Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC): Confusion on Landlessness in Kerala & West Bengal

By A Bheemeshwar Reddy and R Ramakumar

http://peoplesdemocracy.in/editions/20150719/cdate

Vol. XXXIX No. 28, July 19, 2015

THE Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) was carried out between June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2011 by the ministry of rural development, government of India. The three stated objectives of this Census were to enable state governments to prepare below poverty line (BPL) lists, to arrive at a caste-wise enumeration of the population, and to ascertain the socio-economic and educational status of the enumerated castes. Provisional results from the information collected from households in rural India – including data on socio-economic variables such as the castes of households, the main sources of household incomes, and land ownership – were released on July 3, 2015. The data on different variables now released by the government have not yet fully been disaggregated by caste and gender. 

The SECC results show a very high share of landless households among rural households in West Bengal and Kerala. Since Kerala and West Bengal are justly famous for the redistributive land reform carried out by Left governments, these high figures for landlessness need some investigation.

DEFINITION OF LANDLESSNESS IN THE SECC

The first question is definitional: How does the SECC define landowning by a rural household? The SECC definition does not consider homestead land owned by households when assessing landownership status of a household. This in effect means that the SECC data fails to capture those landless households who received homestead land as part of the land redistribution programmes in these two states. This would also include beneficiaries who received crop land, including garden land, on which they later built homes, thus converting their plots (by definition) into homestead land. As we show below, this partly explains why, according to the SECC, the share of landless households is high in the states of Kerala and West Bengal.

HOMESTEAD LAND IN KERALA AND WEST BENGAL

The most important element of public action in Kerala after 1956-57 was the implementation of land reforms across all regions, initiated by the Communist Party of India-led government. The impact of land reforms went beyond changes in land tenure; land reforms also became the “centrepiece of the programme for social and economic progress” for which Kerala is famous. 

There is general consensus among scholars that land reform in Kerala was most successful with respect to tenancy abolition and the distribution of homestead lands. The component of land reform that directly benefited landless agricultural workers was the distribution of homestead land. A significant number of landless agricultural workers received ownership rights over the plots of homesteads. Official data show that between 1957 and 1996, about 5,28,000 households in the state were issued homestead ownership certificates. 

The provision to distribute homestead land to agricultural workers was added to the land reform legislation by the CPI(M)-led government in 1967 once it had become clear that the extent of ceiling-surplus land available for redistribution would be smaller than expected. Between 1959 (when the Communist ministry was dismissed) and 1967 (when the second Communist-led ministry came to power), landlords supported by the Congress party had transferred substantial tracts of land. The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1970 gave landless agricultural worker households the option of buying, in panchayats or townships, 10 cents (0.10 acres) of land each. The payment was to be 25 percent of the market value in normal cases and 12.5 percent of the market value if the landowner possessed land above the ceiling. Fifty percent of the amount finally payable was subsidised by the state, with the remaining 50 percent to be paid in 12 annual instalments (which were never paid). Thus, most agricultural worker households in the state received plots of homestead land free of cost. 

Homestead cultivation is a characteristic feature of Kerala’s agriculture, distinguishing it from systems of crop cultivation in many other Indian states. While the average size of a homestead plot is smaller, the cropping pattern in a homestead is more diverse than a plot of garden land. Mixed cropping pattern in homesteads allows for intensive forms of cultivation in small landholdings. The major crops grown in homesteads are perennial and annual crops, such as coconut, arecanut, pepper, cashew, banana, and vegetables. Research on homestead cultivation has drawn attention to its commercial and nutritional importance to the household and its ecological significance in promoting biodiversity. Further, crop cultivation in homesteads is very often combined with livestock rearing – cows, buffalos, goats, and poultry. 

The share of land under homestead farming in Kerala has grown, and the share of area under garden land has declined, owing to the demand for land to build houses.Over the years, many small holdings have been subdivided into smaller and smaller homesteads. 

In West Bengal, about one million (10 lakh) households received homestead land during the period of the Left Front government (1977 to 2011). 

The SECC has completely excluded homesteads from consideration. 

