Bhoodan Movement – UPSC Post-Independence Notes

• The Bhoodan Movement was initiated by eminent Gandhian leader Acharya Vinoba Bhave in the early 1950s.
• It aimed at bringing about land reforms through a movement rather than relying solely on government legislations. The movement was grounded in Gandhian techniques and principles, such as constructive work and trusteeship.
• Vinoba Bhave and his followers embarked on a ‘padayatra’ (foot march) from village to village, persuading larger landowners to donate at least one-sixth of their lands as ‘bhoodan’ or land-gift. This land would then be distributed among the landless and land-poor individuals.
• The movement’s ambitious target was to accumulate 50 million acres as donations, which constituted one-sixth of the 300 million acres of cultivable land in India.
• While the movement operated independently of the government, it received support from the Congress party. The All India Congress Committee (AICC) actively encouraged Congress members to participate in the movement.
• Eminent leader Jayaprakash Narayan, who had formerly been associated with the Congress and was a prominent figure in the Praja Socialist Party, withdrew from active politics to join the Bhoodan movement in 1953.
• In the latter part of 1955, the movement evolved into a new phase known as ‘gramdan’ or ‘donation of village.’ According to this concept, all land within a Gramdan village was considered collectively owned, not belonging to any single individual. The movement found significant success in Odisha.
• By the 1960s, the Bhoodan/Gramdan movement experienced a decline in its momentum, despite its initial promise. Its transformative potential remained largely untapped.
• Nevertheless, the movement made a meaningful contribution by creating a moral environment that, while pressuring landlords, also fostered conditions conducive to the welfare of the landless. It instilled a sense of social responsibility and equity in the context of land ownership and distribution.

Cooperatives and Community Development Program:

• Leaders of the national movement, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, socialists, and communists, were in agreement that cooperatives would play a crucial role in improving Indian agriculture, particularly for the benefit of the poor. Cooperativization was considered a key element in the pursuit of institutional changes through land reforms.
• Despite this consensus among leaders, there was no universal agreement, especially among the peasantry, regarding the concept of cooperatives. Recognizing this, the Congress, at the time of independence, put forth tentative proposals, suggesting that the state should initiate “pilot schemes for experimenting with cooperative farming among small holders on government unoccupied but cultivable lands.”
• In July 1949, the Kumarappa Committee recommended that the state should have the authority to enforce varying degrees of cooperativization for different types of farming. The First Plan adopted a cautious approach, suggesting that small and medium farms, in particular, should be encouraged to form farming societies.
• Early planners envisioned that the village panchayat, energized by dedicated party workers and supported by trained personnel from the newly launched Community Development Programme (initiated in October 1952), would not only execute rural development projects but also facilitate crucial institutional changes in Indian agriculture. This included aiding in the implementation of land reforms, organizing voluntary labor for community projects, and establishing cooperatives.
• The Second Plan emphasized that “the main task during the Second Five Year Plan is to take such essential steps as will provide sound foundations for the development of cooperative farming so that over a period of ten years or so a substantial proportion of agricultural lands are cultivated on cooperative lines.”
• In contrast, the Third Plan took a more cautious and pragmatic stance towards cooperativization. It set a modest target of establishing ten pilot projects per district for cooperative farming. Simultaneously, it emphasized that cooperative farming should emerge from the success of broader agricultural efforts, including community development initiatives, progress in cooperative credit, marketing, distribution, and processing, rural industrial growth, and the fulfillment of land reform objectives. This approach was seen by some as more of an idealistic statement rather than a concrete action plan.

Types of Cooperatives:

1. Cooperatives Formed to Evade Land Reforms:
   • These were typically formed by affluent and influential families with the aim of evading land reforms and accessing incentives provided by the state.
   • Such cooperatives often included agricultural laborers or ex-tenants as bogus members to fulfill the criteria set by the government.
2. State-Sponsored Cooperative Farms:
   • These were established as pilot projects and involved previously uncultivated lands being made available to marginalized groups such as landless individuals, harijans, and displaced persons.

Limitations of Cooperativization:

1. Leadership Dominated by Influential Families:
   • The leadership positions in cooperatives, including president, secretary, and treasurer, were often held by leading families in the village. These families not only owned significant amounts of land but also controlled trade and money lending activities.
   • Low-interest agricultural credit provided through cooperative rural banks was sometimes diverted by these families for non-agricultural purposes, consumption, and even money lending.
2. Formation for Evasion of Laws:
   • Forming cooperatives allowed influential families to bypass ceiling laws or tenancy laws. They often hired bogus members as wage laborers or tenants to work the land.
3. Exploitation of State Assistance:
   • Bogus cooperatives enabled influential families to take advantage of financial assistance provided by the state, including subsidies and priority access to agricultural inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds, and even tractors.
4. Inefficiencies in Government-Run Cooperatives:
   • Government-run cooperatives often faced challenges such as poor-quality land, inadequate irrigation facilities, and a lack of genuine cooperative effort. They were often run more like government-sponsored projects than motivated joint efforts by cultivators.
   • The expected increase in productivity and economies of scale, which are key benefits of cooperative farming, were not consistently observed in these farms.
5. Bureaucratic Issues:
   • Instead of promoting people’s participation, the cooperative movement often evolved into a heavily staffed government department with officials, clerks, inspectors, and so on.
   • This bureaucracy, which may not have always aligned with the principles of the cooperative movement, tended to be influenced by local vested interests, hindering rather than facilitating cooperative initiatives.

