As part of the DD Kosambi Memorial Seminar Series organised by the Indian Institute of Marxist Studies (IIMS) a seminar was held in Patna on the topic "Land Reforms in Bihar and the Left" on 13 April 1997.

Six papers were presented in the seminar by Dr.Jagdish Prasad, Dr.Harihar Bhakta, the Head of Department of Economics at the JP University, Chhapra, Indushekhar Prasad Sinha, senior advocate at the Patna High Court, Krishna Chaitanya of Shodh Madhyam, Pradeep Jha from IIMS, Patna Chapter and eminent social scientist and former Director of AN Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Pradhan H. Prasad, who also chaired the seminar. The seminar was well attended and members of the audience put up some interesting questions to the speakers.

In his paper, Prof.Jagdish Prasad stressed land reforms with its main slogan as 'land to the tiller' and its objectives of 'agricultural growth with social justice' along with elimination of inequitable agrarian structure. The main lacuna behind the failure of various aspects of land reforms in Bihar, he said, was because land records had not been updated and there was a lack of administrative expertise and political will necessary for its successful completion.

Prof.Harihar Bhakta in his paper noted that there had not been any substantial change in agrarian structure. Reviewing the past experiences of land reforms he noted that the emphasis was on equity rather than productivity. He suggested that rural development programmes should be integrated with land reform measures. In reply to a question from the audience, Prof.Bhakta said that in the given concrete conditions of Bihar small holdings are best suited for optimum productivity even though it may not be consistent with economies of scale on a scientific basis. It was more progressive compared to land holdings with feudal or semi-feudal production relations.

Indushekhar Sinha in his paper blamed the ineffective implementation of the land reform legislations on the inefficient and unskilled implementing machinery. To this he also added that it was due to the lack of separate machinery - executive as well as courts.

Pradeep Jha presented the Institute's viewpoint in his paper which is being reproduced in this issue. The question of nationalisation discussed in his paper drew a lot of questions from the audience, mainly expressing apprehension about it. While one person expressed doubt whether the majority of the peasantry will support this move as they have such a strong attachment for even a small piece of land, another person wondered whether the peasantry would accept nationalisation of land when the nationalised sector of the Indian economy was so much discredited and the current phase is one of denationalisation. Another query raised was that what guarantee would there be that even after nationalisation subletting of land (land given on lease) would not take place and what would be the mechanism to prevent this subletting. Looking at the interest generated among the audience over this question it was felt that a detailed discussion should be held on this question.

Backwardness in agriculture in Bihar, according to Krishna Chaitanya, was primarily due to the neo-colonial exploitation which started right from and after 1947 and also due to internal colonisation of Bihar. Non-implementation of land reforms measures was not the primary or basic reason. So, he suggested that no land reform measure however radical could be fruitful but the basic condition for improvement of agriculture is to overthrow the neo-colonial power structure. In his paper, he also mentioned that wage struggles had stagnated in Bihar because after a phase of land struggles, the landlords were not in a position to increase agricultural wages. Responding to his concept of neo-colonial exploitation, one observation from the audience was that such a concept would weaken the ongoing peasant movement against the feudal and semi-feudal forces in Bihar. Another question raised was that whether the struggle for land reforms, and in that sense, any radical pro-peasantry land reforms programme, had nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles.

Pradhan H. Prasad in his paper mentioned that inspite of the emergence of backward castes in electoral politics due to their large population and in turn weakening the hold of the traditional feudal castes, the semi-feudal system in Bihar has hardly been weakened.q