Land Reforms were introduced after Independence but these reforms were not very successful. The main reason for it was:
1. The abolition of the colonial system of zamindari was not successful
2. Bringing small pieces of land together at one place.
3. The landowners were very powerful and wielded considerable political influence
4. Many proposals for land reforms were not introduced in all States of India

3

The correct answer is Option 3 - 3

1. The abolition of the colonial system of zamindari was not successful
2. Bringing small pieces of land together at one place.
3. The landowners were very powerful and wielded considerable political influence
4. Many proposals for land reforms were not introduced in all States of India

In the agrarian sector, this period witnessed a serious attempt at land reforms. Perhaps the most significant and successful of these was the abolition of the colonial system of zamindari. This bold act not only released land from the clutches of a class that had little interest in agriculture, it also reduced the capacity of the landlords to dominate politics. Attempts at consolidation of land - bringing small pieces of land together in one place so that the farm size could become viable for agriculture - were also fairly successful. But the other two components of land reforms were much less successful. Though the laws were made to put an upper limit or ‘ceiling’ to how much agricultural land one person could own, people with excess land managed to evade the law. Similarly, the tenants who worked on someone else’s land were given greater legal security against eviction, but this provision was rarely implemented. It was not easy to turn these well-meaning policies on agriculture into genuine and effective action. This could happen only if the rural, landless poor were mobilised. But the landowners were very powerful and wielded considerable political influence. Therefore, many proposals for land reforms were either not translated into laws, or, when made into laws, they remained only on paper. This shows that economic policy is part of the actual political situation in the society. It also shows that in spite of good wishes of some top leaders, the dominant social groups would always effectively control policy making and implementation.