Positives of the Cooperatives:

1. Increased Access to Cheap Credit:
   • Service cooperatives played a crucial role in providing a larger section of the peasantry with increased access to affordable credit.
2. Facilitating Access to Modern Inputs:
   • Cooperatives were instrumental in making improved seeds, modern agricultural implements, and cost-effective fertilizers available to farmers.
3. Enhancing Market Access:
   • Many cooperatives assisted farmers in marketing their agricultural produce, ensuring they had access to wider markets.
4. Support for Green Revolution:
   • The cooperative movement provided a necessary foundation for the success of the Green Revolution, which aimed to significantly increase agricultural productivity through the intensive use of modern inputs. Cooperatives played a vital role in disseminating these technologies to farmers.

Operation Barga:

Background:

• In the period from 1967 to 1977, West Bengal experienced significant political turmoil, marked by violence, governance crises, and internal strife within the ruling Congress party.
• The state witnessed intense suppression campaigns against groups like the Naxalites and movements representing rural poor.

CPI(M)’s Rise to Power:

• In 1977, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] came to power, benefitting from popular discontent and opposition to the Emergency imposed by the central government.
• The CPI(M) managed to establish a dominant presence in West Bengal’s political landscape and retained power through multiple successive assembly elections.

Operation Barga’s Objectives:

• The CPI(M) initiated ‘Operation Barga’ as a program aimed at reforming the tenancy system, with a focus on the welfare of bargadars (sharecroppers) who constituted about a quarter of the rural households.

Issues Addressed:

1. Insecurity of Tenure: Sharecroppers did not have registered tenancies, despite legal provisions for securing permanent tenure.
2. Unfair Crop Share: Sharecroppers were often required to give an unreasonably high share of their produce to jotedars (wealthy peasants).

Implementation and Impact:

• Operation Barga involved political mobilization and organization of sharecroppers by the CPI(M) and affiliated peasant groups.
• It led to the legal registration of sharecroppers, granting them permanent leases and secure land tenure.
• The program also enforced laws regarding the share of the produce that sharecroppers could retain, thereby improving their income.

Analysis:

• The reformation of the jotedari system provided an incentive for all parties involved to increase agricultural production.
• It played a contributory role in the onset of the Green Revolution and the adoption of multi-cropping practices, resulting in increased income for both sharecroppers and jotedars.
• For jotedars who were also cultivators, this reform allowed them to focus on enhancing production.
• Additionally, the government complemented tenancy and land reform measures with programs that provided affordable credit to sharecroppers and small-scale farmers, protecting them from exploitation by moneylenders.

Farmers’ Movements in India:

Background:

• Since gaining independence, India has witnessed a wide array of agrarian movements, each unique in its nature and objectives.
• These movements ranged from the historic Telangana peasant movement to the Naxalite or Maoist movements in the late 1960s, and later, the ‘new’ farmers’ movements of the 1980s.

Notable Movements:

1. Telangana Peasant Movement:
   • This legendary movement emerged prior to independence and continued thereafter. It was a struggle of peasants in the princely state of Hyderabad (now Telangana), primarily against oppressive landlords.
2. PEPSU Tenants’ Movement:
   • This movement, which started before independence, focused on the rights of tenants in the PEPSU region (Patiala and East Punjab States Union, now part of Punjab).
3. Naxalite/Maoist Movements:
   • Erupted in the late 1960s, this movement was characterized by radical left-wing ideology, often leading to armed rebellion, particularly in regions with severe agrarian issues.
4. Kharwar Tribals’ Movement:
   • Occurred in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar during 1957-58. It was a tribal movement demanding land rights and social justice.
5. Bhils’ Movement in Dhulia:
   • Spanning from 1967-75 in Maharashtra, this was a movement by the Bhil tribal community, advocating for land rights and social equality.
6. Warlis’ Struggle led by Kashtakari Sanghatna:
   • Led by Marxist Jesuit Pradeep Prabhu since 1978, this movement aimed at improving the socio-economic conditions of the Warli tribal community.
7. Protests Against Betterment Levies:
   • In Punjab and Andhra Pradesh, farmers protested against levies imposed for covering costs of irrigation projects, and advocated for fair crop prices.
8. Bharatiya Khet Mazdoor Union:
   • Set up by the Communist Party of India (CPI), this was the first nationwide agricultural labor organization established in Moga in 1968.

