Santosh Rasve
Land ownership in India is entwined with caste hierarchies, reflecting thousands of years of structural inequality and exclusion. Dalits, Adivasis, Lower OBCs, and other marginalised communities are landless or marginal landholders. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that land is not merely an economic asset but a marker of social status and dignity. Historical and contemporary data show these communities are disproportionately landless and dependent on wage labor. This condition is not accidental but rooted in historical social systems, most notably the Manusmriti, which codified caste-based denial of property rights. Understanding this trajectory is essential for addressing the question of redistribution, as land remains central to livelihood, economic mobility, and social dignity in agrarian India.
Data about land ownership and landlessness among various categories in India
According to the 2015-16 Agricultural Census, 92% of Scheduled Caste (SC) landholdings are marginal (0-2 hectares), comprising just 9% of total agricultural land, with an average holding of 0.78 hectares. The Census of India (2011) reveals that 71% of Dalits are landless laborers, working on others’ land, while 58.4% of rural Dalit households own no land. In states like Haryana, Punjab, and Bihar, 85% of Dalits depend on landlords for survival. (Yengde, 2019). Over 60% of landless Dalits in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, West Bengal, and Odisha face economic precarity. In numerous districts across Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, 90% of Dalit farmers are agricultural laborers, underscoring the need for equitable land distribution (Yengde, 2019).
The Agricultural Census of 2015-16 indicates that Scheduled Tribes (STs) operate approximately 11% of India’s total agricultural land. (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2016). Poverty and landlessness remain deeply entrenched among India’s Scheduled Tribes (STs). While the national average of people living below the poverty line stood at 40.2% in 2011, approximately 51% of the ST population lived below the poverty line. Additionally, about 65% of STs were landless, highlighting the severe disparity in access to land ownership. Despite comprising only 8.2% of the total population, ST communities have borne a disproportionate burden of development-induced displacement, accounting for nearly 55% of those displaced since India’s independence primarily due to projects like dams, mining operations, industrial expansions, and the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries (Centre for Policy Research, 2021).
The land of the Adivasis is marginal (0–2 hectares), with 73% of ST landholders owning less than one standard acre, averaging 0.45 hectares (Kumar & Choudhury, 2011).In Orissa, 50% of ST cultivators are marginal or landless, with 70% of Scheduled Areas’ forest land not titled to Adivasis due to bureaucratic failures.77% of ST landholders in Gajapati district own less than one acre, and land alienation due to industrial projects is rampant (Kumar & Choudhury, 2011).
In Jharkhand, policies like the “land bank” for industrial projects, such as Momentum Jharkhand, have led to widespread land alienation, despite laws like the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (1908) and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act (1949) restricting tribal land transfers. (Sahu, 2018). In Chhattisgarh, corporate-led resource extraction has caused relentless land grabs in Adivasi regions like Bastar, despite the Forest Rights Act (2006). Militarization and policies reversing self-governance rights exacerbate displacement and environmental devastation. (European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, n.d.)
