Notes
two-fifths to SCs and OBCs, respectively and a little more than one-fourth
Land Distribution and
(26.32 per cent) of the total households belonged to other castes. Insofar as distribution of land among different social
Tenancy among Different
groups was concerned, households of OBCs owned more than two-fifths of the total land followed by those of other
Social Groups
castes who accounted for 36.29 per cent of the total land. Nevertheless, it is im-
Not much is known about the distribution of land and tenancy
portant to underline that while per cent
among the various social groups, especially in rural India. This
share of land owned by households of
D
transactions. Table 1: Size Category-wise Distribution of Households and Land Owned across Different Social Groups
There are not many studies on land distribution structure and tenancy rela-Size Class Households Land Owned ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
tions among different social groups
like SCs, STs, Other Backward Classes Landless 13.46 24.32 39.42 22.79 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 (OBCs) and households of the remaining Marginal 9.56 24.81 41.37 24.27 100 13.05 16.47 42.90 27.58 100 Small 13.83 11.56 43.81 30.80 100 13.76 11.31 43.96 30.97 100
castes. In fact, there is a relative dearth
Medium 12.82 7.91 42.97 36.30 100 12.49 7.83 43.18 36.50 100
of studies on the caste configuration of
Large 7.49 3.68 42.57 46.26 100 7.40 3.38 44.23 44.99 100
different categories of households like
All 10.54 21.57 41.58 26.32 100 11.10 8.97 43.64 36.29 100
marginal, small, medium and large and
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
also the land owned actually accounted for by them.
Table 2: Distribution of Households and Land Owned among DifferentThis article examines some of these Size Categories in Each of the Social Group issues at the all-India level using National
Size Class Households Land Owned
Sample Survey (NSS) data available in
ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
the report on household ownership hold-
Landless 12.81 11.31 9.51 8.68 10.03 -----
ings in India, 59th round (2003). It is
Marginal 63.16 80.08 69.27 64.17 69.62 26.96 42.13 22.54 17.42 22.93
important to mention here that while the
Small 14.21 5.81 11.41 12.67 10.83 25.18 25.61 20.46 17.33 20.31 data on household ownership holdings for Medium 7.31 2.20 6.21 8.28 6.00 24.57 19.07 21.60 21.95 21.83 SCs and STs were available in the NSS Large 2.50 0.60 3.60 6.19 3.52 23.29 13.19 35.40 43.30 34.93
All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
report for the 37th round (1981-82) and NSS report for the 48th round (1992), Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
Economic and Political Weekly October 13, 2007 was 22.79. In the remaining size categories, while the highest proportion of the marginal, small and medium households belonged to OBCs, the highest proportion of large households owning more than four hectares of land was accounted for by households of other castes. Insofar as their share in land was concerned, the per cent share of land accounted for by households of different size categories in OBCs was around 43-44 whereas the share of those belonging to other castes varied between 28 in case of marginal households and 45 in case of large households. Likewise, the share of land owned by ST households in different categories was around 12-13 per cent except in large households where their share was comparatively lower (7.40 per cent). The share of land owned by households of different size categories belonging to SCs varied from 3.38 per cent in case of large households to 16.47 per cent for marginal households.
Table 2 shows the distribution of land among households of different size categories in each of the social groups. The table shows that the highest incidence of landlessness was among the ST households followed by those of SCs. Further, while four-fifths of the SC households belonged to the marginal category owning less than one hectare of land, the numerical proportion of large households was higher among households of other castes. The distribution of land was highly skewed among all groups. It is evident from the fact that while the proportion of land accounted for by lower size category households, marginal households in particular, was very low in comparison with their share in the total households, the proportion of land accounted for by large households was very high compared to their share in total households. Nevertheless, the extent of inequality in the distribution of land, measured by the Gini ratio, was higher among households of scheduled castes followed by those of OBCs and other castes (Table 3).
