In this article we will discuss about the status of women farmers in India.
While rural India as a whole depends heavily on agriculture for its livelihoods, the dependence of women is higher. As per NSSO 70th Round survey (December 2014), it is estimated that there are 9.02 crore households which can be classified as agricultural households. In terms of workers in agriculture, the NSSO 68th Round estimated 48.9 percent of total workers in India (around 22.5 crore workers) to be employed in agriculture.
Further, 64.1 percent of rural workers in India-59 percent of male rural workers, and 75 percent female rural workers are engaged in agriculture. The highest concentration of women in agriculture is reflected in states like Arunachal Pradesh (9037), Uttarakhand (9025), Chattisgarh (9019), Nagaland (9017), Maharashtra (8912) etc., as against the national figure of 7494 per 10000 rural female workers in the agriculture sector.
As per the Census of India (2011), the total cultivators are reported to be 11.9 crores with around 30 percent of them being women, and the total agricultural laborers are 14.4 crores with 43 percent of them being women. In all, 65.1 percent of total female workers are in agriculture, as against 49.8 percent for male workers.
Coming to the percentage of cultivators to total workers, there is a significant overall decline from 31.7 percent in 2001 to 24.6 percent in 2011. Amongst males, this decadal decline was from 31.1 in 2001 to 24.9 in 2011; however, the decline amongst cultivators expressed as a percentage of total workers is more in the case of females, where it has declined from 32.9 in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011.
With regard to Agricultural Labourers, there has been an increase in the past census decade in the percentage of agricultural laborers to total workers, with 30 percent of the total workers being agricultural laborers in 2011, up from 26.5 percent in 2001. While the trend in the increase in male agricultural laborers was from 20.8 percent in 2001 to 24.9 percent in 2011, when it comes to females, it increased from 38.9 percent in 2001 to 41.1 percent in 2011. In absolute numbers, this is around 6.16 crores of women, compared to 8.27 crores of male agricultural laborers.
In states like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu, the percentage of female agricultural laborers to total workers is remarkably high, at 60.8, 58, 57.8, 54.4, 51.5, 47.1, 44.8 and 41.6 percent in 2011. This is significantly higher than the overall 30 percent figure of agricultural laborers amongst total workers at the national level, male and female, rural and urban.
All the above numbers amply illustrate the dependency of the female workforce in India on agriculture as their mainstay.
A variety of factors determines women’s participation in agriculture. As per the former Planning Commission Member Dr. N C Saxena, these include “agro-climatic conditions, type of crops grown, availability of irrigation, subsistence or commercial cropping, crop intensity, degree of diversification, technological choices, mechanization as well as socio-cultural-economic factors like poverty, landlessness, caste, class, cultural norms of social mobility and seclusion, education and skills and accessibility to non-farm opportunities.
Studies point out that most of the states with high female WPR (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) are predominantly dryland regions. 56 percent of all women agricultural workers in the country are in primarily rainfed states. Here, high participation is attributed partly to livestock economy and partly to the predominance of specific crops like rice, groundnut, and cotton”. Distress migration of men is also cited as a cause.
“Masculinization and Feminization Trends in Agriculture”:
Large scale land use shifts and cropping shifts leave their own impacts on women in agriculture. When the area under pastures, grazing lands, tree crops decline and land put to non-agricultural use increases, women’s livelihoods are impacted. More direct and tangible economic benefits for millions of rural women are linked to the commons, including the forests. Similarly, when commercial cropping replaces food crops meant to support the household food security, it is seen that women’s burden to provide food and nutrition security enhances.
Further, given the current asymmetries between men and women, market integration for commercial cropping in a high- external-input agriculture paradigm marginalizes women from household level and community-level decision-making related to agriculture. Here, it is seen that men engage with both the inputs and outputs markets, including controlling the income earned. This trend can be broadly classified as Masculinization of Agriculture. Specific technological choices around large-scale mechanization and use of herbicides etc., also marginalize the participation of women in farming.
