Prior to independence:

Farmers did not own the fields they farmed during the British Raj; instead, Zamindars, Jagirdars, and other landowners held landlordship over the land.

The administration faced a number of significant challenges when India became independent.

Few people controlled much of the land, and there were many middlemen who had no vested interest in self-cultivation.

Land leasing was a typical practise.

Tenant exploitation was prevalent practically everywhere, and the rental agreements were expropriative in character.

Due to the terrible state of the land records, there was a huge amount of litigation.

The fact that the land was divided up into such little pieces for commercial cultivation was one issue with agriculture.

It led to ineffective use in soil, capital, and labour in the form of boundary lands and boundary disputes.

After independence:

1. C. Kumarappan was chosen as the committee’s chairman to investigate the land issue. Measures for comprehensive agrarian reform were advised in the Kumarappa Committee’s report.

India became independent, and there were four parts to its land reforms:

• Elimination of Intermediaries
• Rental Reforms
• Setting Limits for Landholdings
• Landholdings are being consolidated.
• These were implemented in stages because there needed to be political will for them to be widely accepted.

Abolition of Intermediaries:

Zamindari system elimination the zamindari system was abolished as the first significant piece of legislation, removing the layer of middlemen that stood between the growers and the state.

In comparison to the other reforms, this one was relatively the most successful since it was successful in removing the zamindars’ superior land rights and reducing their political and economic influence in most districts.

The change was implemented in order to support the genuine landowners, the growers.

Advantages: Almost 2 crore tenants became the owners of the land they farmed when intermediaries were abolished.

A parasite class was eliminated when middlemen were eliminated. The government now owns more land that will be given to farmers who lack access to land.

The State now owns a large portion of the intermediaries’ private forests and cultivable waste land.

The legal abolition put the cultivators in touch with the government in a direct way.

Disadvantages: However, landlordism, tenancy, and sharecropping systems persisted in many areas after the zamindari abolition. The multi-layered agrarian structure’s top layer of landlords was solely eliminated.

It has caused widespread evictions. Large-scale eviction has in turn led to a number of issues on the social, economic, administrative, and legal fronts.

Problems: While the legalisation of abolition occurred in the states of J&K and West Bengal, intermediaries were given unlimited access to areas used for their own personal cultivation in other states.

Furthermore, in other areas, agricultural holdings were not covered by the law; it only pertained to tenant interests, such as sairati mahals and similar structures.

Consequently, even after zamindari was formally abolished, there were still a great number of major intermediates.

Large-scale evictions as a result of it resulted in a number of administrative and socioeconomic issues.

Rental Reforms:

Tenancy control became the next significant issue following the passage of the Zamindari Abolition Acts.

Between 35% and 75% of India’s gross production was spent on rent, which was outrageous during the pre-independence era.

Reforms in Tenancy:

The Zamindari Abolition Acts were passed, and tenancy regulation became the next significant issue.

In India, between 35% and 75% of the gross produce was paid in rent by tenants during the pre-independence era.

Introducing tenancy reforms to control rent, give tenants a secure lease, and grant them ownership.

With the exception of Punjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, and some areas of Andhra Pradesh, fair rent was set at 20% to 25% of the gross produce level with law enacting (early 1950s) to regulate the rent payable by the cultivators.

The reform made an effort to either completely abolish tenancy or to limit rents to provide some stability for renters.

There was an in West Bengal and Kerala Dramatic reorganisation of the agrarian system that granted tenants land rights.

Problems: These laws were never implemented very well in the majority of the states. Some states were unable to adopt laws granting tenants the right to ownership, despite frequent emphasis in the plan texts.

Only a few Indian states have totally eliminated tenancy, while others have granted recognised tenants and sharecroppers certain privileges.

Despite the fact that fewer areas were under tenancy as a result of the reforms, few tenants were able to acquire ownership rights

Limits on Landholdings:

The Land Ceiling Acts were the third major group of land reform laws. In plainer terms, the limits on landholdings referred to the legally prescribed upper limit beyond which no individual farmer or farm household could own any land. The purpose of placing such a ceiling was to prevent the concentration of land in the hands of a select few.

The maximum amount of land that a landlord may keep was recommended by the Kumarappan Committee in 1942. It was three times as much money, or enough to support a family.

All state governments had passed the land ceiling acts by 1961–1962. However, the upper limitations differed from state to state. A new land ceiling policy was developed in 1971 to bring consistency among the states.