Diverse Landscape of Movements:

• These movements reflect the diverse socio-economic and political landscape of India since independence.
• Some were characterized by intense conflict and radical ideologies, while others pursued more measured approaches for agrarian and social change.

Note:

• Due to space limitations, this overview highlights some of the more prominent movements, recognizing that many other significant struggles also played a crucial role in shaping India’s agrarian landscape.

New Farmers’ Movements in India:

Background:

• The 1980s saw the emergence of a significant farmers’ movement led by various organizations across India.
• These movements focused on demanding remunerative prices for agricultural produce and the reduction or elimination of government dues like water charges, electricity fees, loan interest, etc.

Key Movements:

1. Nasik Rail Roko (1980):
   • Led by Shetkari Sangathana of Sharad Joshi in Maharashtra.
   • Nearly 200,000 farmers blockaded road and rail traffic demanding higher prices for onions and sugarcane.
2. Vivasayigal Sangam (Tamil Nadu), Rajya Ryothu Sangha (Karnataka), BKU (Punjab and UP), Khedut Samaj and Kisan Sangh (Gujarat), Shetkari Sangathana (Maharashtra):
   • These organizations mobilized farmers in various states, employing tactics like road blockades, withholding supplies, dharnas at government offices, etc.

Objectives:

• These movements aimed to address the disparity in agricultural prices set by the government, which led to high input costs for farmers and lower returns for their produce.

Criticism and Debate:

• Critics argued that these movements mainly represented the interests of well-to-do farmers who had benefited from post-independence agrarian development.
• Leaders of these movements countered this by highlighting their diverse social base, including medium and small peasants, as well as their inclusion of issues like higher minimum wages and concerns of women and dalits.

Challenges:

• While the demands for higher prices and better facilities were often justified, the ideological division between rural and urban areas was seen as problematic. This approach could lead to confrontations and state repression.

‘New’ vs. Traditional Movements:

• These movements were labeled as ‘new’ due to their non-affiliation with political parties and their emergence outside formal party structures.
• However, over time, many of these organizations did become politically linked.

Ideological Divides:

• The movement faced ideological divisions, with leaders like Sharad Joshi advocating for liberalization and global market integration for farmers.

Longevity and Impact:

• By the 1990s, these movements had lost some momentum, and organizational and ideological unity remained elusive.

Conclusion:

• While these movements addressed critical issues of rural neglect, their confrontational approach was criticized, as it unnecessarily pitted farmers against urban residents.

Cooperativization and Community Development Programs in India:

Background:

• The idea of cooperativization and community development was suggested by J.C. Kumarappa’s Agrarian Reforms Committee.
• The first 5-year plan in India laid the foundation for the cooperative movement.

Key Recommendations:

• Kumarappa’s committee suggested that the state should enforce varying degrees of cooperation for different forms of farming.
• Family farmers were encouraged to use multipurpose cooperative societies for marketing, credit, and other purposes, while below-basic holders were advised to collaborate with other holders for cultivation.

First Five-Year Plan’s Approach:

• The first five-year plan emphasized the encouragement and support of small and medium-sized farms to form cooperative farming groups.
• Service cooperatives were prioritized, and cooperative farming was voluntary and practiced in mature conditions.

Critical Analysis:

• The cooperative movement faced several challenges and limitations:

1. Proxy Farmers:
   • Wealthy farmers used proxy members to bypass land ceiling rules.
2. Misappropriation of Funds:
   • Government funds intended for cooperative initiatives were often misused by the wealthy to obtain subsidies, agricultural inputs, etc.
3. Politicization:
   • While credit societies and other service cooperatives were generally effective, they often fell into the hands of the rural elite and became politicized.
4. Lack of Motivation:
   • Pilot cooperative farms operated more like government-sponsored initiatives rather than being driven by genuine motivation.

Conclusion:

• Despite the initial intent to promote cooperativization and community development, the movement faced practical challenges and failed to flourish as envisioned. Issues like proxy farming, misappropriation of funds, and politicization hindered the progress of the cooperative movement.

Cooperatives in India:

Background:

• The cooperative sector was envisioned to encompass crucial areas like agriculture, small-scale manufacturing, and housing in the First Five-Year Plan (1951-56).
• Objectives included preventing economic power concentration, promoting wider ownership of productive capital, citizen participation in development programs, and reducing poverty and unemployment.

Evolution of Cooperative Legislation:

• The Cooperative Credit Societies Act was enacted in India in 1904, marking a significant step in realizing the cooperative concept.
• In 1912, the Cooperative Societies Act allowed for the registration of non-credit societies and cooperative federations.
• The Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee (Kumarappa Committee) in 1949 recommended that states have the authority to enforce varying levels of cooperation for different types of farming.

