People's Democracy

Economists Explode ET Report

Economists Dr Himanshu and Dr Prasenjit Bose recently wrote the following rejoinder the editor, Economic Times. 

THIS is a rejoinder to a news report which appeared in The Economic Times on December 25, 2006, on page 3. The report titled “Left plaudits for BJP-ruled states!” quotes from an article published in the CPI(M)’s organ, People’s Democracy, on the Sachar committee report, to show that the situation of Muslims in the BJP ruled states like Gujarat and Rajasthan is much better than in the rest of the country in terms of the average size of landholdings of Muslims that is higher than that of Hindus. However, a deeper analysis of the NSS 55th round data, which are also the source of the table in the People’s Democracy article, shows a different picture. 

Source: NSS, 55th Round

The table alongside has been constructed from the data of the NSS 55th round, which gives statewise data on the share of Muslim households in total rural households (column A) and share of land cultivated by Muslims in total land cultivated (column B). An index of land deficit (column C) has been constructed with a simple formula: C = [(B – A)/A] x 100. According to this index, which provides a simple measure of land deficit, a value of 0 implies that the share of land cultivated by Muslims is equal to the share of Muslims in total rural households. A positive value indicates that the proportionate share of land cultivated by Muslims is higher than their population share. The greater the negative value, the higher is the land deficit for the Muslims. States have been ranked by the land deficit index for Muslims, showing Madhya Pradesh as having the best index and Punjab having the worst. According to this simple index, among the states with a sizeable rural Muslim population (above 10 percent of total rural households), Kerala and West Bengal have the best record in terms of access to land for the Muslims. The BJP ruled state of Gujarat, despite having a share of only 3.2 percent of Muslim households in total rural households, fares quite badly on the land deficit index; even below Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

Madhya Pradesh appears to have the best land deficit index, implying that Muslim households have a much larger share of cultivated land compared with the share of Muslim households in total rural households. However, the share of Muslim households in total households is only 2.6 percent in Madhya Pradesh and an analysis of districtwise data shows that the incidence of a larger share of land cultivated by Muslim households, compared to their population share, is primarily concentrated in districts like Khandwa and Raisen. Similarly, in Himachal Pradesh where Muslims comprise only 1.2 percent of the total rural households, incidence of a larger share of land cultivated by Muslim households is concentrated in the Sirmaur district. As far as Rajasthan is concerned, although it has a relatively higher share of Muslim households (6.3 percent of total rural households), the higher share of land cultivated by Muslim households, proportionate to their population share, is primarily accounted for by the Barmer district. In fact, Barmer accounts for 23.4 percent of all Muslim households in Rajasthan but accounts for 47.6 percent of all land cultivated by Muslims in the state. In contrast, not only is the share of Muslims in total rural households in Kerala and West Bengal much higher (20 percent and 30.9 percent respectively), the Muslim population as well as land cultivated by them is evenly distributed across most districts of those states. This indicates that Muslim households in the rural areas of Kerala and Bengal have much better access to land compared to other states, which is directly attributable to land reforms.

This is not to suggest that the other findings of the Sachar committee regarding deprivation of Muslims in West Bengal or Kerala are less important. However, it is a bit surprising that the land question has not received the kind of attention that it deserves by the Sachar committee in its otherwise rigorous and meticulous analysis of the socio-economic condition of Muslims in India. The Sachar committee has itself noted in Chapter Five of its report (p 87) that “Ownership of physical assets (especially land) and human capital (especially education) not only affects employment opportunities but also determines occupational patterns. Relatively poor access to these assets may force workers to remain at the lower end of the labour market hierarchy” (emphasis added). Having said so, it should have made an analysis of the land holding patterns in different Indian states as it has done vis-à-vis employment, education and access to credit. Data required for such an analysis are readily available from the NSS surveys.

Through this letter we want to emphasise that land reforms, as has been carried out in Kerala and West Bengal, besides being desirable for economic equity, would also have a very positive impact on social upliftment of the marginalised communities like Muslims.