical, and m arket support

services to its m em bers. A system aticprom otion of w om en’s cooperatives for

production inputs and m arketing could

also be considered.

Collective Action

I f today… [ they] who fou ght for the In-

dependence of Ind i a ar e to be den i ed

thei r ju st r i ghts, then ou r har d-ear n ed

freedom i s n o more than a han dful of dust.

—Padm aja N aidu, Congress Legislator

(Parliam entary debates over the H indu

Code B ill, 1951)

For init iating and sustaining the

complexity of changes required to

strengthen women’s land claims in

Indi a, the commi tted i nvolvement of a

r ange of actor s, and especial ly of a wi de

spectrum of women, w i ll be necessar y .

It w ill require various form s of collective

action by w om en, both in relation to

State policy and its im plem entation, and

in relation to land access via the m arket,

the com m unity, and the fam ily. Such col-

lective action should also seek to bring

into its fold gender-progressive elem ents

(m en and w om en) w ithin the State,

political parties, and civil society groups.

A fter over tw o decades of the w om -

en’s m ovem ent in India, m any now rec-ognize the im portance of collective action.

But m uch of the effort to enhance w om -

en’s econom ic em pow erm ent has been

concentrated on issues other than land

(or property), such as better w ages,

group credit schem es, m icro-enterprise

developm ent, and so on. G roup action is

now needed for w om en to gain access to

land, in recognition of its central im por-

tance in m ost rural w om en’s livelihoods,w hether as the prim ary or a supplem en-

tary incom e source.

The local bureaucracy w ould be m ore

likely to register individual w om en’s

claim s in fam ily land if there w ere collec-

tive pressure from gender-progressive

groups. Such organizations could also

provide w om en w ith vital inform ation

about the law s and legal support, if nec-

essary. In fact, a w om an’s group in theSantal Parganas is providing both legal

support and financial help to w om en w ho

w ish to contest their claim s (personal



2 6 • SEEDS

com m unication from social activist N itya

Rao, Bom bay, 1997). Sim ilarly, SE W A in

G ujarat gives w om en loans to help them

register their nam es as joint ow ners in

their husbands’land (personal com m u-

nication, Renana Jhabvala, 1997).G ender-progressive organizations could

also strengthen w om en’s bargaining

position through econom ic and social

support structures that reduce w om en’s

dependence on m ale relatives, especial-

ly their brothers in w hose favor w om en

often forfeit their claim s As a w om an

m em ber of B R A C tellingly asserted:

“W ell the organization is [now ] m y ‘broth-

er’”(H unt 1983: 38). Such organizationscould also help w om en dem and that the

governm ent put in place a w ell-struc-

tured social security system .

Equally, a collective challenge by w om -

en can facilitate som e change in restric-

tive social norm s. E ven fem ale seclusion

practices can be subject to change

through group challenge. In fact w om en’s

attem pts to collectively challenge purdah

go back a long w ay. In India in the 1920sand 1930s, for instance, m any individuals

and organizations, both H indu and M us-

lim , highlighted the burden and con-

straints im posed on w om en by purdah;

and resolutions against the practice w ere

also passed by a num ber of groups. In the

city of Calcutta, an anti-purdah day be-

cam e an annual event in the 1930s, orga-

nized by the H indu M arw ari business

com m unity (w hich prescribed strictpurdah). In 1940, som e 5,000 w om en

attended an anti-purdah conference.

The w om an president of the conference

arrived in a car driven through the city

by a M arw ari w om an, follow ed by a pro-

cession of M arw ari w om en on foot led by

girls riding on horseback (Forbes 1981)!

Today the challenge to purdah con-

tinues both in India and in other parts of

South A sia. In Bangladesh, for instance,w hile econom ic exigency has created the

need to challenge purdah, group solidar-

ity has strengthened w om en’s ability to

sustain the challenge. As a w om en’s group

organized by B RA C noted in the 1980s:

They said. . . [we] are ruining the

pr esti ge of the vi l lage an d breaki n g

pu r dah .... Now nobody talks il l of u s.

