1 Introduction
The gender gap in ownership and control over property is the single most critical contributor to the gender gap in economic well-being, social status and empowerment.
Agarwal, 1994b: 1455.
Women’s effective exclusion from the possession and control of land
is largely the basis of their subordination and dependence on men in rural
India.
Kellar, 1992, cited in
Thakur, 2002: 1.
Is the issue of women’s land rights a concern for all women in rural India? Given that between 31 and 35 per cent of the total agricultural labour force are landless (The Hunger Project, 2002) is it even possible for all women to own land? Despite statements such as those quoted above, women’s land rights1 in India have received little attention in academia and policy. Few women own land and even fewer exercise control over it. In rural areas land is inextricably linked with livelihoods and represents power, dignity and security. Article 39(a) of the Constitution calls for equal rights to livelihood (see Appendix 1) yet the reality is far removed. Women’s lack of ownership and control creates dependency on men, reducing women’s fall-back position, leaving them vulnerable in situations of marital abuse or breakdown.
This study looks at women’s and men’s perceptions of women’s right to own land and investigates four questions: how important are land rights for women? What are men and women’s views on different types of land rights? Would independent or joint rights be more beneficial to women? What barriers exist to women claiming land rights?
The study is situated in two rural villages in the Katni District of Madhya Pradesh2 (see Appendix 2) and focuses on the land rights of caste Hindu women who are governed by different personal laws to Muslim women. Hindu women are the focus of this study as their land rights receive less interest than those of tribal women and they constitute the majority of the population of Madhya Pradesh. Comparisons of perceptions of Hindus, Muslim and tribal peoples would have been interesting but was beyond the scope of this study. Comparing the perceptions of tribals and non-tribals for example, would have been too complex given that the entire culture, law and history of the tribal communities is very different to that of non-tribals (see Malavi, 2002).
Access to natural resources in common property decrease daily. At the same time the ‘feminisation’ of agriculture3 continues. In this context it is argued that equal and independent rights to land are becoming increasingly important for women (Agarwal, 1994). This study therefore focuses on independent and joint land rights in ancestral and government distributed land rather than communal land.
The definition of joint rights lacks clarity in the literature and it is often unclear which form of joint rights is being discussed. Whilst different types of joint rights are discussed the case study focuses on those of husband and wife (as well as independent rights) to government distributed land; largely allotted to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and landless people. Combining this focus with examining inheritance rights enables the study to take account of both landed and landless women.
The most prolific writer on Hindu women’s land rights in South Asia is Bina Agarwal who has dominated the field since her seminal work ‘A Field of One’s Own’ was published in 1994. Few other authors have written on issues of Hindu women’s land rights and those that have refer in large part to her work. Agarwal’s work therefore contributes the majority of the conceptual background in which this study is situated.
The next chapter reviews what Agarwal and others have written about Hindu women’s land rights in India. Chapter three provides the context for the case study through describing the land situation in Madhya Pradesh and examining the space given for women’s land rights issues at the State level and within civil society. Chapter four discusses the methodology used for the primary research whilst chapter five presents the findings and analysis of the case study. Chapter six discusses the implications of these findings before drawing conclusions in chapter seven.
2 Conceptual Background
This chapter begins by examining the rationale for women’s right to land. The ongoing debate over whether joint or individual land rights are the most beneficial to women is then discussed. The arguments against giving land rights to women are then addressed and finally the barriers to women realising their claims are examined. This review focuses on caste Hindu women. Whilst some aspects may apply to other women this review does not attempt to cover any other groups.
2.1 The Case for Women’s Land Rights
Agarwal’s rationale for women’s land rights rests on several broad interconnected arguments: welfare, efficiency, equality and empowerment. Each argument is examined here in turn.
3.2.2.1 Welfare
The welfare argument is premised on the idea that rights in land would decrease the risk of women’s poverty and of the household in general, especially in already poor households. This would occur due to the positive effect of women having independent resources on family welfare (Agarwal, 1994). There is increasing evidence of intrahousehold inequality4 in the distribution of resources and studies have shown that when more resources are in the hands of women, their children directly benefit. Thomas (1990, cited in Kabeer, 1994) for example, found in Brazil that the probabilities of child survival was nearly 20 times greater when non-earned money accrued to women rather than men.
The last part of the welfare argument is that land rights can alter women’s relationships (as indeed men’s) with other family members. During her fieldwork in Rajasthan, Agarwal (1994) found that land owning widows living with their adult sons were treated with much greater respect and consideration than those who were landless and economically dependent.
3.2.2.1 Efficiency
The efficiency argument links women’s land rights with increased productivity. Giving women titles to property would increase their access to credit, technology and information, as well as their motivation, thus enhancing productivity. This is even more important in the case of de facto and de jure female-headed households. However as Mears (1998, cited in Thakur, 2002) argues this is only true if the gender bias that exists in agricultural support services and factor markets are removed.
3.2.2.1 Equality And Empowerment
The equality and empowerment5 argument is concerned with women’s position relative to men and in particular with women’s ability to ‘challenge male oppression within the home and in wider society.’ (Agarwal, 1994: 38). Unequal rights to property affect relations between people, ‘not only in well-recognised class terms but
also in terms of gender, within and outside the household’ (Agarwal, 1994: 470). In rural India land rights confer power and prestige. Women’s ability to challenge social, political and economic gender inequalities would be strengthened through possession of land titles. Their status and position within and outside the household would consequently be improved (Unni, 1999). This argument together with those of welfare and efficiency are summarised in figure 1.