National recommendations were published in 1972, with ceiling limitations that varied by region based on the type of land, its productivity, and other similar variables.

For the best land, it was 10–18 acres, for second-best land, 18–27 acres, and for the remaining land, it was 27–54 acres, with a somewhat higher cap in the hilly and desert regions.

With the aid of these changes, the state was tasked with locating and seizing any surplus land that each household had (beyond the allotted amount), then distributing it to landless families and households in other designated groups, such as SCs and STs.

Problems: These acts turned out to be toothless in the majority of the states. Most landowners were able to avoid having their surplus land taken over by the state because to several legal loopholes and other tricks.

Although a few very large estates were divided, in the majority of cases, landowners were able to split their property among family members and other people, including servants, in what are known as “benami transfers,” which allowed them to maintain control over the land.

Some wealthy farmers in certain regions actually got divorced.

Landholdings being consolidated:

Consolidation referred to the redistribution or reorganisation of dispersed lands into a single plot.

Population growth and a lack of employment prospects in non-agricultural industries raised pressure on the land, which resulted in a developing trend of landholding fragmentation.

Due to the land’s fragmentation, managing the irrigation system and keeping an eye on the individual land parcels was particularly challenging.

Consolidating landholdings became a result of this.

In accordance with this statute, if a farmer owned several small plots of land in the village, those plots were combined into one larger plot of land by either buying the smaller plots outright or swapping them.

The consolidation of Holdings was legalised in almost all states, with the exception of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, and some areas of Andhra Pradesh.

While land consolidation was required in Punjab and Haryana, law in other states allowed for voluntary consolidation if the majority of landowners were in favour.

Benefits: It stopped holdings from being endlessly subdivided and fragmented.

It reduced the amount of time and effort farmers had to expend irrigating and cultivating various types of land.

In addition, the change decreased farming costs and farmers’ legal disputes.

Results: With the exception of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh, where the consolidation process was completed, the progress made in terms of holding consolidation was not very good due to a lack of significant political and administrative backing.

However, in some states, re-consolidation was necessary because of later fragmentation of land under the population pressure

Re-consolidation is required: In 1970–1971 the average holding size was 2.28 hectares (Ha), but in 2015–16 it was just 1.08 Ha.

The greatest average farm size is found in Nagaland, followed by Punjab and Haryana, which are ranked second and third on the list, respectively.

States with high population densities like Bihar, West Bengal, and Kerala have substantially smaller holdings.

Even the sub divisions have shrunk significantly as a result of the numerous subdivisions made over decades.

Gramdan and Bhoodan Movements:

A student of Mahatma Gandhi named Vinoba Bhave became aware of the difficulties the landless harijans of Pochampalli, Telangana, were experiencing.

In an effort to implement a “non-violent revolution” in India’s land reform program, he spearheaded the movements.

The Bhoodan Movement was about encouraging the landed classes to willingly cede a portion of their land to the landless, hence the name.

It started in 1951. In response to Vinoba Bhave’s plea, some landowners decided to voluntarily donate a portion of their property.

Vinoba Bhave had received the support he required from both the federal and state administrations.

Later, the Gramdan movement, which started in 1952, replaced the Bhoodan movement.

The goal of the Gramdan movement was to persuade the landowners and leaseholders in each village to resign their land rights so that all of the lands would belong to a village association for an equitable redistribution and common farming.

According to this movement, a hamlet was designated as Gramdan when at least 75% of its citizens and 51% of its territory indicated their support for Gramdan in writing.

Magroth in Haripur, Uttar Pradesh, was the first hamlet to be incorporated into Gramdan.

Achievements of the Movement:

The movement was the first after independence to try to bring about social change through a movement rather than through governmental legislation.

It produced a moral atmosphere that put the large landlords under strain.

Additionally, it boosted political activity among thepeasants and landless, providing a fertile ground for political propaganda to organise peasants

Drawbacks:

Large tracts of land were collected, but not much was given to the landless because most of the donated land was infertile or subject to litigation.

The Gramdan movement began in villages, mostly in tribal areas, where class distinction had not yet developed and there were little differences in the ownership of landholdings.

However, it failed where there was a difference in landholdings.

The movement also fell short of realising its revolutionary promise.

Result:

There was significant political support for the movements. Around 1969, the movements were at their height.

Laws aiming towards Gramdan and Bhoodan were passed by several state governments.