They say: “They have formed a gr oup and now they earn money, i t is

good.” (cited in Chen 1983: 177, 165)

In fact, the experiences of the

G ram een Bank, BRA C, SE W A , and m any

other N G O s w orking w ith poor w om en,

using a group approach, suggest that

som e restrictive social norm s could be

challenged successfully as a by-product

of form ing groups for the m ore effective

delivery of econom ic program s.G roup support for village w om en can

be provided both by separately constitut-

ed groups w hich give w om en specialized

help, and by organizations com prised of

village w om en them selves. The presence

of m ore w om en in the village panchay-

ats, as a result of the one-third reserva-

tion for w om en provided by the 73rd

Constitutional A m endm ent in India in

1992, can also strengthen rural w om en’shands. A lthough sim ply having m ore

w om en in such bodies cannot guarantee

gender-progressive program s, the record

of elected all-w om en village panchayats

preceding the A m endm ent, as in M aha-

rashtra and M adhya Pradesh, leaves

room for optim ism : w om en in these bod-

ies w ere found to be m ore sensitive to

w om en’s concerns and to give priority to

their needs in w ays that m ale panchayatm em bers typically did not (Gandhi and

Shah 1991). W om en’s presence in posi-

tions of authority also has a favorable

dem onstration effect and can change

social attitudes and perceptions about

w om en’s roles. M oreover, village w om en

are m ore likely to take their grievances

to w om en representatives than to all-

m ale bodies.

H ow ever,su pport for women’s lan d claims on a lar ge scale, and beyond

locali zed exp er i men ts, wi ll n eed mu ch

more br oad-based collecti ve acti on by



N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 2 7

women . For building such cooperation,

econom ic and social differences betw een

w om en m ight prove to be obstacles on

certain counts. But there are still signif-

icant areas of m utual benefit that cut

across class/caste lines, around w hichsuccessful cooperation w ould be possi-

ble, and w hich could serve as starting

points. O ne is legal reform . W om en of

both rich and poor peasant households

w ith a stake in fam ily land stand to gain

from gender-equal inheritance law s.

M any people m istakenly assum e that the

percentage of such w om en is sm all. In

fact it is substantial: despite the highly

skew ed distribution of land, som e 89percent of rural Indian households ow n

som e land, even if m ost ow n only sm all

plots. E qually, challenging restrictive so-

cial norm s w ill bring benefits for w om en

of both w ell-off and poor households.

The experience of the w om en’s m ove-

m ent in India also indicates that w om en

of different socioeconom ic backgrounds

can cooperate strategically for legal re-

form , as they did in cam paigns to am enddow ry and rape law s, despite differences

in ideologies, agendas, and social com -

position. M oreover, m any urban m iddle-

class w om en activists have played and

continue to play im portant roles in pro-

m oting poor rural w om en’s econom ic and

social concerns, such as supporting their

cam paigns for higher w ages, and their

program s for w asteland m anagem ent,

credit, and sm all-enterprise developm ent.In m ore recent years, there have been

also som e significant cases of m iddle-

class activists prom oting poor w om en’s

land claim s, as in the B odhgaya m ove-

m ent in Bihar, the Shetkari Sanghatana

in M aharashtra, and the D D S in A ndhra

Pradesh. These experiences again indi-

cate that cooperation betw een w om en,

w hich cuts across econom ic and social

heterogeneity, is possible on a num ber ofissues and in varied contexts.

A ll said, there now appears to be a

favorable clim ate for raising the question

of w om en’s independent claim s to land

and livelihood, and it is im perative to do

so, given the noted im portance of land in

w om en’s lives. Som e N G O s w hich earlier

concentrated on other issues are now

beginning to focus on w om en’s propertyissues, including agricultural land and

hom estead plots in rural areas, and

dw elling houses in urban areas. Cases in

point are SE W A in G ujarat, A ction India

in D elhi, and the A ssociation for Land

Reform and D evelopm ent in B angladesh.

Several grassroots groups and develop-

m ent organizations in South A sia have

held w orkshops on the question of w om -

en and land in recent years. In N epal am ovem ent has been ongoing for several

years spearheaded by fem inist law yers

for reform ing gender-unequal inheri-

tance law s. A num ber of South A sian

w om en’s groups also have been arguing

for gender equality in inheritance law s

by em phasizing that their constitutions

prom ise equal treatm ent of w om en and

m en. M oreover, w om en’s groups that

have not raised the issue of w om en’sland and property claim s directly have

still, over the years, spread an aw are-

ness of gender concerns. This has creat-

ed an environm ent w ithin w hich w om -

en’s claim s to land can be placed m ore

centrally in the arena of public con-

cerns—som ething that w as not easy to

do tw enty years ago.