Incidence of Tenancy
same (11 to 12 per cent) among households resorting to leasing-in of land in other belonging to different social groups with size categories among all the four social the notable exception of ST households groups was, however, low – less than where it was relatively lower (7.50 per 10 per cent. In terms of the proportion cent). The proportion of land leased-in was, of leased-in land, it was higher among however, the highest among households of marginal households compared to their SCs (14.46 per cent) compared to those of counterparts in other size categories in all the OBCs and other castes where it was the social groups. The size category-wise 6-7 per cent and STs where it was 4 per distribution of households leasing-in and cent. Among households of different size land leased-in among each of the social categories, more than half of the landless groups is provided in Table 5. The table households reported leasing-in of land shows that a preponderant majority of among other castes followed by the landless the lessees, (more than 90 per cent) in households in OBCs among whom nearly all the four social groups was from the half (48.18 per cent) reported leasing-in landless and marginal households. Insofar of land. The proportion of households as the distribution of leased-in land among households of different size category was
Table 3: Inequality in the Distribution
of Land among Each of the concerned, most of the leased-in land was Social Groups: Gini Ratio accounted for by the marginal households owning less than one hectare in all the
Social Groups Gini Ratio
social groups except such households in
Scheduled tribe 0.6639
other castes whose share in the leased-in
Scheduled caste 0.7706 Other backward castes 0.7326 land was nearly half. It, however, needs
Others 0.7154 to be noted that nearly one-fifth of the All 0.7393
leased-in land in respect of households of Source: Same as Table 2. other castes and nearly one-tenth in case
Table 4: Per Cent of Households Leasing-in and Land Leased-in to Total Households and Total Land Owned in Different Size Categories in Each of the Social Group
Size Class Households Leasing-in Land Leased-in ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
Landless 23.29 31.98 48.18 55.72 42.60 -----Marginal 5.90 9.06 9.51 9.20 8.98 10.69 29.43 20.09 18.73 20.02 Small 3.48 4.06 4.83 6.17 4.97 1.62 2.28 3.51 4.47 3.41 Medium 2.98 4.08 5.92 3.98 4.69 1.15 4.67 2.63 2.33 2.50 Large 3.00 1.87 4.42 5.73 4.82 1.22 0.34 2.35 2.53 2.28 All 7.50 11.21 12.25 12.20 11.51 4.07 14.46 7.05 6.04 7.02
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 49.
Table 5: Size Category-wise Distribution of Households Leasing-in and Leased-in Land among Different Social Groups
Size Class Households Leasing-in Leased-in Land ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
Landless 39.80 32.26 37.40 39.64 37.11 5.16 3.72 5.69 6.56 5.56 Marginal 49.70 64.73 53.80 48.35 54.29 70.90 85.77 64.25 53.98 65.44 Small 6.60 2.10 4.50 6.41 4.67 10.01 4.03 10.19 12.83 9.86 Medium 2.90 0.80 3.00 2.70 2.45 6.95 6.17 8.06 8.47 7.77 Large 1.00 0.10 1.30 2.90 1.47 6.97 0.31 11.81 18.17 11.36 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
Table 6: Category-wise Distribution of Households Leasing-in Land and Land Leased-in across Different Social Groups
Size Class Households Leasing-in Leased-in Land ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
The incidence of tenancy in terms of households leasing-in land and the proportion of owned land leased-in among different social groups is given in Table 4. The table shows that the proportion of households leasing-in land was nearly the
Landless 7.36 18.26 44.58 29.80 100 5.97 12.35 44.83 36.85 100 Marginal 6.28 25.04 43.84 24.84 100 6.97 24.21 43.04 25.78 100 Small 9.69 9.46 42.60 38.24 100 6.53 7.55 45.28 40.65 100 Medium 8.13 6.88 54.20 30.79 100 5.76 14.67 45.48 34.09 100 Large 4.65 1.43 39.00 54.92 100 3.95 0.51 45.57 49.98 100 All 6.86 21.00 44.24 27.89 100 6.43 18.47 43.84 31.26 100
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
Economic and Political Weekly October 13, 2007
of households of OBCs was accounted for by the large households owning more than four hectares of land. Table 6 brings out the size category-wise distribution of households leasing-in land and leased-in land across different social groups. The table shows that more than two-fifths of the total lessees belonged to OBCs. The households of other castes and SCs accounted for nearly 28 per cent and 21 per cent of the total lessees, respectively. The distribution of leased-in land shows that around 44 per cent and 31 per cent of the leased-in land was accounted for by households from other backward castes and other castes, respectively. In different size categories, while more than 50 per cent of the lessees in the category of medium households belonged to OBCs, in the case of large households most of them were from other castes. Among the landless lessees, around 45 per cent belonged to OBCs followed by nearly 30 per cent who were from other castes. The distribution of leased-in land among size categories across social groups reveals that while the share of households of different categories belonging to OBCs was around 44-45 per cent, with respect to households of other castes it varied from as high as around 50 per cent for large households and 26 per cent for marginal households.