Approaches in Five-Year Plans:

• The First Five-Year Plan adopted a cautious approach, encouraging and assisting small and medium-sized farms in forming cooperative agricultural societies.
• The Second Plan expressed optimism, emphasizing the need to lay the foundation for cooperative farming, with the goal of bringing a significant amount of agricultural land under cooperative farming in a ten-year period.

Nagpur Resolution (1959):

• The Congress party passed the Nagpur Resolution in 1959, envisioning an agrarian pattern based on joint cooperative farming in the future, with the stipulation that this pattern be realized within three years.

Shift in Third Plan:

• The Third Plan reflected a changed stance on cooperative farming, advocating for a modest goal of establishing 10 pilot projects in each region.
• Cooperative farming gradually became dependent on general agricultural efforts, as well as developments in credit, marketing, distribution, and processing through the community development movement.

Story of Amul:

• Amul pioneered the dairy cooperative movement in India and established the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF). This federation is collectively owned by around 2.2 million milk producers in Gujarat.
• Dr. Verghese Kurien, the founder chairman of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation, played a pivotal role in Amul’s success.
• Amul, headquartered in Anand, Gujarat, stands as an exemplary case of long-term success for a cooperative organization.
• The Amul Pattern has become a uniquely effective model for rural development.
• Amul catalyzed the White Revolution in India, also known as Operation Flood, which positioned India as one of the largest milk producers globally.

Impact of Amul’s Success:

• Women’s Empowerment: Operation Flood, with support from NGOs like SEWA, facilitated the formation of approximately 6,000 women’s dairy cooperative groups, contributing to women’s empowerment.
• Spillover Impact: Operation Flood influenced other cooperatives as well. Cooperatives for fruit and vegetable growers, oilseed cultivators, small-scale salt producers, and tree growers, all initiated by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), experienced notable success.

Analysis of Cooperative Movement in India:

• Service Cooperatives vs. Farming Cooperatives: Service cooperatives generally outperformed farming cooperatives. However, service cooperatives reinforced the caste-based hierarchical system, and cooperative leaders were often chosen from trading and money-lending communities.
• Exclusion of Landless: The National Commission on Agriculture found in 1971 that the landless were largely excluded from obtaining credit through credit cooperatives.
• Loan Repayment Issues: Failure to repay loans was a significant problem for credit cooperatives, leading to a high percentage of overdue payments. Interestingly, it was observed that the wealthy and landowners were more likely to default compared to the poor and small farmers.
• Impact of Land Reforms: The combined effect of zamindari abolition, tenancy legislation, and ceiling legislation had a substantial impact on achieving a key goal of land reform: enabling progressive cultivators to make investments and improve output. This led to a significant transformation where many weak tenants became successful tenants or virtual owners. Economist Daniel Thorner noted this shift as early as 1968.

FAQs

Q: What is the Bhoodan Movement?

A: The Bhoodan Movement, initiated by Vinoba Bhave in 1951, was a significant land reform movement in India aimed at achieving voluntary land redistribution. The term “Bhoodan” translates to “land gift.” The movement sought to address land inequality by encouraging wealthy landowners to voluntarily donate a portion of their land to landless peasants.

Q: What were the objectives of the Bhoodan Movement?

A: The primary objective of the Bhoodan Movement was to address the rampant land inequality prevalent in rural India. By persuading landowners to donate land voluntarily, the movement aimed to provide land to the landless and marginalized communities, thereby fostering socio-economic equality and reducing poverty in rural areas.

Q: How did the Bhoodan Movement operate?

A: Vinoba Bhave, the founder of the Bhoodan Movement, traveled extensively across India, appealing to landowners to donate a part of their land to the landless. He emphasized the moral and ethical duty of wealthy landowners to help uplift the less fortunate. Land donations were made voluntarily and were then redistributed to landless peasants, often through Gramdan (village-level land pooling and redistribution) and other cooperative efforts.

Q: What impact did the Bhoodan Movement have on Indian society?

A: The Bhoodan Movement had a profound impact on Indian society by bringing attention to the issue of land inequality and initiating voluntary land redistribution. While its effectiveness varied across regions, it succeeded in redistributing millions of acres of land to the landless, empowering marginalized communities, and promoting a spirit of cooperation and social justice.

Q: What is the legacy of the Bhoodan Movement?

A: The Bhoodan Movement left a lasting legacy in India’s social and political landscape. It inspired similar movements and initiatives aimed at addressing rural poverty and land inequality. Although challenges persist, the Bhoodan Movement remains a significant chapter in India’s history of land reform and social activism, highlighting the power of voluntary action and collective responsibility in addressing socio-economic disparities.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901. 

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

• 1. Learn through Videos – here
• 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
• 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
• 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here

Visit our YouTube Channel – here