LANDLESSNESS: NSS DATA VERSUS SECC DATA

The effect of not counting homesteads in land ownership is illustrated by a comparison of the SECC data on landlessness (that is, the percentage of households with no land) with the data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) Employment and Unemployment Surveys of 2011-12 (EUS). The EUS definition of land ownership differs from that of SECC in only one respect, that is, the former includes homestead land in its calculation of household land holdings. It is clear from Table 1 that once homestead land ownership is included, the ranking of states by percentage of landless people changes substantially. According to NSS data, Kerala and West Bengal are not among the states with the highest percentage of landless households. 

Table 1 Households with no land, NSS and Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC)

NSS Employment and Unemployment Survey, 2011-12			SECC-2011
States	% of households with no land	Rank	States	% of households with no land	Rank
Uttaranchal	13.42	1	Andhra Pradesh	73	1
Andhra Pradesh	11.65	2	Tamil Nadu	73	2
Himachal Pradesh	10.01	3	Kerala	72	3
Tamil Nadu	8.7	4	West Bengal	70	4
Haryana	8.6	5	Tripura	68	5
Assam	8.31	6	Punjab	65	6
Maharashtra	8.14	7	Bihar	65	7
Karnataka	8.1	8	Telangana	58	8
Gujarat	7.16	9	Assam	57	9
Chhattisgarh	7.08	10	Haryana	56	10
West Bengal	6.81	11	Madhya Pradesh	55	11
Kerala	5.88	12	Gujarat	55	12
Orissa	5.12	13	Odisha	54	13
Jammu & Kashmir	4.8	14	Maharashtra	53	14
Punjab	4.38	15	Chhattisgarh	47	15
Jharkhand	4.14	16	Karnataka	47	16
Madhya Pradesh	3.75	17	Uttar Pradesh	45	17
Rajasthan	3.26	18	Uttarakhand	43	18
Uttar Pradesh	3.16	19	Rajasthan	38	19
Tripura	2.07	20	Jharkhand	38	20
Bihar	1.07	21	Jammu & Kashmir	22	21
			Himachal Pradesh	22	22

DEMOGRAPHIC PRESSURE

Further, demographic pressure on land is higher in rural West Bengal and rural Kerala than most other states (Table 2). The average area per household is relatively low in the states, and the subdivision of family holdings has accelerated the process of fragmentation. 

Table 2 Average extent of land owned per household in hectares
State	Land owned per household (in ha.)	Rank
Rajasthan	1.483	1
Madhya Pradesh	1.122	2
Maharashtra	0.903	3
Karnataka	0.851	4
Chhattisgarh	0.81	5
Gujarat	0.804	6
Haryana	0.764	7
Telangana	0.705	8
Punjab	0.632	9
Assam	0.631	10
Uttar Pradesh	0.493	11
Andhra Pradesh	0.491	12
Jharkhand	0.488	13
Jammu Kashmir	0.432	14
Himachal Pradesh	0.397	15
Odisha	0.38	16
Tamil Nadu	0.348	17
Tripura	0.334	18
Uttarakhand	0.317	19
Bihar	0.242	20
Kerala	0.209	21
West Bengal	0.174	22

Source: Table 1.1, NSS KI(70/18.1): “Key Indicators of Land and Livestock Holdings in India,” page A3  

UNDER-REPORTING IN WEST BENGAL

We have clear evidence from primary survey data that the extent of household land holdings in West Bengal villages has been substantially under-reported by respondent households in the SECC. 

In India, as is well known, many households that should, by reasonable criteria, be classified as poor are classified under the general category of above poverty line (APL). This is despite their being clearly poor in respect of one or many criteria, for instance, in terms of employment and per capita income, food consumption, housing, or access to education and health facilities. 

The division of the population in to APL and BPL is an exclusionary policy measure. Its objective is to create target groups for certain policies, thus excluding large deserving sections from the benefits of those policies. Respondents to government surveys are now reluctant to disclose actual land holdings for fear that full disclosure will push them up to APL status and therefore out of the purview of various government schemes. Thus, many households with small or tiny holdings of land have reported no land at all because of a fear of unjustly being declared to be “above the poverty line.” In West Bengal, the classification of households into APL and BPL categories – and the exclusion of households from the BPL category – has been marked by misclassification and political vindictiveness.

