In the 1950s, a landless agricultural labourer worked on a zamindar’s land in a state where intermediaries were abolished. Going by India’s experience of land reforms, did the labourer gain ownership of land?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → No; the poorest labourers, such as sharecroppers and landless labourers, did not benefit from land reforms.
The goal of equity was not fully served by the abolition of intermediaries. Even where tillers got ownership, the poorest labourers were left out.
Option (1) No; the poorest labourers, such as sharecroppers and landless labourers, did not benefit from land reforms. — Correct. Sharecroppers and landless labourers did not benefit.
Option (2) Yes; the abolition of intermediaries made landless labourers owners of the land they worked on. — Incorrect. Ownership went to tenants; landless labourers were not among those who gained.
Option (3) Yes; land ceiling laws gave the surplus land of big landlords to the labourers who worked on it. — Incorrect. Land ceiling faced hurdles and loopholes; big landlords kept much of their land.
Option (4) No; land reforms mainly benefited those tenants who had been evicted by the landowners. — Incorrect. Evicted tenants lost land, as landowners claimed to be self-cultivators.
NCERT (2026-27): “2.3 Agriculture … However, the goal of equity was not fully served by abolition of intermediaries. In some areas the former zamindars continued to own large areas of land by making use of some loopholes in the legislation; there were cases where tenants were evicted and the landowners claimed to be selfcultivators (the actual tillers), claiming ownership of the land; and even when the tillers got ownership of land, the poorest of the agricultural labourers (such as sharecroppers and landless labourers) did not benefit from land reforms.” |