On the other hand, Feminization of Agriculture is also on the rise, with men migrating out of villages and from the agriculture sector to other sectors of the economy. Women are managing to farm by themselves without always receiving the kind of support that male farmers get. While this could provide women with greater autonomy in decision-making, it also leaves them with a higher share of responsibilities (especially depending on the household structure).
Invisibility of Women Farmers:
The most important issue for women working in agriculture is their lack of visibility, recognition, and support for farmers in their own right. This denies them various entitlements and support systems that are due to them since the status of “farmer” is usually conferred to land-owners.
The invisibility and therefore, also lack support to women farmers can be attributed to the larger patriarchal values in our society which have prevented women from being (equal) owners of assets like land despite equal property rights guaranteed by law for a vast majority of Indian women, coupled with a general perception that equates farmers with land owners. However, for the first time, the National Policy for Farmers (2007) redefined the usual definition of farmers by giving the term an expansive definition, which then necessarily brings into its fold all women involved in farming.
As per India’s current policy, a farmer is a person actively engaged in the economic and/or livelihood activity of growing crops and producing other primary agricultural commodities and will include all agricultural operational holders, cultivators, agricultural labourers, sharecroppers, tenants, poultry and livestock rearers, fishers, beekeepers, gardeners, pastoralists, non-corporate planters and planting labourers as well as persons engaged in various farming related occupations such as sericulture, vermiculture and agroforestry.
The term will also include tribals engaged in shifting cultivation and in the collection, use, and sale of minor and non-timber forest produce’. Such a definition adopted in the official agricultural policy of India should have conferred the rightful recognition to and supported women cultivators and agricultural workers.
This should have covered ones who are visibly working in agricultural production but also those that declare themselves to be ‘principally engaged in housework’ in the NSSO estimates. 61.6 percent of rural women aged 15 to 59 years report household work as their principal usual activity status, with 45 percent engaged in various activities for obtaining food for the household – working on kitchen gardens, maintaining household animal resources, a collection of food and food processing activities.
On the other hand, it is reported that if women receive equal treatment/support as farmers on par with male farmers, they will produce 20-30 percent more in terms of productivity. However, consistent and systematic discrimination against women farmers is seen in various services provided – they are simply ignored in terms of their identity and contribution as farmers.
This invisibility of farming women to the various institutions in agriculture translates into predominantly gender-blind research, lack of coverage of women under institutional credit despite evidence of increasing feminization of agriculture, lack of extension outreach to women and their capacity building, the dearth of marketing support to women, missing insurance coverage etc.
Any changes on this front require an express recognition of farmers de-coupled from land ownership or titles, and operationalization of the expansive definition adopted by National Policy for Farmers.
Systematic Discrimination against Women Farmers:
The agricultural research establishment had for many decades ignored prioritizing the needs of women farmers while setting research priorities (which usually focus on productivity improvements mainly). However, the setting up of a National Research Centre for Women in Agriculture in 1996, upgraded in 2008 to a Directorate for Research on Women in Agriculture is good corrective steps.
What is needed in fact is engendering of all agricultural research, including in all the network and coordinated research projects? What are women farmers’ needs, their preferences and their assessment of research results, are matters to be asked and answered in all research projects.
Further, gendered stereotypes have to be discarded – for instance, home science projects in all KVKs are targeted at women, reinforcing stereotypes. It is also seen that not enough research builds on women’s existing skills and knowledge. A vast scope for improvement awaits on the research front with regard to plant breeding as per women farmers’ preferences, agronomic research, agricultural engineering as well as cropping systems that can lessen women’s (gendered) household roles. It is not evident whether any gender patterns have been discerned by the agricultural research establishment on entire crops being perceived as ‘women’s and men’s crops’ and research agendas being determined by such a classification (this is more apparent in the African context, for instance).