Figure 1:
Agarwal’s Rationale for Women’s Land Rights Productivity may increase Status and position with and outside the household would
therefore be improved Women’s ability to challenge social,
political and economic gender inequalities would be strengthened through
land titles Land rights confer power and prestige Only true if the gender bias that exists in
agricultural support services and factor markets are removed (Mears, 1998 Land titles would increase access to credit,
technology, motivation and knowledge When resources are in the hands of women,
children benefit directly Positive effect of women having independent
resources for family welfare Land rights would decrease the risk of
poverty for women and households Agarwal
2.2 Types of Rights: Joint Vs Independent
There is a lack of consensus over which types of land rights should be given to women. Agarwal (1994) argues for independent rights on several counts. With joint rights women would be less in a position to escape from marital conflict or violence and in the event of the marital breakdown it may be difficult for women with joint titles to gain control over their share. Wives may have different land-use priorities from their husbands and would be in a better position to act upon with independent land rights. Women with independent rights would be better placed to control their produce. Lastly with joint titles the question of how land would subsequently be inherited could prove a contentious area (Agarwal, 1994). However as she later concedes, this problem may also occur with independent rights.
Rural women themselves expressed a preference for independent rights in Gupta’s study in West Bengal (Gupta, 2002). They felt this would assure them of their independent right to livelihood and would enable them to take their own decisions. Other reasons given for this preference were:
Ø Security in old age if sons do not look after them
Ø Daughters can inherit land if in mothers name
Ø Lack of security in matrimonial home, as women do not have a legal right to property
Ø To counter the system of dowry
Ø To free themselves of their dependent status
The women in Gupta’s (2002) study as well as those in Unni’s (1999) in Ahmedabad felt that joint titles to property would give them greater control over the sale/transfer/mortgage of property. Some of the women interviewed by Unni also felt a woman’s joint claim to land would make it difficult for family members to expel her from her home (ibid.). However the women in Gupta’s study still expressed a wish to own property solely in their own names for greater security and control6.
Aside from the theoretical debate, the practical aspect of the conferring of independent rights must be examined. Agarwal (1998) herself notes that about 86 per cent of arable land in South Asia is already in private hands. The question of where the land to be distributed will come from must be answered (Unni, 1999). Mid-1996 government of India figures show that the area declared surplus7 for all-India, came to only three million hectares or 1.6 per cent of arable land (Agarwal, 1994). Only 0.2 per cent was still available for distribution (ibid). Even if all the land is allotted independently to women, many will still go without. However as Thakur (2002: 2) points out, whilst distributing this land to women may not remove the gender imbalance in property rights, it will ‘help reduce further distortions of the balance’.
Unni (1999) and others (Agnitori for example) argue that a more practical goal would be that of joint titles to husband’s land, ‘at least as a first step’. The next step however is not mentioned. Thakur (2002) explains that this form of joint rights is likely to be met with much resistance due to the prevailing view that the wife would benefit “doubly” with shares in parental and marital land. Thakur (2002) argues that the ‘alternative’ of joint titles in government allotted land would be more practicable but does not make the distinction that the latter is largely directed at landless women, whilst the former will only benefit those with land. This is discussed further in chapter six.
2.3 The Case Against Women’s Rights in Land
3.2.2.1 Inheritance
The case made for denying girl children titles to agricultural land is based on several factors. It is argued that operational problems would occur once a girl gets married and moves to a distant place and that giving land to daughters as well as sons would lead to a fragmentation of holdings (Unni, 1999). The first argument is difficult to counter, but the second may occur even when land is given to brothers, if the land is partitioned.
In areas where exogamous marriages are practiced there is also the fear that once a girl is married, her land will belong to another family, kinship group or clan (Agarwal, 1994).
Girls are perceived by some to receive their share of inheritance through dowry. In practice however, the content of dowry is most often in the form of immovables and not usually controlled or entirely owned by women themselves, as it go to the in-laws (Agarwal, 1994). This is therefore not a fair share of inheritance.
3.2.2.1 Joint Titles To Husbands Property
As mentioned earlier, the demand for this type of joint titles may be countered by the argument that the wife already has a legal right to a share in parental property. This same argument may be used against independent rights. In practice however only a small minority of women actually acquire property through inheritance (Unni, 1999).
The fragmentation argument has also been used to deny joint rights in government allotted land. The state of West Bengal in 1990 for example gave the prevention of fragmentation of holdings upon marital breakdown as the reason for rejecting the women’s movement demand for joint rights (Rao, 1997).
3.2.2.1 Independent Rights
Women in most parts of India are not allowed to plough. This ‘social handicap’ has been used against giving independent land rights to women (Rao, 1997). Under the slogan “land to the tiller”, used in the land distribution programme in West Bengal for example, individual women were not considered as they don’t plough. This was despite that fact that the women were engaged in sowing, weeding and harvesting as the term tiller means one who does all four operations (ibid.).
2.4 Barriers to Achieving Land Rights for Women
As well as the apprehensions discussed in the previous section there are other legal, socio-economic and ideological barriers that impede women’s claims. These are looked at next.
3.2.2.1 Legal Barriers
2.4..1 Inheritance
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA hereafter), is the personal law that governs inheritance of private property of Hindus8. Whilst the Act ‘purported to lay down a law of succession whereby sons and daughters would enjoy equal inheritance rights, as would brothers and sisters’ significant gender inequalities remain (Agarwal, 1994: 212).
Apart from four states in India9 the HSA does not recognise the daughter as a coparcener in joint family property10. Therefore a daughter on birth will not automatically get an interest in the coparceners property in her own right as her brother does. She only gets a share on the death of her father in his share of the joint family property (Breakthrough, 2002).
The virtually unrestricted testamentary rights11 provided under the Act can be (and often are) used in practice to disinherit potential female heirs (Agarwal, 1994). Also unlike sons, married daughters have no residence rights in the ancestral home. Whilst daughters who are unmarried, separated, divorced, deserted or widowed have
residence rights, they cannot demand partition of the dwelling house until the males choose to do so (ibid.).