Gramdan and Bhoodan, however, lost prominence after 1969 as a result of the change from a strictly voluntary movement to a government-supported plan.

Vinoba Bhave’s departure from the movement in 1967 caused it to lose its mass support.

Recent steps:

The NITI Aayog and several business groups have recently suggested that widespread adoption of land leasing is necessary to allow landowners with unprofitable holdings to rent out their property for investment, generating more income and jobs in rural regions.

Land holdings would be combined, which would help this purpose.

The quickest possible completion of contemporary land reform measures, such as land record digitization, is required.

Green revolution:

Norman Borlaug started the Green Revolution movement in the 1960s. He is referred to as the “Father of the Green Revolution” globally.

For his efforts in creating High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of wheat, it resulted in him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.

The Green Revolution in India was primarily directed by M.S. Swaminathan.

Beginning in the middle of the 20^th century, the introduction of new, high-yielding variety seeds into emerging countries led to a significant increase in the production of food grains (particularly wheat and rice).

Mexico and the Indian subcontinent were the locations of its initial stunning achievements.

India’s status as a food-insecure nation was transformed by the Green Revolution from 1967–1968 to 1977–1978, making it one of the world’s

In the 1960s, Norman Borlaug founded the Green Revolution movement. He is known as the “Father of the Green Revolution” in several countries.

He won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize as a result of his work developing High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of wheat.

M.S. Swaminathan was primarily in charge of the Green Revolution in India.

The output of food grains (especially wheat and rice) increased significantly in emerging nations starting in the middle of the 20^th century as a result of the introduction of new, high-yielding variety seeds.

Its groundbreaking successes were first seen in Mexico and the Indian subcontinent.

The Green Revolution, which lasted from 1967–1968 to 1977–1978, altered India’s status as a food-insecure country, making it one of the world’s.

The goals of the green revolution:

Short Term: During the second Five Year Plan, the revolution was started to combat the famine crisis in India.

Long-term: The long-term goals included a general modernization of agriculture based on rural development, industrial development, infrastructure, raw materials, etc.

Industrial and agricultural employees should both have jobs available to them.

Research: Developing plants that are more resilient to disease and harsh temperatures.

Globalization of the Agricultural World: This process involves introducing technology to developing countries and establishing several firms in key agricultural regions.

The Foundations of the Green Revolution:

Extension of Farming Areas: Despite an increase in the area under cultivation starting in 1947, the demand did not keep pace with this growth.

This quantitative increase in farmland was made possible by the Green Revolution.

Double-cropping System: A key component of the Green Revolution was double cropping. It was decided to have two crop seasons each year rather than simply one.

Because there is just one rainy season per year, the one-season-per-year practise was developed.

Now, the second phase’s water supply came from huge irrigation projects. Dams were constructed, and other straightforward irrigation methods were also used.

Using seeds with superior genetics: The scientific component of the Green Revolution used seeds with superior genetics Revolution.

Specifically for wheat, rice, millet and maize, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research created new strains of high yield variety seeds.

The main crops during the Revolution were maize, wheat, rice, jowar, and bajra.

Grain products other than food were not included in the new strategy’s scope.

For many years, wheat was the foundation of the Green Revolution.

India’s Green Revolution:

Indian Green Revolution’s historical context the Bengal Famine, which occurred in 1943 and was the biggest food crisis ever recorded, caused an estimated 4 million people to die of starvation in eastern India.

Even after gaining independence in 1947, the government’s focus on enlarging the agricultural lands persisted until 1967.

However, the rate of population growth was outpacing the rate of food production.

To boost yield, an immediate and dramatic intervention was required. The Green Revolution served as the catalyst for the action.

The term “green revolution” in India refers to a time when contemporary agricultural practises and technology, such as the usage of HYV seeds, tractors, irrigation systems, pesticides, and fertilizers, transformed Indian agriculture into an industrial system.

The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the US government, and the Indian government all provided funding.

The output of wheat increased by more than three times between 1967–1968 and 2003–2004, although the entire rise in grain production was only two times, making the Green Revolution in India essentially the Wheat Revolution

Positive Impacts of Green Revolution:

Tremendous Increase in Crop Produce: It resulted in a grain output of 131 million tonnes in the year 1978-79 and established India as one of the world’s biggest agricultural producers.

The crop area under high yielding varieties of wheat and rice grew considerably during the Green Revolution.