Drudgery reduction, agroecological approaches to ensure that farm technologies do not leave any health impacts on women who are particularly vulnerable to environmental toxins and provision of institutional spaces where women farmers can participate in decision-making related to agricultural research should all be priority interventions here.
Coming to an agricultural extension too, there is very little evidence that women in villages are treated at par with men by the agricultural extension machinery. A significant part of this is related to sociocultural norms within which women and men farmers, as well as extension functionaries, perform.
Extension needs of women are understandably different, given their levels of literacy, restrictions on mobility, the existing information asymmetries etc. For instance, extension messages may not always be provided in a language and format that women easily understand and this has to be consciously addressed.
Where exclusive Farmer Field Schools with women farmers have been created or where farmer field schools have proactively included women, this asymmetry has been addressed to some extent (a USAID collaborative project with USAID on IPM in different countries, for example; or an IFPRI review of experience in IFAD projects with FFS).
Meanwhile, extension outreach to women farmers is also a function of a number of women extension officials. Within the departments of agriculture, there is no ready data available on how many women work as extension officials – affirmative action by state governments could be needed here, as is being seen in other line departments in some states.
When it comes to agricultural credit to women, a clear picture is missing also because gender-disaggregated data systems are not always maintained. It is reported that women received on an average only about 6 percent of the total direct agricultural credit in the period 2004-06. There is also considerable regional variation when it comes to access to banking services for women, with the Southern and Western regions faring better.
Between 1997 and 2006, it is seen that the share of Dalit and Adivasi women in the total bank credit has declined steadily and in 2006, they received only 1.3 percent of the total credit given under Small Borrowal Accounts as compared to 4.8 percent in 1997 (though this is not just about agricultural credit, this gives an indication of what the situation is, when it comes to SC/ST women). Only 9 percent of an average woman’s credit was received by Dalit/Adivasi women in 2006. For rural women, SHG-Bank Linkage is often touted as a major strategy for financial inclusion, including for agricultural credit.
However, it is seen on the ground that women in rural SHGs are not necessarily approached as women farmers; moreover, the scale is so small in this approach that the total cumulative credit disbursed through bank-SHG linkage programme from its inception in 1992 to 2006 formed only a minuscule 6 percent of the total agricultural credit disbursed in just one the year of 2005-06.
Using small borrower accounts of scheduled commercial banks in rural India as a proxy indicator, it is seen that by March 2013, the female individual accounts in terms of percentage distribution of outstanding credit of such accounts was only 16.8 percent, as opposed to 79.8 percent for men, with the amount outstanding at 16.2 percent, compared to 80.2 percent for men.
On the other hand, when it comes to deposits, female accounts are 24.8 percent and deposit amount is 19.2 percent, as against 58.4 percent and 57.8 percent respectively for men in rural India. Some micro-studies also give a good picture of the dismal situation on this front. In Jharkhand, it was seen that only 4 percent of Kisan Credit Cards were issued to women, while in Gujarat this was only 2 percent, and in UP not a single woman had a KCC in field studies.
A recent initiative in the form of Bhoomiheen Kisan Credit can go a long way in covering women farmers (and tenant farmers) provided this is brought on par with the regular Kisan Credit Card. Gender-disaggregated data is not being maintained to assess if women are indeed benefiting from this de-linking of agricultural credit from land ownership.
When it comes to crop insurance or disaster compensation, it appears that no data is collected on women cultivators receiving any insurance coverage or disaster compensation when needed for their enterprise (the overall crop insurance coverage itself is quite low). Given the low coverage of institutional credit, it can only be assumed that most women farmers do not get to access any insurance benefits.
In terms of market support for women in agriculture, an indication of the neglect that women face is apparent through proxy indicators related to market infrastructure. A national survey of 5,000 markets in India showed that none of the markets had a rest house for women producers who come to markets.