In practice, daughters’ claims appear to hold ‘little social legitimacy’, and the most likely scenario of daughters inheriting is still in sonless families, usually involving uxorilocal12 post-marital residence, though even this is rare (Agarwal, 1994). Whilst widows’ claims enjoy greater social legitimacy than daughters, the available evidence suggests that many of those who are eligible to inherit do not, and those who do inherit do so mostly on severely restricted terms (ibid.). Under traditional Hindu law, a widow usually loses her rights to inherit if she marries, is unchaste or leaves her husband’s village on his death. If she has only daughters or is childless she often only gets maintenance (ibid.).
2.4..2 Land Reform Policy
The redistributive policies of the last three or four decades in South Asia have been modelled on the idea of a unitary household (Agnitori, 1996). Until recently, with the exception of widows, government distributed land was given to the male ‘head of household’. According to Agarwal (1994) whilst land reform policies have been based both on the principle of redistributive justice and on arguments regarding efficiency, gender inequalities have not been taken into account. Indeed the Ceiling Act legislation is an example of a reform that serves to reinforce gender inequalities.
Acts relating to land ceilings, brought in during the late 1950s and early 1960s, limited the amount of land a ‘family’, (classified as comprising husband, wife and three minor children), could own. The amount was fixed by each state. Within the Acts unmarried daughters receive no recognition, except in Tamil Nadu and Kerela. Agarwal (1994) believes that underlying the ceiling specifications is the assumption that those recognised as part of the ‘family’ or separately, as with adult sons, will be supported by the land. Most states do not therefore give consideration for the maintenance needs of unmarried adult daughters and married minor daughters, while giving consideration to all sons, whatever their age or marital status (ibid.).
2.4..3 Women’s Land Rights In Central Government Policy
The issue of women’s land rights was not discussed in policies governing the distribution of public land until the 1980s when the first limited recognition of women’s need for land was given in the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985). This was not restated in the Seventh Year Plan (1985-90). Whilst the subject of women and land is broached in the Eighth (1992-1997), Ninth and (1997-2002) and Tenth (2002-2007) Year Plans, women’s rights to land still receive little attention. (see figure 2).
Figure 2:
Women’s Land Rights in Central Government Policy (Five Year Plans)
Increase women’s access to productive land
by regularising leasing and sharecropping of uncultivated agricultural land
by women’s groups Women’s rights to be recognised and women to
be given preference in group activities for land conservation and
improvement Equal share in parental property for
women. State governments to be asked
to allot 40% of surplus land to women and allot the rest jointly in the
name of both spouses Directive of joint title not restated Government endeavours to give joint titles
to spouses in land distribution No discussion 1985 1990 1992 1997 2002 2007 Time Policy unknown
Pre 1980 1980
Source: GOI Planning Commission, 2002a, 2002b.
3.2.2.1 Socio-Economic Factors
In the few cases where women own land individually, cases of self-management are rare (Agarwal, 1994). Legal ownership is therefore not synonymous with control. Socio-economic constraints also impinge on women’s ability to own and control13 land. These are discussed next.
2.4..1 Marriage Practices
In northwest India, marriages among Hindus are almost always outside the natal village. In contrast in northeast and south India there is a marked preference for in-village marriage, whilst in the western, central and eastern states, there is a mixture of the two (Agarwal, 1994). Women living outside their natal village experience difficulties in managing and supervising inherited land due to the physical and social distance from the natal home, in terms of restricted mobility (Agarwal, 1997a). It is not surprising that wherever women in India have customarily had rights in land, it has been associated with their typically residing within the natal village and often in the natal home (Agarwal, 1994).
Women living outside their natal village may try to retain the land through leasing but do not always realise the full benefit as they are unable to ensure a fare price or share of the crop. Pressure and intimidation from interested male parties may further compound these problems (Agarwal, 1994).
2.4..2 Dowry
Whilst Dowry was prohibited in 1961 it is still a widespread practice. As was discussed in section 2.3.1, dowry is often cited as a reason for girls not receiving a share in land. Dowry therefore acts as an obstacle to women claiming a share (however whether they would receive a share should dowry not be given is questionable).
Gupta (2002) found that dowry was also the cause of selling land. Of the 870 households surveyed in two districts in West Bengal, 295 households (mainly with small holdings) had to sell or mortgage their land or borrow money at a high rate of interest to pay for dowry (Gupta, 2002: 1749). In such cases dowry impedes men’s as well as women’s access to land.
2.4..3 Taboo Against Ploughing
Agarwal (1994) believes that the taboo against ploughing is perhaps women’s biggest obstacle to claiming land rights. Due to the vehemence with which this taboo is followed women are dependent on men to plough, meaning they are unable to exercise full control over the land.
2.4..4 Gendered Mobility
In rural areas of India women’s social and economic relations with the world beyond the home are typically mediated through male relatives due to physical and social restrictions on mobility. This affects women’s access to agricultural inputs, markets, credit, education and knowledge, as well as to judicial and administrative bodies. In Agarwal’s words the restrictions on women’s visibility, mobility and behaviour, ‘whether internalised by women or imposed on them by threat of gossip, reprimand or violence, impinge directly on their autonomy and ability to claim and control land’ (Agarwal, 1994: 30).
2.4..5 Gender Ideology
Gender ideology in terms of norms of women’s needs, work roles, capabilities and entitlements impinge on the framing and implementation of public policies and laws relating to property (Agarwal, 1994). This ideology also affects the legitimacy of their claims to land.
Whether women are aware of this ideology or whether they have internalised these ideologies as Kabeer (1999) and Sen (1993) suggest is a matter for debate. As Agarwal (1994: 430) argues, ‘the appearance of compliance need not mean that women lack a correct perception of their best interests; rather it can be a survival strategy stemming from the constraints on their ability to act overtly in pursuit of those interests’.
