India's negative side of growth.

[Yusuf]

Is that what Mayawati does to get support from the peasants?

Mayawati draws her vote from the backward classes.

 

[Iamanidiot]

So why don't they just make Ryotwari the land reform across the whole country?



Cornwallis, the same one who surrendered to Rochambeau? What was he doing before getting his ass beat by the French that he had time to develop a colonial land system? Of course he would keep a feudal land system, he was not too bright.

Armand Land revenue is not collected by the GoI in post-colonial india.Zamindari abolition act ensured that Zamins have been destroyed .Most Parts of india have a ryotwari system.Rage gave you the wrong information the indian farmer does not pay a rupee to the government or the zamindars(they don't exit)
***Right to property is not a fundamental right in the indian constitution for this very reason***
(They removed it to just remove the zamindari system at that time)

Armand the problem with indian agricultureis not feudalism in the classic definition at all they can be broadly classified into

1)Erratc indian monsoon
2)High Capital to output ratio
and other problems which are complex and technical and can be discussed in another thread

The problem armand major problem is sourcing capital for doing agriculture(that to on small fragments of land).The problem is that agriculture is not viable in most parts due to scarcity of resources and as i said before sourcing caspital

 

[amoy]

Land Reform
++++++++++++++

Probably there're 2 typical types in E.Asia. Unlike violent revolution on Mainland PRC, KMT (Nationalist, ROC), after flee to Taiwan, also implemented land reform but by 'peaceful means' distributing lands (above a ceiling) to peasants while giving landlords bonds or stocks of state owned enterprises in exchange. Also as a consequence former landlords were 'converted' to a new generation of ' bourgeoisie'. Of course a prerequisite was KMT'd brought treasury of a whole China to a tiny island.

S. Asia sounds far complex with a colonial legacy.

 

[Iamanidiot]

India is a product of evolution.Where as PRC is a product of revolution

 

[Rage]

Armand Land revenue is not collected by the GoI in post-colonial india.Zamindari abolition act ensured that Zamins have been destroyed .Most Parts of india have a ryotwari system.Rage gave you the wrong information the indian farmer does not pay a rupee to the government or the zamindars(they don't exit)
***Right to property is not a fundamental right in the indian constitution for this very reason***
(They removed it to just remove the zamindari system at that time)

Armand the problem with indian agricultureis not feudalism in the classic definition at all they can be broadly classified into

1)Erratc indian monsoon
2)High Capital to output ratio
and other problems which are complex and technical and can be discussed in another thread

The problem armand major problem is sourcing capital for doing agriculture(that to on small fragments of land).The problem is that agriculture is not viable in most parts due to scarcity of resources and as i said before sourcing caspital

What! Modern zamindaars don't exist?

I'm using the term 'zamindaar' loosely to refer to all private lenders of capital. Not in the sense of an aristocratic gentry. And these are often well-funded, well-endowed and landed, in the manner of the Thakurs of Chatisgarh, Rajasthan , Uttar Pradesh, Madhya pradesh, Uttarakhand and Bihar. Which all still exist.

 

[Iamanidiot]

call them moneylenders.The thakurs are a thing of the past with the advent of backward classes into politics

 

[Singh]

Mayawati draws her vote from the backward classes.

BSP was voted to power in UP by Brahmin-Dalit combine. Muslim cross voting hurt other parties.

What! Modern zamindaars don't exist?

Yes.

I'm using the term 'zamindaar' loosely to refer to all private lenders of capital. Not in the sense of an aristocratic gentry. And these are often well-funded, well-endowed and landed, in the manner of the Thakurs of Chatisgarh, Rajasthan , Uttar Pradesh, Madhya pradesh, Uttarakhand and Bihar. Which all still exist.

Zamindar very specifically refers to the landowning elite. Private lenders of capital would be traditionally referred to by Seth, Baniya, Mahajan etc.

Abolition of privy purses, feudalism, land ceiling act and zamindari system ended the Thakur, princely, zamindar, nawabs, taluqdars, rao, chaudhary reign long back. Erstwhile Zamindars are today no better than other Indian classes.

 

[samarsingh]

there is so much land in India that the government can give property titles to everyone. Why take it from Zamindars and redistribute it. the idea of not having right to property as a constitutional right was as one of our members said to take away the powers of the Zamindars. It worked. Now looking at the other side, this socialist policy has also backfired in a way cos the tribals do not have title to their property ie the forests.

 

[Armand2REP]

What is wrong with the idea of saying, if you have been on this property for more than a generation, here is your title? They did it in Chile to good effect.

 

[bhramos]

Grain Drain: Food rots as poor starve across India

 

[bhramos]

corruption in india

 

[bhramos]

The Untouchables - India

 

[civfanatic]

Grain Drain: Food rots as poor starve across India

Nothing new there. India has had a food surplus since the 1970s; the only reason why we still have thousands of starvation deaths is because of corrupted distribution methods.

Ultimately, almost every problem in India can be traced to CORRUPTION and LACK OF RELIABILITY.

 

[samarsingh]

What is wrong with the idea of saying, if you have been on this property for more than a generation, here is your title? They did it in Chile to good effect.

there is nothing wrong with the idea per se, only that the high ups in India think that we should have a right to education, right to food, employment guarantees but the right to property is a no go area for them. clear property titles however are a prerequisite of any civil society

 

[Rage]

Zamindar very specifically refers to the landowning elite. Private lenders of capital would be traditionally referred to by Seth, Baniya, Mahajan etc.

Abolition of privy purses, feudalism, land ceiling act and zamindari system ended the Thakur, princely, zamindar, nawabs, taluqdars, rao, chaudhary reign long back. Erstwhile Zamindars are today no better than other Indian classes.

Let me ask you something: was the cause of concern of this 'gentry' the fact that they were an 'elitist aristocracy' or that they lent out sums of money at exploitative interest rates?

'Privy purses' were never relevant. They were paid out to royal families of erstwhile princely states as part of their agreements to integrate into India in 1947, and later on to merge their states into the Constitution, whereby they lost all ruling rights.

To my knowledge, most of these modern zamindaars, private money lenders, whatever are landed anyway. Making the distinction between erstwhile zamindaar and modern zamindaar a matter of deed or title. Not one of credit, property or practice.

Here, read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB126055117322287513.html