Given that appropriate market infrastructure for women, farmers are grossly missing in the market yards, it further reduces the market participation of women, which is already controlled mainly by men, given their land ownership titles. In the public procurement for food stock holding in India for the Public Distribution Programme, state purchase of food grains is linked to land ownership documents.
Women’s control on the post-harvest processes further weakens as one moves up the value chain, from farm to retail. Restrictions on mobility, lack of appropriate transportation and safety, time poverty/constraints, lack of literacy/education, lack of knowledge about a plethora of rules and regulations etc., contribute as barriers to women’s greater participation in marketing.
In Karnataka, it has been seen that even land owning women do not participate in decisions related to what to sell – it is seen that men market the produce and handle the transactions irrespective of who owns the land. “This signals that women are much less integrated into agricultural product markets than men, being much less aware of market procedures”.
Bringing women farmers on par with male farmers on all the above support systems/services irrespective of their land ownership status – even as efforts should be strengthened to ensure that equal property inheritance rights are enforced in favor of women – is an area of intervention that needs to be prioritized. For better outreach, this would also need institutional changes of employing more women in all line departments in addition to systematic gender sensitization to all officials.
In 2011, an attempt was made by Dr. M S Swaminathan, as a Member of Parliament, to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to secure statutory rights and entitlements for women farmers; however, the Bill so tabled elapsed subsequently. It is important that the government in power (a state government could enact this too) picks up this matter with the urgency and importance that it deserves and enshrines women farmers’ entitlements in a statutory framework so that these can be upheld.
While the above showcases lack of support to women ‘cultivators’ (Census uses this term to connote those persons who are taking a risk in this enterprise, as opposed to labourers who do not take a risk and work for wages or other payment), there are other ‘women farmers’ (using the expansive definition of National Policy For Farmers 2007) whose situation needs to be discussed too.
Women Agricultural Labourers:
Studies indicate that female agricultural labour supply in India is significantly correlated to the proportion of particular castes and communities in the population (Dalits and Adivasis, as women from other castes, are governed by status and stigma norms) as well as opportunities available to men in non-farm sector (women find lesser opportunities than men outside the farm sector).
There is a disproportionately high concentration of the most marginalized groups in this category of rural casual agricultural laborers – half of them are Dalits and Adivasis, far higher than their share in the population. It is also noted that women here get fewer days of work (under-employment) and rarely get the minimum wages laid down by the government.
Further, in India, as found in other countries too, there is a gendered division of agricultural operations. Certain tasks are seen as exclusively women’s (transplanting, de-weeding, harvesting of particular crops, certain post-harvest processes etc.), while certain others are seen as men’s (plowing, operating certain machines, transporting materials etc.). Estimates indicate that nearly 60 percent of agricultural operations are performed exclusively by women. It is also seen that many of the activities that women are expected to perform in farming also have a greater degree of drudgery (transplanting, for instance).
Grassroots data estimates show that women work nearly 3300 hours in a crop season while men work for 1860 hours. In the Indian Himalayas, a pair of bullocks works 1064 hours, a man 1212 hours and a woman 3485 hours in a year on a one-hectare farm, a figure which illustrates women’s significant contribution to agricultural production.
Another matter of discrimination for female agricultural laborers is related to wage rates. In rural casual labor which encompasses agricultural wage work also, the gender wage ratio in 2011-12 was 69.17 percent whereas in 2009-10 it was 67.90 percent and in 2004-05, it was 63.49 percent at all-India level. The ratio of female to male agricultural wages varied widely across regions ranging from 90 percent in Gujarat to 54 percent in Tamil Nadu in 2004/05 while it was around 70 percent on an average at the national level.
Securing assets including land in the name of women in this category of farmers (renewed land distribution efforts, de- facto rights over common property resources as well support to large scale land lease and collective cultivation and to an extent, land purchase schemes instituted to support these women), in addition to drudgery reduction and equal and minimum wages are important areas of intervention needed here. In the recent past, there has been some progress in the collective land lease, cultivation, and marketing by poor women’s collectives.