2.4..6 Gender, Caste and Class
It must be remembered that gender is not the only axis along which differential access, control and ownership of land occurs. In the context of India caste as well as class are important factors in determining access to resources (Jassal, 1997). In general those of lower caste have less access and a greater need for land, due to greater poverty and fewer livelihood options. Whilst rights in private or public land are especially important as a poverty alleviation measure for women in poor households, they are also relevant for women of better off households given the risk of poverty following marital breakdown faced by all women (Jackson, 1998). The case of women’s land rights should therefore not be diluted to mean the case of poor women’s land rights.
The above section has shown that women face severe constraints in accessing, controlling and managing land. Methods suggested by Agarwal and others for overcoming these constraints are addressed next.
2.5 Overcoming barriers
Agarwal (1994) argues that for women to acquire and exercise control over land, simultaneous struggles in the different arenas of household, community and State are required. Contestations of the inherent inequalities that exist in the distribution of material resources, gender ideologies, social practices, and in law are critical (ibid.). Reducing women’s economic and social dependency on sons, husbands or brothers through strengthening their fall-back position must also be tackled (ibid).
Agarwal (1994) argues that providing infrastructural support for women will help increase their ability to function as independent farmers. This will mean removing gender inequalities associated with access to credit, labour, other production inputs, and information on new agricultural technologies (ibid.).
To enable women to claim their share in parental land Agarwal (ibid.) believes masses of women and their families will need to refuse to pay and receive dowry. All of the above changes necessitate collective support of women locally and nationally but most critically require women to take the initiative in fighting for their land rights (ibid.). Unni (1999) states that this needs to take place in the form of a mass movement, otherwise few women are likely to gain access to property within existing male-dominated structures.
Due to the difficulties of obtaining independent rights Agarwal (1994) proposes group ownership as a possible alternative where all can use but not dispose of land. Other alternatives such as these must be found.
There many obstacles to women claiming land rights and the ways of overcoming them are far from simple. Agarwal (1994: 315) argues that this does not however justify ‘depriving them of their claims’. The next chapter examines the extent to which women’s land rights are being addressed in Madhya Pradesh, both at state level and amongst civil society.
3 Women’s Land Rights in Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh (MP hereafter) is situated in central India (see figure 1). It has a population of approximately 60 million, 71 per cent of which is rural. The vast majority of the rural population (approximately 80 per cent) are dependent on agriculture, animal husbandry and allied occupations (NCAS, 2002).
Scheduled Castes (SC) constitute 15 per cent of the total population and Scheduled Tribes (ST) 20 per cent. Those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes own the least land (see figure 3). In general SC and ST women (and men) are therefore more disadvantaged in terms of access to family owned land compared with Other Backward Castes (OBC) and General castes (e.g. Brahmin, Thakur).
44 per cent of rural labourers are SC, and 32
per cent Adivasis; most are landless 15 per cent of wasteland could be cultivated
if investment in irrigation was made 13 per cent of SC have land, 25 per cent of
total landholdings 45 per cent of land is net sown area, 3 per
cent lower than the country average 57 per cent of holdings are marginal and
small farmer ran, sharing 16 per cent of total land Average landholding of 2.6ha 44 percent of land is cultivatable and 15 per
cent is barren i.e. cannot be transformed into cultivatable land 44, 342 lakh hectares in area
Figure 3:
Land Profile of Madhya Pradesh
Sources:
Madhya Bharat Resource Centre, 1999; MP Human Development Report 1998; Bose,
2001; NCAS, 2002.
No macro data is available on the amount of land owned by women as no macro studies have been done and census data on land ownership is not sex-segregated.
3.1 Importance Given to Women’s Land Rights in MP
The State created a Department of Women and Child Development in 1988. The MP Policy for Women (1995) was however the first attempt of the Department to formulate a comprehensive policy for the empowerment of women. The policy cites the gender gap in control over property as the ‘single most important factor affecting women’s position’ and aims to promote an increase in women’s control over land, property and other common resources through:
Ø Extending co-parcenary rights to women and entering names of all entitled women members of the family as landowners in the land records in all future mutations
Ø Distributing government land in the name of women
Ø Vesting village lands in joint control of adult women, promoting use of common land by women
Ø Ensuring at least 30 per cent of new patwaris are women
Ø Providing special training programmes for women, government functionaries, Panchayat Raj Institutions and other local institutions to ensure awareness and knowledge of government schemes relating to women’s claims in land and agriculture
Whilst the policy was a step forward, several problems remain. The intention to give all future government distributed land in the name of women alters within the same document to become ‘all land distribution and redistribution undertaken by the government will be made in future in the name of the wife too along with her husband’s’ (p37). Presumably the former intention was considered too radical or contentious.
An evaluation of the report (commissioned by the Government of MP in 2001) shows that of the 565 officials, non-officials and panchayat representatives interviewed in ten study districts only 213 were actually aware of the policy, with particularly low levels of awareness at the village and panchayat levels (Buch et al, 2001).
In five years of the policy the majority (59 per cent) of land entitlements issued in one district were given to male members only. Joint entitlements increased from 3.2 per cent in 1995-1996 to 40.6 per cent in 1999-2000. However it was found that in the last year of the policy (1999-2000), 22 per cent of entitlements were given in the name of males only. This violates the government’s own instructions (ibid.). Data was not available for other districts, perhaps indicative of the lack of importance given to these instructions.
Data supplied by five districts regarding informing female heirs in mutation cases, showed they had been informed in 51 per cent of cases in 1995-1996 and almost 69 per cent of cases in 1999-2000. However a number of revenue officers said there was still no accepted procedure for informing female heirs and after cross-checking selected cases, it was found that these figures were not supported (ibid.).
Whilst all collectors had been informed by the state revenue department in 1997 that preference should be given to women’s groups in the granting of entitlements of river bed/tank bed for growing seasonal vegetables, none were reported as having been given in the ten districts (ibid.).