The proportion of households leasingout land and the proportion of land leased-out by households of different categories belonging to different social groups is shown in Table 7. As may be seen from the table, the proportion of households leasing-out land is higher among other castes followed by OBCs. A more or less similar pattern was discernible in case of land leased-out by different categories of households belonging to different social groups. Coming to households of different size categories, while the proportion of small and medium households leasing-out land was higher among those coming from other castes, the highest proportion of large households who leased-out land was noted among SCs. The size category-wise distribution of households leasing-out land (Table 8) shows that the share of marginal households in total lessors varied from 57 per cent among STs to 75 per cent among SCs. The distribution of the leased-out land among households of different size categories further shows that marginal households followed by small households accounted for the highest per cent of such land among different groups except households of other castes where large households accounted for nearly twofifths of the total leased-out land.
III Conclusions
In sum, the caste composition of rural households shows that nearly one-tenth of the households belonged to STs, around two-fifths each to SCs and OBCs and a little more than one-fourth were from other castes. The respective shares of these groups in land was 11.10 per cent,
Table 7: Per Cent of Households Leasing-out and Land Leased-out to Total Households and Total Land Owned by Different Size Categories in Each of the Social Group
Size Class Households Leasing-out Land Leased-out ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
Marginal 1.13 1.60 3.07 3.49 2.62 1.57 2.64 3.56 4.02 3.27 Small 1.84 5.01 4.00 6.91 4.71 1.86 3.00 2.88 5.14 3.45 Medium 2.72 3.88 3.91 6.69 4.76 1.66 2.07 2.24 4.35 2.92 Large 2.73 8.26 3.70 6.45 5.07 0.88 4.53 1.80 3.80 2.73 All 1.24 1.71 2.96 4.07 2.80 1.51 2.87 2.51 4.19 3.04
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
Table 8: Size Categories-wise Distribution of Households Leasing-out and Leased-out Land among Each of the Social Group
Size Class Households Leasing-out Leased-out Land ST SC OBC Others All ST SC OBC Others All
Marginal 57.36 75.08 71.90 55.06 65.20 28.19 38.66 31.92 16.69 24.67 Small 21.12 17.02 15.40 21.52 18.22 31.10 26.79 23.48 21.25 23.06 Medium 16.02 5.01 8.20 13.61 10.21 27.03 13.73 19.21 22.78 20.96 Large 5.51 2.90 4.50 9.81 6.37 13.68 20.82 25.39 39.27 31.30 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India, 2003, 59th round, NSS Report No 491.
8.97 per cent, 43.64 per cent and 36.29 per cent. Further, nearly two-fifths of the total landless households belonged to OBCs followed by SCs and other castes who accounted for around one-fourth and one-fifth of such households. The incidence of landlessness was, however, higher among SC and ST households compared to remaining two groups. The distribution of land was highly skewed among all the four groups; it was evident from the fact that while proportion of land accounted for by households of lower size categories was much less in comparison to their numerical proportions, among higher size category households it was much higher compared to their numerical proportions. In terms of the Gini ratio, the extent of inequality was higher among SC households followed by those of OBCs and other castes. Incidence of tenancy, measured both by the proportion of households leasing-in land and land leased-in, did not vary much across different social groups except among ST households where it was lower. As expected, the proportion of households leasing-in and land leased-in was much higher among households of lower size categories like landless and marginal households compared to their counterparts in higher land size categories. Across different social groups, more than two-fifths of the total lessees and land leased-in was accounted for by households of OBCs followed by those of other castes whose share was nearly 30 per cent of the total lessees and land leased-in. Further, while the share of SC households in total lessees and land leased-in was around one-fifth, that of STs was much lower – around 6 per cent. The pattern of tenancy, measured by proportion of households leasing-out land and proportion of land leased out was almost similar.
EPWEmail: hansraj@hillagric.ernet.in
Economic and Political Weekly
Available from
Star News Agency
Mahendra Chambers, Magazine Market 146, D N Road Mumbai - 400 001
Economic and Political Weekly October 13, 2007
