From land for the poor to land grab from farmers—reversing the meaning of land reforms

By Bharat Dogra 

Land reform has long been a beacon of hope for the rural poor and landless in India—a promise of justice, equity, and empowerment. It symbolized the effort to redistribute land to those who tilled it but never owned it, transforming landless laborers into small farmers with a stake in their future. In development discourse, land reform earned its place as a cornerstone of poverty alleviation and rural upliftment.

For nearly five decades, I have advocated for stronger, more inclusive land reforms. My writings have consistently urged policymakers: “Please don’t forget the landless.” Yet, despite early commitments, India has steadily retreated from the promise of genuine land reform, leaving millions still waiting for the justice they were once assured.

Now, a disturbing trend threatens to not only abandon that promise but to invert its meaning entirely. In a corporate reimagining of land reform, the term is being repurposed to facilitate land acquisition for large-scale industrial projects. This shift is not unique to India—it echoes across borders—but its implications here are especially grave.

Consider a recent report in The Times of India, titled “Land reforms needed to make India a manufacturing hub: CII.” The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has proposed sweeping changes under the banner of “land reform,” including the creation of a GST-like Council for coordinated reforms, uniform stamp duty rates, and Integrated Land Authorities in each state. These authorities would oversee allotments, conversions, dispute resolution, and zoning—all streamlined to ease land acquisition for businesses.

CII’s nine-point agenda also calls for a conclusive titling system and the transformation of the India Industrial Land Bank into a centralized tool for land allotment. While these proposals are framed as steps toward transparency and efficiency, they raise serious concerns about the erosion of farmers’ rights, particularly those of tribal communities. Protective laws won through decades of struggle could be undermined. Environmental safeguards may be sidelined. And the constitutional autonomy of state governments and local democratic institutions could be compromised.

If implemented with unchecked zeal, these reforms risk igniting widespread rural unrest. They represent not progress, but a regression into a model of development that prioritizes corporate convenience over community rights. Those committed to peace, justice, and democratic integrity must resist this shift before it gains irreversible momentum.

Equally troubling is the linguistic sleight of hand that cloaks harmful agendas in benevolent language. The displacement of indigenous crops in favor of chemical-intensive varieties was branded the “green revolution.” The introduction of genetically modified crops, with even greater ecological and health risks, was dubbed the “second green revolution.” Such euphemisms distort public understanding and mask the true costs of these policies.

Let us not allow “land reform” to become another casualty of this deceptive vocabulary. It must be reclaimed for its original purpose: to empower the poor, protect the vulnerable, and uphold the principles of justice and equity. Anything less is not reform—it is betrayal.

---

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man Over Machine (Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas for present times), When the Two Streams Met (freedom movement of India), Protecting Earth for Children and India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food