Only 10 women (4 per cent) were recruited as patwaris between 1995 and 2000 and women constituted only 1 per cent of agriculture extension officers (ibid.).
Whilst some progress is being made at the state level there is still a long way to go. It is within this context that the findings from the village study should be viewed.
3.2 Women’s Land Rights Issues in Civil Society
Whilst gender focused organisations and
those working for land rights exist in Madhya Pradesh, the two do not work on
the same issues. Of those people spoken
to no-one knew of gender-focussed organisations who work on land rights or land
right’s organisations who focus on14. One organisation which has begun to look at
women’s land rights is Ekta Parishad, a people’s movement that campaigns for
the land rights of scheduled castes and tribes (see Appendix 3). Ekta Parishad has been campaigning for joint
land rights since 198915 and
has also helped several groups of largely landless tribal women gain access and
rights to village wastelands (Nandi, 1999).
Gender issues in general however are very weak amongst civil society in MP 16.
An environmental activist who was spoken to said land rights per se and land rights of women are seen as two separate struggles. The thinking is first to obtain land and to then worry about women’s land rights.
Discussions were held with a senior government official, an ex-senior government official, 2 activists, a gender consultant, and 2 NGO workers to find information on women’s land rights in MP. During these discussions the question of why women’s land rights were not looked at in civil society was asked. The following responses were given:
Ø Have not really thought about it
Ø Issue of land generally researched by left-wing economists who do not look at gender
Ø Aside from activists, NGOs don’t want confrontation so don’t push for women’s access
Ø It is too difficult to search through all of the land records and laws
Ø India is a male dominated society
Ø Researching land issues is dangerous
Ø What is researched depends in part on the interests of funding bodies
Ø Land issues are not of so much relevance to women in urban areas and those from higher castes. Issues such as violence against women are more relevant to these women so these are the issues they tackle
There is therefore a wide range of reasons why women’s land rights are not being addressed in civil society.
4 Methodology
Madhya Pradesh was chosen as the site for this research due to the large presence of Ekta Parishad, which made the research possible. It was also chosen due to the lack of information on women’s land rights in central India (Agarwal, 1994). This section covers the parameters, methods, and limitations of the primary research undertaken in MP.
4.1 Parameters of the Research
Research was undertaken with the assistance of Ekta Parishad who chose the area in which the sample villages are situated. The choice was based on their working presence in the area, as this enabled easier access to villages and villagers. Interviewees were therefore more exposed to land issues, which made discussion of these sensitive issues possible. Workers of Ekta Parishad were of the opinion that discussion of land issues at a theoretical level would cause no conflict in this area. Caution was still taken when choosing and asking questions.
Ekta Parishad supplied an interpreter for two weeks to provide translation during the interviews. The primary research was thus contained within this time frame. Two villages of similar caste composition were chosen to enable more effective comparison and a week was spent in each.
4.2 Sample
The
aim was to interview around 20 women and 20 men, split between the two
villages. Both landless and those from
families with land of different areas were included in the sample. Women
and men were interviewed to enable comparison of their perceptions and to understand the constraints, which a lack
of support for women’s land rights by men may bring. This was also necessary due to a perceived
lack of discussion with men in the literature.
The sample group was further cut across by caste, age and marital
status.
The final sample comprised those in the
cross-section who were willing and available to be interviewed (see table
1).
Table
1:
Sample Group
|
|
NO. OF RESPONDENTS – VILLAGE 1 |
NO. OF RESPONDENTS – VILLAGE 2 |
||||||
|
|
Female |
Male |
Female |
Male |
||||
|
CASTE |
Land* |
L/less |
Land |
L/less |
Land |
L/less |
Land |
L/less |
|
SC |
2 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
OBC |
1 |
2 |
4 |
|
7 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
|
Brahmin |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sub Totals |
4 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
9 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
11 |
8 |
11 |
10 |
||||
*Land may belong to woman or man’s family and may not be individually
owned.
4.3 Methods
Semi-structured individual interviews (where possible) were used based on a checklist of questions (see Appendix 4) formulated to gain insight into the research questions. The checklist was tested and any ambiguous questions were rephrased. It was found for example that the term control was not fully understood. Questions were phrased in terms of decision-making. Questions were not asked in a fixed order and were adapted depending on the situation of the interviewee. For example, when talking to recently widowed women, questions about how women felt about land being held in both husband and wife’s names were omitted to avoid upsetting the interviewee. In other cases answers given prompted the formulation of further questions. Whilst this made comparison of answers more difficult, it was felt necessary for ethical reasons, as well as for gaining the maximum insight possible.
Interviews were conducted in an informal conversational style to put the interviewee at ease as much as possible. No set amount of time was allotted for each interview and interviews took between 45 minutes and 1 and a half hours.
4.4 Methods of Analysis
No statistical techniques have been used as the sample size is very small. Transcripts of interviews were written and people’s answers to each question, along with their sex, age, caste, marital and land status, and village were then transferred on to a database. The responses were then analysed by counting, collating and comparing the number of responses.
4.5 Limitations of Primary Research
The biggest limitation was time as fieldwork was cut short following advice to leave India from the government of the United Kingdom. The study of another village where joint land rights in government allotted land had been received was planned, but was not possible.
Interviews were semi-structured due to a need to focus given time constraints. It would have been beneficial to have several more open discussions with the same person to build up a rapport, learn about their life histories and to see if land issues were in fact raised.
The sample group was small due to the need to spend time with each individual discussing a wide-range of issues. The cross-section was therefore also small and consequently may not have been representative of different groups in society.
The use of additional research methods such as time-lines and activity profiles would have also been helpful. Time-lines of the villages would have been useful to observe any change in women’s use and/or access or ownership of land. Activity profiles would have helped gain a clearer idea of what activities women were undertaking on land. As research was based around perceptions, interviews were considered the most important aspect of the research. Time was used accordingly.