A w indow of opportunity is also pro-

vided by the grow ing attention beinggiven to w atershed developm ent and

localized irrigation schem es by a num ber

of N G O s and som e governm ent agen-

cies, in several parts of South A sia. But

once land becom es m ore valuable w ith

the availability of irrigation, w om en’s

land claim s are unlikely to be recog-

nized. The opportune tim e to establish

w om en’s claim s is during the process of

developing the w atershed or irrigationfacility, not afterw ard.

M oreover, as noted, there needs to be

a shift aw ay from the overw helm ing pre-



2 8 • SEEDS

occupation of m ost rural N G O s, donor

agencies, and governm ents w ith m icro-

credit delivery tow ard the creation of

productive assets, especially landed as-

sets, in w om en’s ow n hands, and tow ard

enhancing w om en’s capacities as farm -ers. In this context, w om en’s rights in

arable land and hom esteads need to

becom e a central part of the developm ent

discourse. H ere developm ent agencies

that fund research or grassroots action

could also play a significant positive role.

In seeking change, the aforem entioned

regional variations in w om en’s social po-

sition and hence in the extent of opposi-

tion to w om en’s land claim s could be putto useful effect, for instance by initially

building a m om entum for change in re-

gions of less opposition (such as in the

southern states of India), and then w ork-

ing for change in the m ore resistant

regions.

Finally, given that this issue is signifi-

cant and relevant for w om en in m any

countries, there is scope here for sharing

experiences and strategies for change;for building horizontal linkages betw een

groups w ith sim ilar goals; and for inter-

national coalitions both betw een South

A sian countries and betw een South A sia

and other parts of the globe. This w ould

be facilitated by em erging international

support for w om en’s claim s in property.

The Convention on the E lim ination of A ll

Form s of D iscrim ination A gainst W om en

(CE D AW ) has focused on equality in

property as one of its im portant direc-tives. The U nited N ations Conference on

H um an Settlem ents at its Istanbul m eet-

ing in 1996 also focused centrally on

w om en and land. Since then the H uairou

C om m ission in conjunction w ith the

U N D P, H abitat, W E D O , and the W om en’s

Caucus of the U N Com m ission on Sus-

tainable D evelopm ent has held several

discussions w ith w om en’s groups w orld-

w ide, to exam ine regional progress in en-hancing w om en’s access to land and prop-

erty.The H uairou Com m ission is also re-

questing support for a global cam paign to

prom ote w om en’s claim s in land and prop-

erty, and in housing rights for the urban

poor under the auspices of the U nited

N ations Center for H um an Settlem ents.

A ll these national, regional, and inter-

national efforts that are beginning to

em erge suggest that today the clim ate iscertainly m ore favorable than it w as tw o

decades ago, for responding positively to

the concerns raised by poor w om en in

W est Bengal: “W hy don’t w e get a title?

A re w e not peasants?”

I n d i a n

A

g r i c u l t u r a l R

e s e a r c h I

n s t i t u t e , D

e l h i



References

Agarw al, B. (1994):A Fi eld of One’s Own : Gender and Land Ri ghts i n South Asi a (Cam bridge:Cam bridge U niversity Press).

A garwal, B. (1995): “W om en’s Legal Rights inA gricultural Land,”Economi c and Poli t ical Weekly , Bom bay, Review of A griculture, M arch.

Agarw al, B. (2001): “Gender and Land Revisited:Exploring N ew Prospects via the State, Fam ilyand M arket,”paper written for the U N RISD con-ference on Agrarian R eform , G eneva, N ovem ber.

Alaka and Chetna (1987): “W hen W om en G et Land —A Report from Bodhgaya,”Manushi 40: 25–26.

Banerjee, A. (2000): “Land Reform : Prospects andStrategies,”m im eo, D epartm ent of E conom ics,M assachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam -bridge, M A .

Caldw ell, J. C., P. H . Reddy, and P. Caldw ell (1988):The Causes of Demographi c Chan ge: Exper i - menta l Research in South Ind ia (M adison:

U niversity of W isconsin Press).Chadha, G . K . (1992): “N on-farm Sector in India’s

Rural Econom y: Policy, Perform ance and G row thProspects,”m im eo, Centre for Regional D e-velopm ent, Jaw aharlal N ehru U niversity, D elhi.

Chakravartty, R. (1980):Commu ni sts i n In d ian Women ’s Movemen ts: 1940–1950 (New D elhi:People’s Publishing H ouse).