Women in Livestock Management:
India’s livestock is one of the largest in the world and livestock-generated outputs were valued at Rs.2075 billion in 2010-11, which comprised 4percent of the country’s GDP – this is higher than the value of food grains, incidentally. It is also seen that livestock ownership is a major asset that poor households have.
The NSSO 70th Round (findings put out in December 2014) on Key Indicators of Land and Livestock Holdings in India shows that agricultural households which have livestock farming as their principal/major source of income numbered around 2.7 million households (3.7 percent of all agricultural households, but 23percent of households that possess the smallest landholdings).
At the all-India level, while the average monthly income of agricultural households was calculated at Rs.6426/-, it is estimated that 11.9 percent (Rs.763/-) of this is from livestock. For households belonging to the lowest landholding size class, farming of animals fetched more income than cultivation (Rs.1181/- per month from animal farming and only Rs.30/- from cultivation, and around Rs.2902/- from wages/salary). The importance of livestock as an asset in rural India when land ownership is so low can be gauged from this fact, even as this gives an indication of the potential that livestock sector holds for pro-poor inclusive growth.
Livestock management is mostly in the hands of women, while the same cannot be said of land (in a decision-making sense). Women are estimated to be around 71 percent of the labor force in livestock farming. 75 million women are supposed to be engaged in dairying in India, as against 15 million men. It is seen that in decision-making related to milk sale, feed purchase, the sale of animal and purchase of the animal, women have a key role and that they also have greater control over income. It is seen that ownership of cattle increases the confidence and self- worth of women.
Dairying, in particular, is an important source of livelihood for (landless and other) women, and this is the largest sector in terms of women’s incomes (value-wise). This is a sector that was always feminized and getting increasingly more feminized. While disproportionately high amounts of responsibilities related to most animal farming activities like fodder collection, feeding, watering, cleaning, milking, healthcare, household level processing, and value addition, as well as marketing, are performed by women, studies also indicate that income from animal farming is mostly in the control of women.
It is however seen that formal support systems related to managing risks or purchase of good quality animals etc. are not always available to women. In fact, animal husbandry loans out of total term loans in agriculture is coming down as a percentage of total loans for agriculture (crop loans, investment credit or term loans together) – from being around 15 percent in 2002-03, by 2009-10, it declined to 9.5 percent. It is also seen that the share of poultry and small ruminants have come down significantly.
A striking fact to note despite the major strides made by women farmers in this sector is that the membership in most of India’s dairy cooperatives is heavily dominated by men. Only about 18 percent are estimated to be women within these dairy cooperative societies. Importantly, their presence in leadership/governance roles is far lesser, and is estimated at just 3 percent in board membership.
This sector needs to be supported from any potential impacts from free trade agreements that threaten the livelihoods of women involved in dairying in particular. Credit support should be enhanced for livestock rearing and specific allocations kept aside for the same in the overall priority sector lending for agriculture. There should be equal space provided for women in all cooperatives at all levels including in the governance structures.
Women in Fisheries:
The Fisheries sector in India is characterized by its small scale nature and that it is mostly a traditional economic activity practiced by particular communities. Fishers are broadly classified as inland fishers, marine fishers and fish farmers (these terms are supposed to encompass both men and women).
As per the Indian Livestock Census 2003, 14.49 million people were engaged in fisheries-related activities, with 75 percent in inland fisheries and 25 percent in marine fisheries. This sector has been showing an average growth of about 6 percent over the five-year plan periods. Nearly 57.4 percent of the fisherfolk engaged in fish seed collection were females, and similarly, out of 36.5 percent of total fisherfolk who are engaged in marketing of fish, 81.8 percent were women.
Similarly, 88.1 percent of fisherfolk engaged in curing and processing were women, similar to 89.6 percent engaged in peeling. This marketing activity was highest in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. Unfortunately, while this Census captures some data on coverage in cooperatives, it does not capture asset ownership or coverage in fisher cooperatives in a gender-disaggregated fashion.
