Land is an essential component in many peoples' daily lives, linked to their livelihood and subsistence. In these cases, the peoples' right to land is linked to their right to food. Like caste discrimination, the denial of the right to land by Indian authorities is deliberate. The following experience of an indigenous community in Maharashtra demonstrates the calculated actions that rendered the community homeless and struggling for survival.

A. 'No land was successfully redistributed'
(This summary is compiled from the following Urgent Appeals:
UA-35-2003: INDIA: Two hundred Adivasis made homeless over land rights
UP-34-2003: INDIA: Landless people stand firm against continuing government attacks
UP-40-2003: INDIA: Hunger strike of Adivasis calling for right to land
UP-13-2004: INDIA: Please send a letter to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra calling for right to land for Adivasi people]

On 21 July 2003, approximately 100 police and Maharashtra State Farming Corporation (MSFC) security personnel destroyed two hundred huts of an Adivasi—indigenous people—community and more than a thousand acres of their crops. No prior warning had been given for this demolition, which rendered several hundred Adivasi women and children homeless, and without any means to feed or support themselves. According to an eye witness account:

They have burnt down all the remnants of the huts. It is a heart-rending scene to see the young ones lying in the bushes without any cover above them. Only barbarians can do such acts of cruelty to a hapless people?All this to return the land to the powerful landlords or to lease it out to big companies. All this land had been acquired under the Ceiling Act. Now all this government land is lying fallow for three decades?People are dying here?Let those who still have some conscience judge the way in which the government is misusing the resources acquired under the Ceiling Act and government fallow land, to the detriment of the landless and the poor. I hope our cry for justice is heard by someone.

The Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, which came into effect in 1961, was intended to redistribute land among landless farmers. However, in Maharashtra and several other states, almost no land was successfully redistributed. Instead, the government established the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation (MSFC) and gave it cultivation rights over the land. Despite this, the MSFC had never cultivated the 35,000 acres allocated to them. Seeing that this land was lying dormant, the Adivasi community in recent years occupied the land and staked a legal claim that is still pending before state authorities.

Meanwhile, a new amendment, which came into effect in 2003, enables the government to withdraw ownership of the land from the MSFC, and grant any area of land for "public purpose". There is however, a strong likelihood that much of the land will return to the former landlords, which will have a disastrous effect on the Adivasi communities living there, who rely on this land as a source of food and income.

The Adivasis claim that the land they occupied was theirs and this should be legally recognised. They have presented their case before the Revenue Commission at Nashik, where the matter remains pending. Mr John Abraham, who filed the legal case for the Adivasis, has been under personal threat for his actions but continues his fight for the landless cause. Despite a lack of resources and lack of support from the legal community, he is now attempting to file a second writ on the case (the first one failed on a technicality) and is following up on the appeal that is before the Revenue Commissioner.?In addition, a protest was filed with the Tahasildar of Rahata with the request that the Adivasis be compensated for their loss, but to date, nothing has been done.

Frustrated by the inaction of authorities and the evident support by the government for the MSFC, the Adivasis decided to return to their land in September 2003. However, upon their return, the Adivasis had their huts destroyed by officials once more. Soon after, the MSFC restated its "ownership" of the land, and began sowing parts of it that the Adivasis had occupied and cultivated for almost two decades. Thousands of acres remain dormant however, demonstrating that the MSFC are utilising only a small area of land in their efforts to warrant their ownership.  

The Adivasis, meanwhile, remain desperate to reclaim their land. Not only does the land provide them with a home, but it is also essential to their livelihood by providing them with food and income.