A further limitation was that of using an interpreter. Whilst meanings and intentions of questions were clarified and practiced with the interpreter, some confusion was apparent. Some questions may have been asked with a different meaning to that intended. It is also possible that the interpreter may have influenced answers without my knowledge.
Asking people about a resource that many lack and many want carried the risk of raising expectations amongst respondents and the village as a whole. Whilst an introduction and explanation of the purpose of the research preceded each interview, expectations were undoubtedly raised.
The findings of the case study are discussed in the next chapter.
5 Case Study
The two villages used in this study are situated in the Katni District of MP (see Appendix 2). Both are roadside villages, which means they are more developed than interior villages in terms of access to infrastructure (roads etc) as well as to information due to the flow of people travelling through. Exogamous marriages to strangers were the norm in both villages. Whilst no exact figures could be obtained, female literacy was low and lower than male literacy.
5.1 Profile of Land in Village 1
Village 1 has a population of approximately 2622. Only 8-10 land entitlements have been given by the government in this village, the rest is ancestral land. No Scheduled Castes have land holdings above 3 acres whilst OBC, ST and General Castes all do. There is not a single case in the records of women having land entitlement and ownership. The majority of land is owned by OBC followed by ST, SC and General Castes.
Figure 4: Landholdings by Caste Group in Village 1
Source: Sarpanch and Patwari, 2002.
Table
2: No.
of Families With Land Entitlements by Caste in Village 1
|
Caste |
No. of families with land
entitlement |
|
Scheduled Caste |
25 |
|
Scheduled Tribe |
40 |
|
Other Backward Caste |
102 |
|
General (upper caste) |
30 |
|
Total |
197 |
Source:
Sarpanch and Patwari, 2002.
5.2 Profile of Land in Village 2
Village 2 has a population of 1050. No government land has been allotted in this village, all land was ancestral. A total of 12 women have entitlements in their name, 2 ST women and 9 OBC women.
Table 3: No. of Families With Land Entitlements by
Caste in Village 2
|
Caste |
No. of families with land
entitlement |
|
Scheduled Caste |
20 |
|
Scheduled Tribe |
35 |
|
Other Backward Caste |
129 |
|
General (upper caste) |
6 |
|
Total |
190 |
Source: Sarpanch and Patwari, 2002.
Caste population data for this village was highly conflicting and therefore could not be used.
5.3 Findings and Analysis
Answers to some questions varied greatly resulting in long lists of answers with just one response. In these instances answers are presented in a table, as all cannot be discussed here due to word limitations. Some interviewees gave more than one response. The total number of responses for any one question may therefore be greater than the number of respondents.
Answers were analysed in relation to people’s age, caste, marital and land status and the village in which they lived. Unless otherwise stated, answers given did not markedly differ according to the above variables.
3.2.2.1 Inheritance
Ø Can women inherit land?
This question relates to inheritance of parental property as opposed to that of husbands property by widows. This will be discussed next. Out of 32 respondents, 21 said that women could inherit land. Eight of these (4 women, 4 men) specifically said women could inherit by law. All respondents said that women don’t inherit land in practice however (see table 4). This demonstrates the gap between law and practice discussed by Agarwal (1994). This also suggests that legal literacy in terms of inheritance may not be a large problem in the two villages.
Table
4:
Responses - Can Women Inherit Land?
|
Answer |
FREQUENCY |
|
Married women give land to their brothers because they have more
rights in in-laws |
9 |
|
Brothers wouldn’t like it, the relationship with their sister may
break down |
8 |
|
Dowry is given for girls |
6 |
|
Land goes to brother |
4 |
|
Only if there are no sons |
4 |
|
Don’t inherit if only small amount of land, can if there is large
amount of land |
2 |
|
Ancient tradition |
1 |
|
Relationship with parents will break down |
1 |
|
Girls brothers give their share to their brothers because there’s
already extra investment in marriage for girls so they don’t like to take |
1 |
|
Girls don’t take their share |
1 |
The most cited reason was that married women have more rights in their in-laws home. Unmarried daughters were not mentioned. Clearly the thinking is that all girls will get married at an early age, as is the reality in much of rural India (see Box 1). Once a girl is married she no longer has rights in her parental home as discussed in section 4.4.1.1. The fact that women live in another village after marriage was not mentioned.
The marriages of girls belonging to SC in
Village 1 are often arranged as young as eight, though the girls are not
actually sent to live with their husband and his family until the age of
12-16. The situation amongst OBC in Village 1 is
different however and most girls are not married nowadays until the age of
16-18.
Box 1: Caste Difference in Girl’s Marital Age
The next most cited reasons (with 8 responses each) were that girls do not inherit because they get dowry and because the relationship with their brothers would break down. Six of the 8 respondents who gave the former answer were men, whilst the latter reason was given equally by men and women. It was apparent that some women wanted to give their share to their brothers. One woman said the relationship with brothers is the most important thing in our lives (OBC, village 2, 30-39). This feeling was clearly echoed by many of the women interviewed. The ‘voluntary’ giving up of a claim in land may represent girl’s need for the help of their brothers in ensuring their own well-being. As discussed in section 2.4.2.4, women’s outside relations are mediated though male relatives, they also rely heavily on their brothers following divorce or desertion. Preserving relationships with brothers may therefore be a survival strategy.
Whilst a preference for sons was not explicitly mentioned, it was implicit in some conversations (see Box 2).
Box 2: Son Preference
When asking people how many children they have, some would
answer by telling the number of sons they had. In some cases it was not until the
question of whether they have any daughters was actually asked that it was
discovered that they did have daughters too! Another indicator of the importance
of boy children arose during discussions of family with female
interviewees. Some women expressed pity for me for not having any brothers.