Chen, M . A. (1983):A Qu i et Revolu ti on: Women i n Tran si t ion i n Rur a l Bangladesh (Cam -bridge: Schenkm an Publishing Co.).

Chen, M . (2000): Per petual Mour ni ng: Wi dow- hood in Rur a l Ind ia (Philadelphia: U niversity

of Pennsylvania Press).Cooper, Adrienne. (1988): Shar ecroppin g and

Sharecroppers’ Struggles in Bengal 1930– 1950 (Calcutta:K . P. Bagchi & Com pany).

Custers, Peter. (1987):Women i n the Tebhaga Upr i si ng: Rur al Poor Women an d Revolu- ti onar y Leader shi p 1946–47 (Calcutta: N ayaProkash).

D uraisam y, P. (1992): “G ender, Intrafam ily Alloca-tions of Resources and Child Schooling in SouthIndia,”Econom ic G row th Center D iscussionPaper N o. 667, N ew H aven, CT: Yale U niversity.

D w yer, D . and J. Bruce (eds.) (1988):A Home Di- vi ded: Women and In come in the Thi rd World (Stanford: Stanford U niversity Press).

E lson, D . (1995): “G ender Aw areness in M odelingStructural A djustm ent,”World Development

23 (11): 1851–1868.

Forbes, G . (1981): “The Indian W om en’s M ove-m ent: A Struggle for W om en’s Rights or Na-tional Liberation?”in G . M inault (ed.),The Ex- tended Fami ly: Women and Poli t i cal Part i - ci pat ion in Ind i a and Pakistan (Colum bia,M O : South Asia Books), pp. 49–82.

G andhi, N . and N . Shah (1991):The Issues at Stake: Theory and Practice in the Contemporary Wom- en’s Movement i n In di a (Delhi: Kali for W om en).

G overnm ent of India (G O I) (1949): ConstituentA ssem bly of India (Legislative) D ebates, II, Part2, D ebate on the H indu C ode Bill, 25 F ebruary,1 M arch.

G upta, J. (1993): “Land, D ow ry, Labour: W om en inthe C hanging E conom y of M idnapur,”Social Scientist 21 (9–11): 74–90.

H all, R. (1999): “Alternative M eans by W hichW om en H ave A cquired Land: A n Indian CaseStudy,”draft m im eo, Institute of E conom ic

G row th, D elhi.H unt, H . I. (1983): “Intervention and Change in the

Lives of Rural Poor W om en in B angladesh: AD iscussion Paper,”Bangladesh R ural Advance-m ent Com m ittee (D haka).

IFA D (2001): Assessmen t of Ru r al Poverty i n

Asia and the Pacific Region: Draft Final Repor t , International Fund for A griculturalD evelopm ent, Asia and the Pacific D ivision.

K um ar, S. K . (1978): “Role of the H ouseholdEconom y in C hild N utrition at Low Incom es,”O ccasional Paper No. 95, D ept. of A griculturalEconom ics, Cornell U niversity.

M anim ala (1983): “Zam een K enkar? Jote O nkar!W om en’s Participation in the Bodhgaya LandStruggle,”Manushi 14: 2–16.

M eer, S. (ed.) (1997):Women, Lan d an d Author-

i ty: Per specti ves from South Afr i ca (U K andIreland: O xfam )

M enon, G . (1996): “Re-negotiating G ender: E n-abling W om en to Claim Their Right to LandResources,”paper presented at the N G OForum of the U N C onference on H um anSettlem ents–H abitat II, Istanbul, June.

Q uisum bing, A . (1996): “M ale-Fem ale D ifferences

in A gricultural Productivity: M ethodologicalIssues and E m pirical E vidence,”Wor ld Devel-

opment 24 (10): 1579–1595.

Rahm an, O . M . and J. M enken (1990): “The Im pactof M arital Status and Living A rrangem ents onO ld A ge Fem ale M ortality in R ural Bangla-desh,”Paper No. 1, D ept. of Epidem iology, H ar-vard School of Public H ealth, and PopulationStudies C enter, U niversity of Pennsylvania.

Rosenzw eig, M . R. and K . I. W olpin (1985): “Spe-cific E xperience, H ousehold Structure, andIntergenerational Transfers: Farm Fam ily Landand Labor Arrangem ents in D evelopingCountries,”

Quar ter ly Jour nal of Economics 100, Supplem ent: 961–987.