Reduced Import of Food-Grains: India became self-sufficient in food-grains and had sufficient stock in the central pool, even, at times, India was in a position to export food-grains. The per capita net availability of food-grains has also increased.

Benefits to the Farmers: The introduction of the Green Revolution helped the farmers in raising their level of income.

Farmers ploughed back their surplus income for improving agricultural productivity.

The big farmers with more than 10 hectares of land were particularly benefited by this revolution by investing large amounts of money in various inputs like HYV seeds, fertilizers, machines, etc. It also promoted capitalist farming.

Industrial Growth: The Revolution brought about large scale farm mechanization which created demand for different types of machines like tractors, harvesters, threshers, combines, diesel engines, electric motors, pumping sets, etc.

Besides, demand for chemical fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, weedicides, etc. Also increased considerably.

Several agricultural products were also used as raw materials in various industries known as agro based industries.

Rural Employment: There was an appreciable increase in the demand for labour force due to multiple cropping and use of fertilizers.

The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by creating related facilities such as factories and hydroelectric power stations

Negative Impacts of Green Revolution:

Non-Food Grains Left Out : Although all food-grains including wheat, rice, jowar, bajra and maize have gained from the revolution, other crops such as coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds were left out of the ambit of the revolution.

Major commercial crops like cotton, jute, tea and sugarcane were also left almost untouched by the Green Revolution.

Limited Coverage of HYVP: High Yielding Variety Programme (HYVP) was restricted to only five crops: Wheat, Rice, Jowar, Bajra and Maize.

Therefore, non-food grains were excluded from the ambit of the new strategy.

The HYV seeds in the non-food crops were either not developed so far or they were not good enough for farmers to risk their adoption.

Regional Disparities:

Green Revolution technology has given birth to growing disparities in economic development at interred and intra regional levels.

It has so far affected only 40 percent of the total cropped area and 60 per cent is still untouched by it.

The most affected areas are Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh in the north and Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in the south.

It has hardly touched the Eastern region, including Assam, Bihar, West Bengal and Orissa and arid and semi-arid areas of Western and Southern India.

The Green Revolution affected only those areas which were already better placed from an agricultural point of view.

Thus the problem of regional disparities has further aggravated as a result of the Green Revolution.

Excessive Usage of Chemicals: The Green Revolution resulted in a large-scale use of pesticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilisers for improved irrigation projects and crop varieties.

However, little or no efforts were made to educate farmers about the high risk associated with the intensive use of pesticides.

Pesticides were sprayed on crops usually by untrained farm labourers without following instructions or precautions.

This causes more harm than good to crops and also becomes a cause for environment and soil pollution.

Water Consumption: The crops introduced during the green revolution were water-intensive crops.

Most of these crops being cereals required almost 50% of dietary water footprint.

Canal systems were introduced, and irrigation pumps also sucked out the groundwater to supply the water-intensive crops, such as sugarcane and rice, thus depleting the groundwater levels.

Punjab is a major wheat- and rice-cultivating area, and hence it is one of the highest water depleted regions in India.

Impacts on Soil and Crop Production: Repeated crop cycle in order to ensure increased crop production depleted the soil’s nutrients.

To meet the needs of new kinds of seeds, farmers increased fertilizer usage.

The pH level of the soil increased due to the usage of these alkaline chemicals.

Toxic chemicals in the soil destroyed beneficial pathogens, which further led to the decline in the yield.

Unemployment: Except in Punjab, and to some extent in Haryana, farm mechanization under the Green Revolution created widespread unemployment among agricultural labourers in the rural areas.

The worst affected were the poor and the landless labourers.

Health Hazards: The large-scale use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides such as Phosphamidon, Methomyl, Phorate, Triazophos and Monocrotophos resulted in resulted in a number of critical health illnesses including cancer, renal failure, stillborn babies and birth defects.

Public distribution system:

The Public distribution system (PDS) is an Indian food Security System established under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food, and Public Distribution.

PDS evolved as a system of management of scarcity through distribution of food grains at affordable prices.

PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments.

The Central Government, through Food Corporation of India (FCI), has assumed the responsibility for procurement, storage, transportation and bulk allocation of food grains to the State Governments.

The operational responsibilities including allocation within the State, identification of eligible families, issue of Ration Cards and supervision of the functioning of Fair Price Shops (FPSs) etc., rest with the State Governments.

