By Veronica Pala
According to the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011, 24 percent of rural households in Meghalaya own land (excluding homestead) while the remaining 76 percent have no land. But 88.5 percent of rural households own their houses. One may say that rural people do have some land to build their houses but most of them do not have land other than that. It can also mean that some houses are built on common or community land and the occupants do not have the ownership rights of the homestead; or most people have no land other than what they have for building their dwellings. A substantial portion of land in Meghalaya is classified as clan or common land. In some cases, a village has land meant for its residents (or rather original residents, and the village elders decide on the definition of ‘original’). In some other cases, a group of villages has land meant for the needs of the residents of those villages. Some clans have land for their own members. Individual households cannot claim ownership of common land. Clan land is divided among clan members. However, in recent years vast tracts of common land are being converted into private land, and there are instances where common land of villages is appropriated by and divided among a few powerful village leaders. The masses very rarely have a share.
According to the 2011 census, 80 percent of people in Meghalaya live in rural areas. Out of the total workers in rural areas, 52.6 percent are cultivators and 15 percent are agricultural labourers in case of males. 59.7 percent are cultivators and 15.7 percent are agricultural labourers in case of females. That means roughly 70 percent of workers in rural areas of Meghalaya depend on agriculture for their livelihood. 76 percent of rural households have no land except their homestead and we see that 70 percent of rural workers are involved in agriculture which is land based. How do we reconcile this gross contradiction? A large number of people depend on community land for their livelihood. Also a large number of farmers take land on rent basis for cultivation.
The rent is not regulated and varies greatly from place to place and even in the same village, one would find that in some cases rent is in cash and in some other cases, rent is in kind or by sharing the produce of the land. If the produce is shared, usually it is 50-50. Yes the rent is as high as 50 percent of the produce. For a household that practices sharecropping, half of the produce would be given to the landowner after harvesting.
The farmer works for the whole year and at the end, the paddy leftover after sharing is hardly enough for the family to live on for 5 to six months. In some areas of Jaintia Hills, a practice called ah chari used to be in place. If a person borrowed one basket of paddy, then to repay that, during the next harvest time, that person would have to cut the paddy from the area which was cultivated with one basket of seeds. So for people who had no land and who lived from hand to mouth, they would work for one whole month and not get paid since the payment was already consumed, or they would work for one whole year and eat for six months. In the meantime, forests and common land provided sustenance by giving wild edibles to people; streams and rivers were rich in a variety of fishes like dohthli, shalynnai, etc. In the past, land was the only form of wealth and those who had land, had command over resources and over almost everything else. With development, a number of economic opportunities have arisen but those who come from landed families do get a headstart. On the other hand, agricultural households with no land to call their own face serious problems with the decrease in community land that they can use.
We have come a long way and the state has developed over the years. Whether we view development as infrastructure growth or human development it cannot be denied that progress has been achieved. If we look at any indicator of development be it education or health or roads or per capita income, growth is there when we compare the state today with the state 45 years ago. However, if we compare with other states of the country then we are lagging far behind in most aspects. One point that needs to be highlighted is that development in the state has been urban centric or confined to a few rural pockets. It does not percolate to every section of the society. As per the 2011 census, only 51.6 percent of rural households in Meghalaya reported their main source of lighting as electricity. Data on rural electrification will tell us otherwise, but the story from households reflected in the Census is different. Electricity, a basic indicator of development, is not accessible to almost half of the rural households. Although several years have passed since the Census, there is no reason to believe that the situation has improved substantially. Health care facilities are non-functional or absent in rural areas. The condition of schools is dismal. Only half of class V students have acquired the basic skills that they should have learnt in class II according to the latest Annual Status of Education Report. Only 50 percent of Class V students can do subtraction in rural Meghalaya.
Farmers get a very low price for their produce whereas consumers pay a very high price. After the ban in coal mining, a number of farmers have tried to go back to farming. H. H. Mohrmen writes about several successful people through this newspaper. It is heartening indeed. However, for a large number of farmers, the scenario is grim. Now the price of ginger is very low. Some farmers have harvested but could not sell, so they put it back into the soil hoping to dig it up when the price is better. Marketing of agricultural produce is a serious problem and yet 70 percent of the rural workers depend on agriculture for their livelihood. This is the nature of development in Meghalaya.
In this scenario, land is being taken over by the state for various projects; community land is being taken over by individuals and in the process, the environment is ravaged and destroyed. The livelihood and well being of future generations is at stake. I’m not anti development, not at all. However, if development does not benefit the people then it has to be questioned. We have seen that people willingly part with their land or even donate it if they believe that the purpose is for the general good. But if the purpose is perceived to be harmful then protests arise. I believe that these protests should be given their space and they should be heard.
In any project all stakeholders should be taken on board. Yes there are vested interests sometimes. However, if people are really convinced that benefits will accrue to them, then there is no reason that a development project cannot take off. In conclusion, I would like to say that investment in human capital and human welfare should take the topmost priority so that people are prepared to reap the benefits of development projects.
(The writer teaches Economics at NEHU)