In three villages in West Bengal, we compared unit-level data from the SECC with household data from surveys conducted by the Foundation for Agrarian Studies (FAS) in 2010 and 2015. These three villages are in three different agro-ecological regions of the state. Landlessness as reported in SECC was significantly higher than in the FAS surveys. In fact, the differences between the figures for these villages were as high as 16, 30, and 37 percentage points. (Table 3).

Table 3 Landless households as a proportion of all households, SECC and FAS surveys in percent

Village	Landless households as a share of all households according to
	SECC	FAS village survey
Village 1	68	39
Village 2	54	38
Village 3	59	22

In brief, definitional problems with the SECC survey and people’s legitimate anxiety to avoid being excluded from the benefits of target-oriented schemes, and consequent under-reporting of landholdings, has led to misleading conclusions from the SECC data about landlessness in Kerala and West Bengal.

Farce Elections Produced Farce Results in West Bengal

Left Front Wins Siliguri, other Five Municiplaities

General Strike on 30th.

The farce, enacted in the name of elections in urban civic bodies in West Bengal, has been proved by the results it had actually produced.

Kolkata witnessed unprecedented reign of violence and terror on the polling day. From the early morning, news channels began to telecast the booth capturing and large scale attacks which culminated in hundreads of booths captured when the polling ended. The ruling party brought in criminals from other districts also. TMC specifically targeted areas where Left Front had won in 2010 elections or where they had a lead in Loksabha elections. In northern and north-east Kolkata, majority of booths suffered TMC attacks and by noon there were practically no genuine voters near the booths. The result showed that TMC won these wards with sky-rocketing margins, even in traditional Left stronghols of Beleghata and Maniktola.  In many wards, the votes of opposition parties have come down below 15 per cent!  In central areas of the city, TMC gangs forced the slum dwellers and minority people to stay inside their homes and with the help of police run over the booths. In this area, TMC has won almost all wards. Jadavpur, with a long legacy of left movement, was another area of their target. There were fierce attacks and strong resistance in the entire area. Countless numbers of people were injured in the attacks. TMC won 11 wards out of 14 in this area. TMC ‘won’ in 114 wards out of 144, while LF won in 15, BJP in 7, Congress in 6.

It is quite another phenomena that TMC suffered humiliating defeat in the ward where Mamata Banerjee is herself a resident.

In North 24 Parganas, the number of municipalities was 23. TMC won all of them. The score sheet of wards is testimony of the intensity of rigging. In Kanchrapara TMC won 22, Left Front (LF) 0; In Halisahar TMC won 21, LF 0, In Naihati TMC 31, LF 0, in Bhatpara TMC 33, LF1, in North Barackpore TMC 21, LF 1 , In Garulia TMC 17, LF 1, in Dum Dum TMC 21, LF 1, in Baranagar TMC32, LF 2, in New Barackpore TMC won 17, LF 1. Courageous resistance brought 8 wards for LF in North Dum Dum , 5 in Kamarhati. In the entire stretch from Baranagar to Kanchrapara, TMC armed gangs attacked countless booths, LF agents were chased away, unhindered use of guns and bombs were displayed. Except in pockets where people could steadfastly resist, EVM machines were in possession of ruling party’s hooligans. This devastating storm trooping was extended upto Kalyani in Nadia district where TMC did not allow any opposition to gain any seats. They won 21-0 there. Another bordering area, Haringhata the result was 19-0 in favour of TMC. In Gayeshpur, the next adjoining municipality LF candidates were forced to withdraw their nominations, candidates were kidnapped and large scale attack was organized before the elections. TMC won all 18 seats there.