Under the PDS, presently the commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene are being allocated to the States/UTs for distribution. Some States/UTs also distribute additional items of mass consumption

Evolution of PDS in India:

PDS was introduced around World War II as a war-time rationing measure. Before the 1960s, distribution through PDS was generally dependant on imports of food grains.

It was expanded in the 1960s as a response to the food shortages of the time; subsequently, the government set up the Agriculture Prices Commission and the FCI to improve domestic procurement and storage of food grains for PDS.

By the 1970s, PDS had evolved into a universal scheme for the distribution of subsidised food.

Till 1992, PDS was a general entitlement scheme for all consumers without any specific target.

The Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS) was launched in June, 1992 with a view to strengthen and streamline the PDS as well as to improve its reach in the far-flung, hilly, remote and inaccessible areas where a substantial section of the underprivileged classes lives.

In June, 1997, the Government of India launched the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) with a focus on the poor.

Under TPDS, beneficiaries were divided into two categories: Households below the poverty line or BPL; and Households above the poverty line or APL.

Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY): AAY was a step in the direction of making TPDS aim at reducing hunger among the poorest segments of the BPL population.

A National Sample Survey exercise pointed towards the fact that about 5% of the total population in the country sleeps without two square meals a day. In order to make TPDS more focused and targeted towards this category of population, the “Antyodaya Anna Yojana” (AAY) was launched in December, 2000 for one crore poorest of the poor families.

In September 2013, Parliament enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Act relies largely on the existing TPDS to deliver food grains as legal entitlements to poor households.

The Central and State Governments share responsibilities in order to provide food grains to the identified beneficiaries.

The centre procures food grains from farmers at a minimum support price (MSP) and sells it to states at central issue prices. It is responsible for transporting the grains to godowns in each state.

States bear the responsibility of transporting food grains from these godowns to each fair price shop (ration shop), where the beneficiary buys the food grains at the lower central issue price. Many states further subsidise the price of food grains before selling it to beneficiaries.

National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013:

Objective:

To provide for food and nutritional security in the human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity.

Coverage:

The Act provides coverage for nearly 2/3^rd of the country’s total population, based on Census 2011 population estimates.

75% of rural and 50% of urban population is entitled to receive highly subsidized food grains under two categories i.e Antyodaya Anna Yojana(AAY) Households and Priority Households (PHH).

The Act entitles 35 kg of food grains as per Antyodaya Anna Yojana Households per month, whereas 5kg of food grains per Priority Households per person.

The eldest woman of the beneficiary household (18 years or above) is considered ‘Head of Family’ for the purpose of issuing ration cards.

National Food Security Act: Provisions

The NFSA assigns joint responsibilities to the federal and state governments.

The NFSA mandates the centre with the responsibility of allocating and transporting food grains to designated depots in the states and UTs.

The centre must provide central assistance to states/UTs for the distribution of food grains from authorized FCI godowns to the doorsteps of Fair Price Shops.

States and union territories are responsible for identifying eligible households, issuing ration cards, distributing foodgrain entitlements through fair price shops, licensing and monitoring Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealers, establishing an effective grievance redress mechanism, and strengthening the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).

The National Food Security Act (2013) also includes provisions for Targeted Public Distribution System reforms, such as cash transfers for food entitlement provisioning.

Direct Benefit Transferinvolves the cash equivalent of the subsidy being transferred directly into the bank accounts of eligible households.

Significance:

It is beneficial to the agricultural sector.

It also helps the government control food prices.

Creation of job opportunities: Because agriculture is a labor-intensive industry, a boost in the agricultural sector would result in more job opportunities.

This would boost economic growth and lead to a reduction in poverty.

Health benefits: Access to nutritious food would improve the public’s overall health.

Food security is also important for the nation’s global security and stability.

One Nation one Ration card :

It was rolled out by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in 2019 in 4 states on a pilot basis.

Aim: To ensure hassle-free delivery of subsidized food grains to all migratory beneficiaries anywhere in the country through nation-wide portability under National Food Security Act (NFSA).

To empower all National Food Security Act migrant beneficiaries to access foodgrains from any Fair Price Shop (FPS) of their choice anywhere in the country by using their same/existing ration card with biometric authentication.

A card bearing 10 digit number will be issued to the complaint state’s BPL card holders which will be linked to AADHAR database.

Beneficiaries can lift their entitled foodgrains from any electronic point of sale (ePoS) enabled FPS in the country through portability.

This scheme will be instrumental in the welfare of migrant workers.