It is seen that women are actively engaged in post-harvest practices in the fisheries sector which includes processing (peeling, curing, drying, sorting, value addition etc.) and marketing. In coastal aquaculture, they are involved in seed collection, segregation, stocking, feeding, harvesting and marketing. A study from Kerala shows that women earn the highest incomes in fish vending followed by curing.
Women fish vendors buy fish from the fishermen at landing centres through auctions, or from traders through bargaining and further become the retail points for consumers. A study from coastal Karnataka suggests that only 16percent of the fisherwomen surveyed for the nature of their work, earnings and role in decision-making, are fully involved in decision-making although their contribution to family income and household work is substantial. Provision of modern marketing facilities was flagged as an important recommendation to improve the status of fisherwomen.
Like in the case of other farm women, fisherwomen’s lives and livelihoods are marked by invisibility, lower incomes, indebtedness with moneylenders and in the recent past, marginalization as traditional fisheries get replaced by commercial/mechanized fisheries. There is very little ‘occupational mobility’ and community-level decision-making processes often are reported to exclude fisherwomen due to existing socio-cultural norms. It is seen that very little support is extended to enhance the livelihood roles of women in fishing, including fish vending.
Special thrust is needed to support women in fish vending by providing them free transportation, outlets, their traditional rights over drying grounds etc. For inland fisheries, lease rights over water bodies should be provided to women’s collectives on a priority basis.
Women Dependent on Forests:
In a situation where private ownership of land and other property is difficult to secure to this day for women, it is common property resources like forests and village commons that have been a great source of sustenance as well as autonomy for women. Forests have been a source of food, fuel, fodder, and medicines for women in forest-dependent communities in addition to also being sources of income. MFP/NTFP is also supposed to contribute up to 40 percent of the annual income of forest dwellers, despite all the restrictions and constraints imposed on them. Further, anywhere up to 24 percent of the cooked food consumption of forest communities is from uncultivated forest foods, that too in critical hunger months.
The intimate cultural linkages that women and entire communities have with forests is well-documented in addition to the fact that they hold enormous knowledge and skills related to forest resources for their sustainable management which is not adequately recognized by the mainstream world. It is also seen that the traditional relationship between women and forests was regenerative and was a symbiotic win-win relationship. In this era of climate change, the significance of forests is greater than ever before for a variety of ecosystem functions that they perform.
It is seen that women in forest based communities are economically more independent and have a higher status than their counterparts in other communities in India because of their involvement and income from forest produce gathering. It is seen that their status within the household is higher in well-forested villages rather than commercialized villages which lack forests. What is worth noting with the forest produce is that women are documented to be more involved than men, when it comes to the marketing of the produce (unlike in the case of agricultural produce). This also means greater economic independence.
There are studies that show that with newer kinds of markets, receding of forests (due to deforestation and thereby distance from the village increasing), (public and private) transport facilities providing an advantage to men and a greater role in marketing for them, changes have happened in tribal areas over the ability of women to sell directly and collect income.
There is increasing realization that forest conservation and protection efforts can only partially succeed if they do not involve women. There is an important role that women have played in the governance of forests in a variety of institutional shapes it has taken whether it is social forestry, or JFM or CFM.
Research has found that groups with a high proportion of women in their executive committee show significantly greater improvements in forest condition, mainly due to women’s contributions to improved forest protection and rule compliance, in addition to women using their knowledge of plant species as well as greater cooperation amongst women.
Implementation of PESA and Forest Rights Act in letter and spirit are important to ensure that the status of women farmers dependent on forests is improved. Ecological agriculture should be promoted with a recognition that forests and cultivation are part of a continuum here. Special investments should be made on women’s collectives for securing Minimum Support Price for MFP as well as for processing, value addition, and marketing of forest produce.