The feeling that a woman should not go to court to claim her rights if they are not freely given was expressed. One woman for instance said if the girl’s brother and wife want to give its okay, but she should not go to court to fight for it (OBC, 20-29). Women at a group interview also gave this response. This may have implications for those who do try and claim their rights. The opinions of the rest of the community appear very important to individuals and most do not wish to act in such a way as to have the community think badly of them. No case of women coming forward to claim their inheritance rights was known of in either village.
Four people said girls could inherit in the absence of sons. Three instances of this were found (see Box 3 below). This seems to be the only way in which girls can inherit land.
One woman’s father had 1 acre of land. When her father died the land was given
to her and her sisters, as they have no brothers. They had to sell the land however as it
was too far away to manage. One man and one woman also said their mother and
mother-in-law respectively had inherited land in the absence of
brothers. In the women’s case, her
in-laws both lived on the land that the wife inherited.
Box 3: Women Inheriting in the Absence of Brothers
Two people said that women will receive land if there is a large amount, but will get nothing if only a small amount of land is available. This echoes the fragmentation argument. Given that the Scheduled Castes in both villages own smaller amounts of land than other castes, the fragmentation argument may be stronger amongst Scheduled Castes.
One man said that when his father died, the entitlement was transferred into his own, his mother’s, and his brother’s names. Upon finding he had sisters, the question of why their names were not included was asked. He replied that his sister’s names were on the entitlement but that this was forcefully done by the government (OBC, 30-39, Village 1). He therefore did not recognise their claim, even though it was legally enforced. Changing social attitudes is perhaps more important than changes in law.
Ø
What happens/would happen to land
when a woman gets married (if she had
inherited land)?
This question was asked to 5 interviewees (4 men, 1 women) who had suggested it is possible for girls to inherit land in specific circumstances, i.e. if the girl has no brothers or if the family has lots of land. Three different responses were given. These were that the girl could sell the land and keep the money, the husband and wife could live in the girl’s parent’s home, and that the land could be sharecropped and given to the girl.
As shown in Box 3 there was one case of a couple living on the wife’s land. The likelihood of this happening may depend on (amongst other factors such as the type of marriage system) whether the husband’s family has land.
The most practicable option in an area where exogamous marriages are the norm would be leasing/sharecropping the land. The legal rights of transfer as laid down in the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, are very limited for married women however. Land cannot be mortgaged unless 5 acres of irrigated, or 10 acres of unirrigated land, is retained (Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, section 165: 80). It is also not possible to lease the land for more than one year consecutively within a period of three years (ibid. 88). These laws are intended to protect the poor, however they deny those who cannot manage their land or need income the possibility of retaining it through leasing. They also deny landless or marginal farmers the ability to access more land. These laws have not stopped the practice altogether. Leasing is being pushed underground12 making people (especially women) more vulnerable to exploitation.
Ø
What happens to land if a woman’s husband dies?
Fourteen of the 18 respondents (10 women, 8 men) said that land would go to the widow in the first instance. Eleven people specified that land would devolve onto sons next and one man said it would go directly to the sons if they were old enough (OBC, 30-39, Landed, Village 2). Another said that widows don’t get land as they might go to another man (Male, SC, 50-59, Village 1). Only one said that the brother-in-law could demand the land (Female, SC, Village 1, Landless).
In the majority of cases it would appear
that land does go to the widow. This
does not however mean she will have full control over it. Discovering how much control widows have
proved very difficult and only three responses were shared. This may have been due to the lack of
understanding of the concept of control.
One woman said that during old age
sons will take control (SC, 30-39, Village 1). Another said nowadays sons will have more control (SC, 50-59, Village 1). One quite different response was that daughter-in-laws exploit mother-in–laws
(OBC, 50-59, Village 2). It was not
clear if this was from personal experience, however this occurrence was also
mentioned by my interpreter and warrants further research.
One dimension of exploitation of widows (or perhaps the poor in general) voiced by two women was that of women being illegally charged a sum between Rs500 and Rs2000 by the Patwari to transfer their husband’s title into their own name. To put this amount in context, the average wage labourer earned between Rs20 and Rs40 per day. Whilst 1 widow in Village 1 said she had inherited land after her husband died, the records show that there is no land in women’s names in Village 1. This indicates she had land but no entitlement.
Women have few land rights throughout their life-cycle, only when their husband dies do they have any and even then they often lack control.
Ø If a woman owned parental land would this help her in her in-laws home?
Out of 13 respondents (6 women, 7 men) three people said it wouldn’t help women. Ten (5 women, 5 men) thought ownership of land would help women in her in-laws home. The main reasons given were that she would be more respected (5 responses) and less abused (3 responses). One explanation given was that in-laws would worry that if they abused their daughter-in-law they would not get the land (Male, 30-39, SC, Village 1). Two people said she would face less problems, one said she would have more power and the other said it would help because land is more important than money. The answers suggest that girls do face some problems in their in-laws home and that land ownership may lessen these problems.
3.2.2.1 Marital Breakdown
Ø
What happens to land when a
marriage breaks down?
Four of the 16 respondents (9 men and 7 women) said that women receive nothing, and three said women get half. Three stipulated that if the wife leaves her husband, she gets nothing. Even if a wife leaves her husband due to mental or physical abuse, she may get nothing. Three said if the husband leaves his wife she would get half, though one said she would have to go to court. Three said she would receive a share if she has children. It may be the case that childless women are especially vulnerable, not only are they considered of less value by their husbands, they may also be considered of less value in their natal home.
One of the respondents remarked that she couldn’t afford to go to court for maintenance when she couldn’t afford to live (Female, SC, 30-39, Village 1). This highlights the problem of travel and opportunity costs, i.e. the cost of not working to attend the court, undoubtedly one of the deterrents that prevent poor women claiming their rights in court. One man said court cases take so long that women end up compromising and the court sometimes doesn’t give the right decisions (OBC, 20-29, Village 2). Two women in Village 2 had been fighting for maintenance for years without success (see Box 4).