According to an Analysis by Kartik Misra (Above Table), rural India’s land ownership through the Land Access Index (LAI) highlights disparities between social categories. The LAI, defined as a caste’s share of agricultural land relative to its population proportion, shows upper caste (general caste) households with an average LAI of 1.5, owning 1.5 times more land than their population share. In southern states, their ownership approaches twice their proportion. The OBC households, the largest group of castes, have an LAI of 0.9, indicating land ownership nearly proportional to their population across most regions. Data limitations obscure intra-OBC disparities. This underscores the significant overrepresentation of upper castes in land ownership compared to the OBCs’ balanced share. (The Wire, 2024)
Land and the Social Construction of Poverty
Landlessness and marginal land access are closely linked to poverty among marginalized communities in India, particularly Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes), as Beteille (2012) argues that in India’s rural context, the interplay of caste and class continues to preserve traditional social hierarchies. In predominantly agrarian regions, ownership of land, considered the core means of production, determines access to wealth and status. Upper-caste groups such as Thakurs and Bhumihars maintain economic and social dominance largely due to their control over land resources. This ownership supports their material well-being and reinforces their position of respect and authority within the societal structure. (Malik, 2019)
Land ownership plays a crucial role in ensuring the production of goods, securing food supplies, and improving living conditions. Beyond its economic value, landholding also enhances an individual’s social status. Poverty and economic deprivation are shaped by social structures and dynamics, and these issues are deeply embedded in socially constructed systems of identity, historicity, and hierarchical relationships. In agrarian societies like India, the livelihood and economic well-being of individuals and communities are fundamentally tied to access to land. (Malik, 2019)
Dr.Ambedkar on the Land and Caste Relations in India
Dr. Ambedkar emphasized that land ownership in India extended beyond its economic value, serving as a marker of social status. He noted that individuals who owned land were regarded with higher status than those without it, highlighting how agrarian property was closely tied to notions of dignity, autonomy, and social status (Kumar, 2020, citing BAWS, Vol. 15, p. 913) He argued that the caste system was not just a division of labour but a rigid segregation of workers themselves. While division of labour is a natural feature of any society, he criticized the caste-based division for creating rigid, hereditary categories that prevented mobility and equality among labourers (Kumar, 2020, citing BAWS, Vol. 1, p. 47)
Ambedkar offered a thorough understanding of how caste and land intersect in India, highlighting issues as the phenomena of landlordism and peasant differentiation, along with the specific conditions of the landless Dalits. In his address at the Kolaba District Peasants’ Conference on December 16, 1934, Ambedkar critiqued the use of the term shetkari (farmer), arguing that it inaccurately grouped both landowners and landless labourers. He also condemned the exploitation faced by tenants under the oppressive Khoti landlord system (Kumar, 2020, citing BAWS, Vol. 17, Part 3, pp. 91–3). During the Constituent Assembly debates on September 3, 1949, Ambedkar reiterated his critique of agrarian terminology, arguing that the term “agriculturalist” was vague and misleading as it grouped large landowners and marginal farmers under the same category, masking significant class differences within the peasantry (Kumar, 2020, citing BAWS, Vol. 13, p. 933).
The States and Minorities, submitted by the Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF) to the Constituent Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, reflected Dr. Ambedkar’s call for agrarian reforms addressing Scheduled Caste issues. Key proposals included separate electorates and settlements for the Commissioner to allocate government and reclaimed land for Dalit settlements. However, the SCF’s poor performance in the 1945–46 elections weakened its influence, resulting in only the partial acceptance of its demands. While affirmative action was included in the Constitution, proposals for land redistribution, separate electorates, and independent Dalit settlements were ultimately rejected (Kumar, 2020, citing Zelliot, 2013; Bandyopadhyay, 2000). Dr. Ambedkar’s approach to addressing India’s agrarian challenges involved three key proposals. He advocated for the nationalisation of land and the collectivization of agriculture as part of a state-managed system. Additionally, he called for the creation of separate settlements for Dalits to reduce their dependence on Hindu-dominated rural structures. Finally, he urged the redistribution of public lands—including wastelands, forests, and pastures—to landless Dalits as a means of achieving economic independence (Kumar, 2020).
Manusmriti and the Codification of Landlessness and Poverty
Velivada is a platform dedicated to challenging caste oppression and promoting social justice. It amplifies marginalized voices and provides critical resources. They have analysed the Manusmriti to expose its ideology entrenched in religious scriptures. The Manusmriti (circa 200 BCE-200 CE), a foundational Dharmashastra scripture, divides Hindus into four varnas, ranking them and assigning privileges to upper castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas) while imposing penalties on Shudras. It prescribes the Shudras’ low status, prohibiting wealth accumulation and land ownership, enforcing servitude, poverty, and perpetuating their marginalization in society. (Velivada,2017)
Birth-based occupational segregation
For the welfare of society, Brahma has created the four varnas from different parts of his body- Brahmins from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the shoulders, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet (Manu I.31).
Shudras can have only one form of occupation, reinforcing a rigid occupational hierarchy as part of an unchangeable social order (Manu VIII.417). (Velivada,2017)
Shudra`s duty to Serve the Savarana
God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas with loyalty, humility, and without grumbling (Manu I.91).
Brahmin holds the authority to compel a Shudra, whether enslaved or free, to perform menial tasks, as the Shudra was created to be a slave to the Brahmin (Manu VIII.413).
The sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve Brahmins with deep reverence, even chanting the word “Brahman” with devotion. Such service is portrayed as the path to salvation. Otherwise, he will die a worse death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X.121).
A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living, he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants a higher or superior birth in the next generation, he must serve a Brahmin. (Manu IX 334 & 335) (Velivada,2017)
Prohibiting wealth accumulation and land ownership
The Manusmriti strictly restricts Shudras from owning property or accumulating wealth. It asserts that a Shudra should possess nothing independently, as the presence of a prosperous Shudra is seen as a threat to the interests of the Brahmins (Manu VIII.417; X.129).
It also further permits a Brahmin, especially during times of hardship, to take over the possessions of a Shudra without hesitation, reinforcing the idea that Shudras exist solely to serve and not to prosper. The law also dictates that a Shudra must adhere to a single occupation, reinforcing caste-based economic immobility (Manu VIII.417).
If a Shudra has the means to accumulate wealth, he must refrain from doing so. This is because a wealthy Shudra might grow arrogant and, through pride or negligence, cause discomfort to Brahmins (Manu X.129).
Everything in the world ultimately belongs to the Brahmin by virtue of his divine origin, making him the rightful claimant to all material existence (Manu II.100) (Velivada,2017)
Question of Wages for Labour
The Manusmriti states that a Shudra is to be provided for by the upper varnas through a portion of their family resources, taking into account his industry and the size of his dependents (Manu X.124).
No collection of wealth must be made by a shudra even though he be able to do it; for a shudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahmana. (Manu X – 129.) (Velivada,2017
Conclusion: The entrenched caste-based inequality in land ownership and economic opportunities has perpetuated structural poverty and marginalization among Dalits, Adivasis, Lower OBCs, and other marginalised communities. Scriptures like the Manusmriti codified and normalized this exclusion, influencing socio-economic structures that even persist today. The landlessness, marginal access to land, a fundamental livelihood asset in India, has left marginalized communities in poverty and socially subordinated.
Addressing these historic injustices necessitates a radical restructuring of resource ownership and equitable access to opportunities. A crucial first step is conducting a nationwide comprehensive caste census to generate accurate data on the socio-economic status of different caste groups. This data would provide an empirical foundation for implementing redistributive justice measures, such as land reforms, affirmative actions, and proportional representation. Acknowledging caste-based material inequality as a structural issue is essential to ensure resource equity for marginalised communities and the constitutional vision of social justice!
References
Centre for Policy Research. (2021). Understanding the land rights of tribal populations in India. https://cprindia.org/understanding-the-land-rights-of-tribal-populations-in/
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. (n.d.). In the name of development: Indigenous rights violations and shrinking space in Chhattisgarh. https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/shrinking-space-in-chhattisgarh
Kumar, A. (2020). B. R. Ambedkar on caste and land relations in India. Review of Agrarian Studies, 10(1), 37–56.
Kumar, K., & Choudhury, P. R. (2011). Status of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples Land Series – Orissa (pp. 16, 20, 39). Aakar Books. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303948843_Inclusion_escolar_Nota_de_jurisprudencia
Malik, B. B. (2019). Poverty of social construction and landlessness: Dignity for Dalits in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Contemporary Voice of Dalit, 11(2), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455328X19825957
Misra, U. (2024, August 17). How caste continues to determine asset and landholding structure in rural India. The Wire. https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/how-caste-continues-to-determine-asset-and-landholding-structure-in-rural-india
Sahu, P. R. (2018, May 14). The Constitution set in stone: Adivasis in Jharkhand are using an old tradition as a novel protest. Scroll.in.
Velivada. (2017, May 31). Casteist verses and some excerpts from Manusmriti – Law book of Hindus. https://velivada.com/2017/05/31/casteist-quotes-verses-manusmriti-law-book-hindus/ https://velivada.com/2017/05/31/excerpts-manusmriti-law-book-hindus/
Yengde, S. (2019, June). 71 percent Dalits are landless labourers. Ambedkarite Today. https://www.ambedkaritetoday.com/2019/06/article-71-percent-dalits-are-landless-labourers-suraj-yengde.html
~~~
Santosh Rasve has completed a Master’s in Public Policy and Governance from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and aspires to contribute to independent scholarship from the margins!
