I

The commission first met the revenue officials of Jehanabad district on September 21, 2006. In response to a query as to how many applications/disputes regarding ‘bataidari’ (sharecropper) under 48 E of the BT Act were pending, the commission was told that there was none. In fact, the deputy collector (LR) clarified that in the last decade and a half not a single dispute was raised. The last dispute raised was in 1985-86, which was disposed of in 1992-93 after having gone through all the processes of appeals.

When it was further asked how it was that in an area which had had a long history of peasant movements under the leadership of different left parties there was no bataidar dispute, they conjectured that perhaps, after a continuous violent struggle over the last 25 years, realisation had dawned on both sides to come to some sort of social pact for peaceful agricultural operations rather than carry on a struggle which caused more suffering than gain to the bataidars. They thought that it was time to restore peace through mutual understanding. When further asked about the incidence of bataidari they all said that it was widespread.

Economic and Political Weekly December 30, 2006

that they had. There were no major complaints regarding bataidari. Anyone who spoke on the issue was asked whether he had filed any dispute with the circle officer (revenue). The reply was uniformly in the negative. On the issue of minimum wages the women particularly mentioned that they receive one and a half kg of grain (rice) and half a kg of mixed ‘satto’, Rs 15 being the price for one and a half kg of rice and Rs 20 for a kg of satto the total would come to Rs 25 per day. It seemed too low as compared to the statement made by revenue officers regarding daily payment of Rs 40 to Rs 50 for an ordinary operation in an ordinary season. A little probing made them admit that it was the rate for ‘nikkoni’ (weeding) which was half a day’s work (8 am to noon). When they had to work for long hours they were given some food. They did not mention anything about the quantum and nature of food. Hence no monetary computation could be made. But they all asserted that there was no gender discrimination in payment of wages. Though it appeared to be too good to be true, looking at the dignified and empowered posture of the women present, one could not disbelieve their statement.

Then there were complaints regarding non-receipt of ‘parchas’ for long occupation of ‘gair mazarua khas’ land and ‘shikasht’ land. Two women in tattered sarees prayed for old age and widow pension. One old person complained that he suffered from hunger as he was not getting any food due to lack of employment. On enquiry it was learnt that the employment guarantee scheme had not yet been made operational in Jehanabad. It would be operational from October 15, 2006 onwards. Destitution with all its ugliness was visible to a discerning observer. A large number of petitions were received. Those were handed over to the senior officer present, with a request to treat them sympathetically and send a report to the secretary to the commission.

The visiting team of the commission reached Betiah Circuit House on the evening of September 22, 2006. Apart from the additional district magistrate (ADM) (LR) and the manager of the Betiah Estate, a few members of the press met the chairman to apprise him of the actual agrarian situation in the district according to their information and perceptions. The ADM (LR) said that there were only five cases under 48E of the BT Act (bataidari case) in the whole district. Though bataidari was largely prevalent in the district, there were hardly any disputes regarding the system. It appeared that the bataidars had just reconciled themselves to the harsh, coercive and inequitous system because they had no other alternative. It was just like what Mahatma Gandhi had found in 1917 – that ryots of Champaran (Betiah was a subdivision of that district) had always resented and resisted the evils of the “tin kathha” system imposed by the ruthless European indigo planters but had “only yielded to force”. However strange it might look, the condition of the poor peasantry has not changed very much in their favour in the intervening 90 years.

According to the print media representatives, one Bepin Behari Varma, once the manager of the Betiah Raj estate carved out a separate estate for himself called Shikarpur estate before the abolition of zamindari in Bihar and became its owner. Over the years his family prospered. The family always had an MP and an MLA among its fold and it was well represented in the all-India and state civil services. The family became so powerful that it became almost “untouchable” in the American sense of the term. Further, according to them the family still had in its direct possession 3,000 to 4,000 acres of benami land. Though there was no MP or MLA from this family after the recent parliamentary and state assembly elections, its members were well represented in all the three tiers of panchayat in Betiah district. So its social and political influence remained undiminished even now. No significant improvement in the agrarian situation could take place unless the overwhelming land resource power of the family currently headed by Madhu Varma could be substantially reduced. There were other three to four influential land owning families who among themselves controlled the land resources of the district. They were assured that the truth or otherwise of their statements would be verified during the jan sunwai to be held at Dhanauti village on September 23, 2006.