Satheesh, P. V. (1997): “H istory in the M aking:W om en D esign and M anage an A lternative Pub-lic D istribution System ,”For ests, Tr ees and People , N ew sletter No. 34, Septem ber.

Shankar, K . (1990): Lan d Tran sfer s: A Case Study (D elhi: G ian P ublishing H ouse).

Thom as, D . (1990): “Intra-household R esourceAllocation: A n Inferential A pproach,”Journal of Hum an Resour ces 25 (4): 635–663.

U dry, C., J. H oddinott, H . Alderm an, and L. H addad(1995): “G ender D ifferentials in Farm Produc-

tivity: Im plications for H ousehold Efficiency andAgricultural Policy,”Food Poli cy 20 (5): 407–423.

Verdery, K . (1996):What Was Soci ali sm, and What Comes Next? (Princeton, N J: PrincetonU niversity Press).

N u m b e r 21, 2 00 2 • 2 9


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/are-we-not-peasants-too 33/353 0 • SEEDS

Editor:Sandy SchilenEditorial and Production Coordinator: M onica Rocha

Designer: M ike Vosika

Cover Photo:Preeti Schaden

SEEDS Advisory Committee

J udith Bruce(Population Council)

Marty Chen (H arvard U niversity)

Monique Cohen (U SA ID )

Caren Grown (International Center for Research on W om en)

Ann Leonard (Consultant) J oyce Malombe (New H am pshire College)

Katharine McKee (U SA ID )

Aruna Rao (Consultant)

Mildred Warner (Cornell U niversity)Corinne Whitaker (International W om en’s H ealth Coalition)

N o. 11 Port Sudan Sm all Scale E nterprise

Program —Sudan (English)

N o. 12 The M uek-Lek W om en’s D airy Proj-

ect in Thailand (English)

N o. 13 Child Care: M eeting the N eeds of

W orking M others and T heir C hildren

(English, Spanish)

N o. 14 Breaking N ew G round: Reaching O ut

to W om en Farm ers in W estern Zam -

bia (E nglish, Spanish, French)

N o. 15 Self-E m ploym ent as a M eans to

W om en’s Econom ic Self-Sufficiency:

W om en Venture’s Business D evelop-

m ent Program (English)

N o. 16 W asteland D evelopm ent and the E m -

pow erm ent of W om en: The SA RT H I

E xperience (French, H indi)

N o. 17 Supporting W om en F arm ers in the

G reen Zones of M ozam bique (English)N o. 18 O ut of the Shadow s: H om ebased

W orkers O rganize for International

Recognition (E nglish)

N o. 19 E m pow ering the N ext G eneration:

G irls of the M aqattam G arbage Set-

tlem ent (E nglish, A rabic)

N o. 20 W om en Street Vendors: The Road to

Recognition (E nglish)

N o. 2 H anover Street: A n E xperim ent to

Train W om en in W elding and Car-

pentry—Jam aica (E nglish, Spanish)

N o. 3 M arket W om en’s Cooperatives: G iv-

ing W om en C redit—N icaragua (Span-

ish,French)

N o. 4 W om en and H andicrafts: M yth and

Reality—International (E nglish, Span-

ish,French)

N o. 5 The M arkala Cooperative: A N ew A p-

proach to Traditional E conom ic

Roles—M ali (French)

N o. 6 The W orking W om en’s Forum : O rgan-

izing for Credit and C hange—India

(French)

N o. 7 D eveloping N on-C raft E m ploym ent

for W om en in B angladesh (E nglish,

French, Spanish)

N o. 8 Com m unity M anagem ent of W aste Re-cycling: The SIRD O—M exico (E ng-

lish, Spanish)

N o. 9 The W om en’s Construction Collective:

B uilding for the F uture—Jam aica

(English, Spanish)

N o. 10 Forest Conservation in N epal: E n-

couraging W om en’s P articipation

(English, Spanish, French, N epali)

Other Editions of SEEDS Currently Available

If you w ould like additional copies of this issue or any of the editions of SE E D S listed above, send an

e-m ail to: seeds@ popcouncil.org. Copies of selected SE E D S issues in local languages have been pub-lished by organizations in the follow ing countries: E gypt, India, Indonesia, K enya, N epal, Pakistan,

Thailand, and Vietnam . Please w rite to us for m ore inform ation if you are interested in these m ateri-

als. M ost past editions of SE E D S are also available online at: w w w.popcouncil.org/publications.

are we not peasants too

Documents