A comment on the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act -- John Abraham, Bhumi Hakka Andolan (AHRC newsletter, Krodhi Praja Nyayadhisha - Vol. 1, No.19/20, 13 December 2004) In this age, there is little point in talking about the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act of 1961 in terms of how it was originally conceived over 40 years ago. We cannot turn back the clock, rethink the aspirations of nation-builders or relive the lives of those who fought for independence. However, a realistic approach to the economic and social problems of India does require an understanding of history and a sense of how rural resources can be distributed more equitably in this era of the global economy. ?lt;br />Among all resources, the supply of land is now the most limited and its claimants the most numerous. Where land and other key resources are not equitably distributed, it is not merely socially unjust; it is flawed economics. In India, where the size of landholdings increases disproportionately, land is used less efficiently. Highly mechanized farming may require big holdings, but this is not the case in India. Here, land continues to be cropped primarily by hand, and the vast majority of the rural population continues to rely upon farming for income. When land is very unevenly distributed, it affects the livelihoods of millions and has the potential to cause significant social unrest. During the Second Five-Year Plan of the independent government, the Planning Commission made recommendations on laws to redistribute land in India more evenly. The objective was to bring distributive justice to the economy, contrary to how the colonial system had operated. It was necessary to reduce economic inequalities and also to create a more labour-intensive economic system, despite the movement towards machine agriculture in other parts of the world. Large holdings invite mechanization and low employment opportunities. With low per capita land availability, only a labour intensive system can reduce unemployment in India. Moreover, efficiency in terms of productivity can increase when the operation is intensive rather than extensive. In Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (hereafter the Ceiling Lands Act) was enacted in 1961 with the following premise, amended in 1970 (amendment in italics): Whereas for securing the distribution of agricultural land as best to subserve the common good, it is expedient in the public interest to impose a maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holdings of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra to provide for the acquisition of land held in excess of the Ceiling and for the distribution thereof to landless and other persons; also to provide that the lands taken over from undertakings and the integrity of which maintained in compact blocks for ensuring the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture and its efficient management through corporations (including a company) and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid. Other states also enacted equivalent legislation, and in some states the laws did achieve the desired goal and considerable distributive justice was achieved. But in many other states, due to illegal transfers, the lack of proper land records, compensation problems, litigation, exemptions and other matters, land acquisition and distribution did not take place as intended. In Maharashtra, large portions of land acquired under the Ceiling Lands Act were handed over to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation (MSFC) for efficient use, rather than to the impoverished landless themselves. However, vast areas of the land were kept fallow, contrary to the spirit of the Act. Additionally, land was organised into five categories with different limits for these categories, as follows: Land with an assured supply of water, 18 acres Land with assured water for one crop, 27 acres Land irrigated seasonally, 36 acres Dry crop land (specified regions-paddy land), 36 acres Dry crop land, 54 acres This range of ceilings gave room for improper implementation of the Act. Other obstacles included a lack of political will, absence of pressure from below because of an inarticulate and unorganized agricultural labour force, an apathetic attitude in the bureaucracy, and innumerable loopholes. Furthermore, even though the revised Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, amendments to the Act have benefited the rich and impinged on the rights of the landless for whom the original act was intended and contrary to the principles enshrined in that Constitution. For instance, up to 1972 the landholder was treated as the unit for assessing ownership, whereas after that time, the family was treated as the unit. The treatment of the family as the unit resulted in much less land being in surplus by comparison to the landowner as unit. The most recent amendment of 2003 is of greatest concern. By re-granting the land to the original owners, the State Government is violating the rights of the landless established under the original Act. By selling land it acquired under the Act, as it is now doing, the MSFC is also breaching the spirit of the original Act. Finally, another question relates to the constitutional validity of these actions. The Act was amended in the State Assembly with the approval of the President of India. However, as the Act has been incorporated into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution this action may be unconstitutional. It may be argued that by being incorporated into the Ninth Schedule, this law is exempted from judicial review. However, if an amendment to the Act reverses the original objectives of the Act and violates the rights of the intended beneficiaries this may breach the Ninth Schedule and require the approval of the full national Parliament. This is a question that to date remains unresolved.?