Women Farmers and Unequal Ownership of Resources:
One of the major reasons why despite more labor put in by women, they are ignored as farmers, is the lack of land ownership in the name of women. This becomes all the more critical in a context where it is estimated that women-managed households are now about 32 percent of rural households. Quite apart from this is the fact that women have a right to their due share of resources as well as identity/recognition.
However, there is no clear and accurate picture available on women’s land ownership since there are no systems of land records management in the country based on the gender- disaggregated information.
As per recent studies, at the all-India level, only 4 percent women own agricultural land in rural India while the corresponding figure for men is 29 percent. For women, this ranged from 2 percent in the North East to 6 percent in North and Western India, while for men, it ranged from 21 percent in North East to 38 percent in Central India.
When it comes to state-wise incidence of agricultural land ownership by sex, it is seen to be the highest for women in Uttarakhand, followed by Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh etc. In terms of modes of acquisition of agricultural land in rural India, it is seen that at the all-India level, in 83 percent cases, it is inherited/gifted to male, and only in 2 percent cases, inherited or gifted to female. The other modes of the acquisition include a receipt from the government, purchases etc.
While data on land ownership is not collected by instituting gender disaggregated data systems in the land records by the government, as per the All India Report on Number and Area of Operational Holdings of Agriculture Census 2010-11, the total number of operational holdings in the country has increased from 129 million in 2005-06 to 138 million holdings in 2010-11, with a marginal increase in the operated area, from 158.32 million hectares in 2005-06 to 159.18 million hectares in 2010-11 and a decline in the average size of operational holding to 1.16 hectares as compared to 1.23 hectares in 2005-06. The percentage share of female operational holders has increased from 11.70 in 2005- 06 to 12.79 in 2010-11 with the corresponding operated area of 9.33 and 10.36.
Ensuring Women’s Land Ownership Rights:
It is well known that there are three sources by which women can acquire land for themselves: government re-distribution efforts; purchasing from the market and by inheritance. The third source, which is land from the family is the most important while talking about land rights for women because 86 percent of the arable land is private property, and nearly 75-78 percent rural households own some land, as per some estimates. Getting a rightful share in this land is a legal entitlement of women (farmers) as per the law (Hindu Succession Act amendment in 2005).
The case for securing land rights for women is a well-settled one. Bina Agarwal’s theorizing around efficiency, welfare, and empowerment linked to women’s land ownership has gained much space in policy circles too. It is clear that the absence of land ownership keeps women out of the State’s outreach to farmers on numerous fronts.
The lack of serious action and intervention from the State in putting the control and ownership over land in the hands of women as their legal entitlement is perplexing and worrisome. Social and administrative biases seem to be at the root of women not realizing their rights when it comes to Land. Women, as evidence shows, are “voluntarily” giving up their right in favor of their brothers. This is also drawn from social norms on how a ‘good sister’ or ‘mother’ has to behave, imbibed by the women.
For an improvement of the situation on this front, various measures are needed. Gender disaggregated data on land ownership should be ensured by adding a column on the sex of the land owner in all basic land records so that interventions on this front can be focused, with a greater understanding of the grassroots situation.
For ensuring land rights, accountability mechanisms on revenue department officials have to be tightened, while incentives are created for men/households for the voluntary transfer of land titles in the name of women. Large scale legal literacy and gender sensitization efforts, in addition to motivation efforts, both at the community level, as well as with the frontline officials have been seen to work. Further, fresh efforts at public land distribution, along the lines of the proposals contained in the draft Land Reforms Policy of 2013 would be needed, to ensure that land is assigned to women who are landless.
Similarly, Commons should be controlled and managed by women’s collectives who have a proven record in different projects of conservation and sustainable use of such resources. Wherever needed, land purchase schemes have to be instituted afresh and implemented in favor of women, especially Dalit women. Special efforts should be put in to secure de-facto rights on land for women’s collectives through long term land lease.