Box 4: Gender Bias in the Courts
A woman in Village 2 with two handicapped
daughters, one of whom had a son, had been fighting the courts for 4 years
for maintenance from her husband who had left her. Even in such a situation
till date she had received nothing. Another woman in Village 2 had been fighting for
10-12 years for maintenance and a share of land for her son. Till date she
too has received nothing
The legal sector in MP is male dominated and it would appear unsympathetic to the needs of deserted, separated or divorced women (Buch et al, 2001). As most women have no property (except perhaps jewellery), they are left in a very vulnerable position. They usually have to return to their natal home where their dependency on their former husbands is transferred to a reliance on their male relatives. There are cases in the literature of women being treated poorly by family when they have to return home with nothing (see Agarwal, 1994).
In the first village there was some difference between the responses of those belonging to SC and OBC. Four of the 5 women belonging to SC said women get nothing, yet all 5 OBC said it was possible on certain conditions, i.e. if she goes to court or if the husband left his wife. It may be that OBC women are at least more likely to receive maintenance.
Ten of the 12 respondents who said women would get a share of land under certain circumstances were asked how this would happen in practice. Five said she would have to go to court whilst the other 5 gave different reasons (see table 5).
Table
5: Responses – How Would Women Receive a Share
of Land Following Marital Breakdown?
|
ANSWER |
FREQUENCY |
|
She would have to go to court |
5 |
|
She would have to live with her in-laws |
1 |
|
She would have to live in her husband’s house |
1 |
|
She could employ someone else to work on it or could have a partition
in the house |
1 |
|
She would have to live there and when son grew up he could manage the
land |
1 |
|
They would split the land |
1 |
The response of ‘she would have to go to
court’ does not explain how the land could be divided. It was clear that none of the respondents
really knew how division of land would happen.
This is perhaps indicative of two factors: women don’t get a share in
practice and finding a practical way of actually dividing land is very
difficult. In practice then, as the
women in Gupta’s (2002) study pointed out, there is still no known way of dividing
land after marital breakdown.
5.4 Different Rights: Joint Vs Independent
3.2.2.1 Joint Rights
Ø
What do you think about
joint rights?
No female respondents and only 2 male respondents had heard of joint rights in government allotted (or other) land. Once explained, only 2 of the 33 respondents (14 women, 19 men) felt they were a bad idea. These 2 men said with joint rights women would control men. The remaining 31 respondents thought it was a good idea (see table 6).
The majority thought joint rights were good as they would confer equal rights and because both husband and wife could decide about selling. More specifically, 3 respondents said a husband couldn’t sell if he has a drinking and/or gambling problem. Independence following husband’s death was a popular response given by women (5 responses), both after the husband’s death as well as upon marital break-up. The rest of the responses varied greatly (see table 6). All the responses show that men and women are aware of women’s inferior control over land. The responses also show people’s (women’s in particular) fears, for instance that women might be exploited after husband’s death, a husband might take another wife and leave her with nothing or that the husband may sell the land.
Table 6: Responses – What Do You Think About Joint
Rights?
|
ANSWER |
FREQUENCY |
|
Equal rights |
8 |
|
Both husband and wife would decide about selling |
8 |
|
Good |
4 |
|
If husband dies they can easily become independent |
4 |
|
Husband can’t sell due to drink or gambling problem |
3 |
|
Good if husband dies |
2 |
|
Good but would have to be equal rights |
1 |
|
If husband brings another wife will still have rights on land |
1 |
|
If husband abuses his wife he may do so less |
1 |
|
Wouldn’t have to face problems of having to give money to patwari for
transferring entitlement |
1 |
|
Conflict between mother and sons wouldn’t occur |
1 |
|
If husband dies no-one can exploit her |
1 |
|
If husband abuses wife she can claim her rights and become
independent |
1 |
|
It would be easy to have land in her name after husbands death |
1 |
|
If someone dies there will be no quarrels |
1 |
|
One person can’t dominate the other |
1 |
|
Divorce would be less as husband wouldn’t leave wife |
1 |
|
Doesn’t matter because wife will get the land if husband dies |
1 |
|
It would be easy to have land
in her name after husbands death |
1 |
Eight of the respondents were asked if they thought joint rights would give women more control13. One said it would because a wife could stop her husband from selling the land whilst another said she would have more decision-making power if the relationship was good. The remaining 6 said there would be no change, though 2 said the husband could not evict his wife from the home. One person said there would be no change as the husband would still plough and the wife would continue to do the same types of work. Another said the husband would still have more rights in practice, despite equal rights in law. The rest gave no further explanation.
Some of the respondents who thought joint rights were a good idea as they would bring equal rights, said there would be no change in women’s role or in their control. Rights were then not seen as synonymous with control. The only right people felt women would actually possess was that over selling, however sale of the joint entitlements issued in MP is not allowed. This benefit then would not accrue.
Whilst no joint entitlements were given in
either village, the participation of women in the process of gaining such
entitlement is uncertain. Mazumdar (1997) found that Revenue Officers
in MP were unaware if women knew of these entitlements, as they were never able
to speak to them. Similarly, if a
meeting regarding the filing of
applications for joint entitlements in a nearby village is atypical, their
participation seems unlikely (see Box 5).
I went to a nearby village where joint entitlements
were soon to be given. The Patwari was finalising the list of applicants
for the entitlements. The Tasildhar arrived to confirm that the applicants
were who they said they were and that they were landless. Confirmation was to be done with the
Sarpanch who in this village was female.
Her husband arrived in her place however, unquestioned by the
Tasildhar, and gave the confirmations instead. A striking feature of this meeting was that there
were no women present, except for one widow who wished to apply for
land. All the women were hiding
round the corner, listening in silence.
Box 5: Women Listen From Behind the Scenes