Similar to the plight of the Bellilious Park evictees described in Lesson 1, the deplorable situation faced by the Adivasi community in Maharashtra is the direct result of state policy and action. The deliberate intent of the local authorities in removing the Adivasis from their land was taken to the extent of abandoning any procedures of due process. It has become a common occurrence in India—as in many Asian countries—for local officials to ignore court rulings, misuse legislation and intimidate ordinary citizens who are attempting to assert their rights, as has been shown throughout the Right to Food lesson series. In a written statement made to the UN Commission on Human Rights Sixtieth Session, ‘Denial of rights to land and livelihood in India? [E/CN.4/2004/NGO/27] the Asian Legal Resource Centre stated that?

1. Across India laws originally intended to benefit the landless poor are being perverted in favor of corrupt landlords, businessmen and government officials. These laws, enacted after independence, were intended to reduce inequities in land ownership but they have never been properly implemented. Landless people who have in the past years occupied tracts of disused government-owned land are now being evicted. Vast amounts of land under government title are lying fallow while people starve?lt;/p>

2. …Landlords in collusion with corrupt officials avoided regulations by partitioning land or transferring it illegally. Furthermore, in Maharashtra the government set up the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation and gave it cultivation rights over the land. Yet the Corporation has never cultivated about 35,000 acres under its control, which have lain fallow for the last four decades. Additionally, the laws are now being re-engineered to favour landowners. A 2001 bill has effectively set aside earlier arrangements for distribution of land to the poor, and is likewise attempting to bypass the constitutional provisions under and for which the original act was set up. This is despite the fact that the landlords were already adequately compensated for excess lands taken by the government.

3. In May 2003 the Supreme Court of India in a right to food litigation issued directions to the government to implement without delay, programmes for the eradication of poverty. Among its directives, the court ordered the government to implement drought relief measures, employment schemes, free food for the poor and to identify people belonging to the 'below poverty line'. However, not only has the Indian government failed to implement the directives, but state governments have now launched a massive drive for evicting tribal people from their land on the pretext of government land preservation or deforestation. Forceful evictions were witnessed in the states of Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Bihar & Madhya Pradesh. Without any alternative measures for rehabilitation, these poor people are thrown into the viciousness of urban life and are forced to take up jobs in inhuman conditions?lt;/p>

7. Rights to land and livelihood are intimately connected with the right to food. It is patently obvious that persons lacking the means for a basic daily subsistence will go hungry, and perhaps starve. The newly established Permanent People's Tribunal on the Right to Food and the Rule of Law in Asia has begun its work by pointing to the connections between social inequality, maldistribution of food and water, and malfunctioning legal institutions. To maintain inequality in the distribution of food and water requires state-managed violence. Fear is instilled to deprive people of basic economic rights and retard their capacity to react. Detention, torture and extra-judicial killings are a normal part of police actions in dealing with landless people such as those in Maharashtra, because to deny rights to land, food and other basic resources for survival is to deny the rule of law ?lt;/p>

This highlights not only the indivisibility of rights whereby the denial of one right inevitably affects the enjoyment of other rights, but also the inherent relationship between the rule of law and the protection of all human rights, including the right to food. Effective rule of law does not include only legal provisions on paper, but their adequate implementation and room for redress. The right to food in particular, must be made justiciable in courts of law.

The cases described throughout the Right to Food series have also clearly pointed to the indivisibility of all human rights. All those suffering from the pangs of hunger are also being denied other basic human rights, be they civil and political rights, or economic, social and cultural rights. And in all the cases, these rights are not affected by natural causes or a lack of resources, but rather by systemic negligence and ineffective distribution.

The right to food is one of the most basic human rights, closely linked to the right to life. No government practice or action can be allowed to deny this right to people.

B. Questions For Discussion

1. Are you aware of other cases where people are being denied their right to land? Has this affected their enjoyment of other fundamental human rights?
2. Discuss how the Maharashtra Land Ceiling Act can be implemented effectively.
3. The problem in many cases of human rights violations such as the denial of the right to food is not the lack of legislation protecting human rights, but the lack of enforcement. In such situations, what actions can be taken by ordinary citizens to change the status quo?