Hooghly was another district where ruling party went for a rampage. In Arambagh and Tarakeswar, they forced opposition candidates to withdraw. As a result in Arambagh TMC won 19-0, in Tarakeswar 15-0. In industrial belt of Hooghly, there were continuous attacks during electioneering. And, on the day of elections bike-brone armed gangs roamed freely to capture booths one after another. The results manifested the widespread rigging. In Banshberia, TMC won 17, LF 2; in Rishra TMC won 19, LF 2, in Champdani TMC won 13, LF 1. In some of these municipalities, independent candidates won sporadically. There were strong resistance and peoples’ mobilization in Dankuni and Bhadreswar. In Dankuni, TMC could win 11 out of 21, and in Bhadreswar they failed to win majority of wards.

The people of Siliguri Corporation, the largest town after Kolkata, gave a strong rebuff to TMC and particularly to Chief Minister. Mamata Banerjee was said to have directed her party leaders to ‘win at any cost’. But, waves of rallies in the town warned the ruling party of any misadventure and the elections were mostly peaceful. Left Front won 23 wards out of total 47 and an independent extended his support to LF, thus paving the way for board formation. TMC got 17 seats, while Congress won in 4 and BJP in 2 wards. Urban Development minister in the Left Front government Ashok Bhattacharya contested polls and handsomely won. This is an important win for LF as they snatched this thriving centre of northern Bengal after five years of chaos and mismanagement.

In fact, in northern Bengal, wherever the polling was relatively free, LF has earned important gains. In Dinhata in Coochbehar district, LF retained with 13-3 majority. In Coochbehar town, LF was defeated 8-10. LF retained Jangipur and Jiaganj-Azimganj in Murshidabad district. LF won Back Dainhat in Burdwan district.

Left Front has called for a general strike and hartal on 30th April, protesting the massive rigging in municipal elections in the state. The 12-hour strike call came after whole sale booth capturing, violent attack on voters and opposition activists took place with help from police and state administration. Left Front has termed this election as a ‘farce’. For the first time in four years of TMC rule in West Bengal, Left Front has called for a total strike in the state.

Left Front Chairman Biman Basu and CPI(M) state secretary Suryakanta Misra have called upon all democratic-minded people to register their protest against this all out assault on democracy. SUCI(C), CPI(ML-Liberation) and other left parties have also extended support to the strike call.

Simultaneously, central trade unions have called for a general strike too on 30th April. On that day all India strike of the transport workers is scheduled. Along with that, almost all central trade unions in Bengal have called for a general strike against the attack on democratic rights of the workers and people. Apart from CITU, AITUC, TUCC, UTUC, the others like INTUC, HMS have issued joint call for the general strike. Trade unions have given the call for a 24 hour strike.

Mass organizations like AIKS, AIDWA, DYFI, SFI and others have joined in.

http://cpim.org/states/farce-elections-produced-farce-results-west-bengal

Blatant Attack on Democracy in West Bengal

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has issued the following statement:

The elections to 91 municipalities including two corporations in West Bengal held on April 25, 2015 constitute a total mockery of democracy. In these and the election to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation a week earlier, there was a high degree of people’s enthusiasm and a large number of women turned out to cast their vote. However, these innocent people were met with political workers and armed hooligans representing the ruling party in the state, the Trinamool Congress, who denied them the right to a free and fair election. Polling booths were captured, opposition parties agents driven out and voting manipulated. A small contingent of central forces sent on the eve of the election were not deployed by the state government and instead sent for sightseeing. This is a blot on Indian democracy.

In various parts of the state there was widespread people’s resistance against such display of muscle power and manipulation of the democratic process. Many were injured and some are critical and are admitted to various hospitals in the state.

The CPI(M) calls upon the people of West Bengal who have a tradition of fighting against such authoritarian terror and who established a record of restoring democracy through people’s struggles to resist such attacks on democracy by the Trinamool Congress in the state.

A large number of intellectuals and people who had served in high constitutional positions in the country in the past have come together to form a Save Democracy Forum. Leading lights of the movement were also denied their legal right to vote.

The Election Commission of India must review these developments, though these fall under the purview of the State Election Commission and the state government. This is necessary to learn lessons and prepare for adequate arrangements when the state assembly elections are held in 2016.

Date: Sunday, April 26, 2015