Answer:

One of the major aspects of the land reforms in India has been the tenancy reform. The reforms aimed to eliminate all forms of exploitation and social injustice within the agrarian system, to provide security for the tiller of the soil and to remove such impediments to increase in agricultural production as arise from the agrarian structure inherited from the past.

The prohibition of tenancy has not really ended the practice. On the other hand, it has resulted in agricultural practices that are not conducive to increased production. This, in turn, also depresses employment opportunities for the landless agricultural laborers.

The ban on tenancy, which was meant to protect tenants, has only ended up hurting the economic interests of the tenants as they are not even recognized as tenants. As a result, they are denied the benefits of laws that provide security of tenure and regulate rent.

Although attempts have been made to provide security of tenure, redistribution of land and fixation of fair rents, yet informal or oral tenancy has continued to exist even to this day. The term informal tenancy is referred to as oral tenancy which refers to tenancy without legal sanctions and permissions, or without any written agreement. The principal of shifting to informal tenancy is to extract higher land rents from the tenants. This is primarily done so as to get high yielding varieties program that has brought a realization among the landlords that land is a very valuable asset and promises high rates of return. India, which is marked by land hunger, it is possible here to take advantage of the situation by charging higher rents. Also, informal tenancy arrangements are a convenient device with the landlords for nullifying tenancy reforms. Thus, unrecorded or clandestine tenancy perpetuates a semi-feudal land system that was sought to be abolished by measures of land reforms.

Thus it can be concluded that despite lot many efforts to keep away with ill practices associated with tenancy, it would be better to legalize it so as to get the tenants their due. What is needed at the moment is to formulate a proper policy backed by necessary amendments and changes in the existing laws. The need of the hour is to ensure the tenancy rights.

The policy dialogue and debates on agricultural land tenancy could benefit from:

1. More empirical evidence (translated into coherent policy recommendations) on current tenancy restriction impacts on the poor and the likely effects of liberalizing such restrictions;

2. A livelihoods perspective on the topic;

3. A more coherent and consistent message from pro-poor constituencies that tenancy liberalization may make sense.