Dhanauti is a village situated near the Nepal border about 60 km away from Betiah. After coming out of Betiah, about seven to eight km from it, the road ceased to exist. Folklore has it that Lord Buddha on his last journey to Kushinara (present Kushinagar) followed this road. After continuous rough rolling and pitching for about four hours we reached the village with all our bones protesting against the harsh and violent treatment they received during the journey. We went straight to the panchayat office where we were received cordially by a couple of organisers of the public hearing and rather officiously by the gram panchayat mukhia. Soon the organisers left and the mukhia was left alone with us. That there was no love lost between the organisers and the mukhia was apparent from their body language earlier. As soon as the organisers left the room, he became quite warm and cordial. His first statement was that he had defeated both Madhu babu’s proxy and the organisers’ candidates in the recent panchayat polls. But the left wing party was spreading a canard that he was put up by Madhu babu and that Madhu babu’s candidate was a phoney one put up to divide the votes. This sudden outburst seemed more to confirm the doubt he tried to dispel. Then he said that these organisers who belonged to a strong left political party really did nothing for the benefit of actual cultivators. They were only for agitation and disturbance that already affected peaceful cultivation which all landowners and bataidars disliked. He cautioned us not to give any importance to grievances that they would make in the jan sunwai. The undercurrent of tension existing between the landowning class and the actual tillers came out sharply and openly.

No Long-Term Strategy

The organisers had built a small rostrum under a peepal tree by the side of the main road of the village. A crowd of three to four hundred persons had already collected. There were women among them though their proportion appeared to be smaller than that at Jehanabad. Since we had insufficient time the organisers were requested to start the proceedings without further ado. Those who wanted to express their grievances stood in a line. Men and women came up to the rostrum and said whatever they had in mind on the microphone. They also brought with them written petitions. There were two major sets of complaints. One set related to nonregularisation of occupation of gair mazarua land and shikast land and variations thereof. The other set related to absence of physical possession of allotted land in spite of valid parcha given to them by the revenue officials. A very serious complaint related to distribution of parchas

Economic and Political Weekly December 30, 2006 by ministers for the same land at different points of time. It appeared that the same land was shown as distributed by ministers in 1982, 1986-87 and sometime in the early 1990s. If true, the local revenue officials took the ministers for a ride. Fraud was perpetrated both on the ministers and the landless peasant by the revenue officials. In fact, 700-odd petitions related only to these cases. Altogether about a 1,000 written complaints were received in two hours. All these petitions were publicly handed over to the ADM (LR) who was present with a request to look into each case properly and to inform the complainants individually the results of the official action. The land reforms commissioner who was also present assured that he would ensure that all the written complaints would be appropriately looked into and that all the petitioners would be given oral rulings by the officials. The collector would also inform the land reforms commission about the outcome of these enquiries.

The commission was a bit surprised to note that no complaint was made about the abuses of the bataidari system. Though frequent references were made about holding of large tracts of land beyond the ceiling in benami, when a request was made to come forward with specific evidence so that at least a few cases could be reopened as provided for in the law, the response from one of the organisers and local leader was strange. He said that it was for the government to gather evidence and the peasants’ organisation had nothing to do with it. If it were to be left to the government, it had done all that it thought should be done. Therefore, they had no occasion for lodging a general complaint that such and such landowner still possessed thousands of acres of agricultural land. It was explained to the leaders and the general audience how in West Bengal in the late 1960s sharecroppers and agricultural workers were organised to tender oral evidence in hundreds and how on the basis of incontrovertible oral evidence, well-crafted documents were rejected and discarded, lands were brought under the ownership of the original landowner and excess lands were vested in the state. Perhaps, the peasants’ organisations here were too busy to respond to the acute and instant cases of repression and oppression to find time for the tedious process of gathering evidence which might help the poor peasants in the long term.

Towards the concluding portion of his famous report on the ryots of Champaran in 1917, Mahatma Gandhi had recorded “The indigo planters have successfully used the institutions of the country to enforce their will against the ryots and have not hesitated to supplement them by taking the law in their own hands. The result has been that the ryots have shown abject helplessness, such as I have not witnessed in any part of India where I have travelled” (Tendulkar, D G Mahatma, Publication Division, GoI, New Delhi, 1951, pp 206-07). Almost 90 years later, we also witnessed the same powerlessness, the same fear and the same resourcelessness writ large on the face of poor peasantry at Dhanaut in Betiah.

EPW

Email: csdnd@del2.vsnl.net.in

Economic and Political Weekly December 30, 2006